| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Lockwood: I understand from the Minister that the purpose of the Bill is fundamentally to change the circumstances under which selection can be introduced. To increase from 15 per cent. to 20, 30 and 50 per cent. and to make it legal suggests that the whole purpose of the Bill is, as has been argued today, to change the whole basis of our education system and to return to a selective system. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, if the Government were to propose a new education Bill advocating selection
it would not meet with the general approval of the electorate; in other words, we are going through the back door to change the basis of our education system.6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: No, I am afraid that the noble Baroness misunderstands the whole purpose behind the Bill. It is freeing up the decision making of the schools, providing that if they wish to go beyond what is a significant change in character they must go through the appropriate statutory procedures. They would have to do that if they went beyond the 15 per cent. selection at present--that is, publishing proposals, going to the Secretary of State for permission and so forth. The Bill is providing that rather than the threshold of 15 per cent. county schools can go up to 20 per cent. without going through such procedures, but going through a degree of consultation which we shall discuss in due course. The Bill proposes different thresholds for other types of schools.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Why should there be different thresholds for different types of schools? Is it solely so that schools can have a different selection ethos? Is it in order to add a level of complexity to the whole system? I do not believe that what the Minister said is any form of justification, in particular when in previous Bills he has been keen to argue for a flat rate of selection. What has changed? Why do we have to have a differential rate of selection now?
Lord Dormand of Easington: Can the Minister tell us what is magic about the three figures which the Government have produced? Perhaps in doing so the Minister will refer to the educational side. My noble friend mentioned legality, which must be taken into consideration. However, what possible educational advantage can there be of having the stepped percentages? The Government must have thought about that and I believe that this is an occasion on which the Minister can reveal the thinking.
Lord Henley: There is no magic, as the noble Lord puts it, in the figures. We are talking about different types of schools. We believe that a grant-maintained school should be allowed to decide for itself whether to go to 50 per cent. without going through the cumbersome process of applying to the Secretary of State, publishing proposals and so forth. If it wishes to go beyond that level the present safeguards will still exist whereby it must go through the statutory procedure. We considered that 50 per cent. was appropriate for the grant-maintained schools.
One takes a figure that one considers to be appropriate for schools; for example, 30 per cent. for specialist schools. We believe it is right that such schools might want to select to a degree, particularly in respect of aptitude within their specialities. We have heard nothing from Members opposite about specialist colleges. We have heard that their party now supports the creation of specialist colleges but we have not heard whether they will be allowed to select people who might
be particularly good at the specialties provided. No doubt we will hear about that in due course. However, as regards county schools or voluntary schools, which are still under the control of the LEAs, we believe that 20 per cent. is the appropriate figure. I can take the matter no further than that.
Lord Monkswell: We have had an interesting exchange; but I wish to press the Minister a little further about the difference between grant-maintained schools and county schools; effectively, LEA versus nationalised schools. How does he see those schools being distinguished to the extent that one group will be allowed to select up to 50 per cent. but the other group will be allowed to select up to only 20 per cent. without the inquiry mechanism? I am not sure that the Minister has explained to the Committee satisfactorily why there should be the distinction between the two groups of schools. I do not know whether he can give a further explanation to the Committee, but I would welcome it.
Lord Henley: I shall make one last attempt. The noble Lord refers to grant-maintained schools as nationalised schools. I suppose that that is part of his conversion to a recognition of the horrors of nationalisation. But I just say that en passant.
The simple point is that grant-maintained schools are not nationalised schools. They are schools to which we have delegated a great deal of authority in order to run themselves. That is quite right. I am glad that so many schools benefit from that grant-maintained status and I am glad that so many noble friends, honourable friends and right honourable friends in another place are making use of those grant-maintained schools.
Having delegated more powers to them, we believe that they should be given more freedom to follow a route which they consider appropriate after consultation and so on, without going through the statutory procedures. That would not be appropriate for voluntary schools and county schools which are still being run by LEAs.
Lord Monkswell: I still find that the Government are making a distinction between the governors of grant-maintained schools and the governors of county schools as being a different class of people. You can entrust a decision to change the character of the school by 50 per cent. to one group of people, but such a decision is entrusted only up to 20 per cent. for the other group of people. However, I can see that we are not making any impression on the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling this amendment, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 20.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 19:
The noble Lord said: This part of the Bill allows schools in certain circumstances to admit pupils by selection on grounds of ability or aptitude up to certain thresholds without having to publish proposals in order to gain approval for a significant change of character. However, it makes it clear that where those thresholds are crossed, publication of statutory proposals would be required. However, the schedule also sets out circumstances in which that general approach would not apply and where, the Bill suggests, schools could exceed the previous thresholds with impunity.
Those parts of the Bill must be looked at alongside other provisions which allow schools to expand their overall numbers, also without publication of statutory proposals. Thus, it is envisaged that not only could a school move to being a totally selective sixth form without that being regarded as a change of character, but it could also create a completely new sixth form when none previously existed without that being regarded as a significant change of character.
The logic of the Bill is that it would be beneficial for schools to have increased freedoms to select part of their intake. It assumes also that a degree of autonomous expansion to meet demand will be beneficial in allowing the system to develop in response to the needs of local people. Those propositions are debatable, for the Bill itself recognises that there are thresholds beyond which unfettered expansion or change of character should not be allowed.
In those circumstances, the Bill retains existing procedures to ensure that more extreme proposals are properly published and debated and not allowed to proceed unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consultation with relevant interests, that they are sound.
There is common ground that a complete free-for-all would be unwise and could lead to some pupils being left without school places. Therefore, the debate is about where that line should be drawn. This amendment argues that sixth forms should not be exempt from normal rules.
In the case of sixth forms, education and training provision for young people beyond the age of 16 involves providers beyond the ordinary school system. Opportunities at that age include general and vocational courses at further education colleges and various forms of work with training organised by trainers or training and enterprise councils. Significant changes of provision in an area will affect planning decisions and the market of all those other providers. Therefore, it is important that significant changes which will impact on other publicly provided and funded opportunities should be considered in the light of that impact and not simply allowed to happen willy-nilly.
This amendment is designed to guard against those possible difficulties by ensuring that schools proposing to make those significant changes should be subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case. The amendments
Page 55, leave out lines 23 to 30.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page