| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, Amendment No. 45:
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee that I am not quite au fait with the procedures.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I share a degree of confusion. It was my impression, and I believe that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, too--I appreciate that I may be wrong--that we would debate the substantive Motion and then move on. I presume that it will be possible to debate the substantive Motion and possibly at Report stage discuss the amendments to it, if the noble Lord prefers to deal with the issue in that manner.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Yes.
Lord Henley: That might be more appropriate. In that case we can skate through, if I may so put it, the various amendments to Amendment No. 42, returning to the substantive Amendment No. 42.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had thought that that is what we would do. From the groupings on the Marshalled List I had thought we would dispose of Amendment No. 42 before we considered Amendment No. 43, which we did not wish to move. If the noble Lord's suggestion is the wish of the Committee, it is certainly my wish.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I apologise that I am unable to hear instructions.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness might find it easier if she did not move her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, and I consider that the best approach. We can discuss the basic principle of putting Amendment No. 42 back in the Bill. The subsequent amendments can be considered at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 45, as an amendment to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48, as amendments to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
Lord Henley: I have spoken to Amendment No. 42. However, I hope that other noble Lords will have the opportunity to respond.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I do not have the remotest idea where we are. However, if we are considering, as I think we are, Amendment No. 42, the Government's new clause before Clause 3, I have to tell the Committee that with one grammatical improvement the Government's new clause is exactly the same as that which has twice failed to be agreed in another place. The grammatical improvement, which adds a pleasing touch of literacy to the Bill, is that the word "latest" has replaced "later" in the second line of subsection (3). That is in accordance with contemporary ideas of grammar, although I can remind the Members of the Committee that there is one line in Shakespeare which refers to the "most unkindest" cut of all, which would not be considered particularly grammatical in our day.
The new clause introduces parallel provisions to those on selection. It enables grant-maintained schools to step outside the requirements to publish proposals in respect of the enlargement of their premises. A threshold of 50 per cent. or 30 pupils (whichever is the larger) is set, up to which grant-maintained schools may expand with requirements only to undertake such consultation (if any) as they consider appropriate. Expansion can be repeated after four years so that the grant-maintained school can more than double its size in a period as little as eight years.
The innocent phrase in brackets "(if any)" leads us to believe that the response will be no consultation. Who in his right mind would become involved in a long process of consultation which might not bring him the result that he wishes when he finds a bracket like that in his instructions? He is running what is, after all, a business as well as an educational establishment.
I draw the period of eight years to the Committee's attention because that is the time it takes a pupil to complete secondary education. He might well find that the school had doubled in size while he was attending it.
The Government have clearly decided to pursue a new route to the expansion of the grant-maintained sector, the rate of schools transferring into that sector having slowed down to a very small trickle. The concentration is now to be on allowing those already in this sector to grow without any regard to the need for the places which will be created. It will be a matter of places first and pupils following, if they happen to be around.
Linked directly to the ability for grant-maintained secondary schools to select up to 50 per cent. of their intake without having to go through a publication procedure or seek central approval, the intention is clearly to introduce half the grammar school system through the grant-maintained sector and to enable it to grow at a faster rate than any other part of the system.
In addition to the educational issues raised by the new clause, there is a legitimate question for the Committee to consider. The new clause has been rejected once in Committee in the Commons by what I can only describe as a piece of careless indiscipline by Whips, when the
It was not agreed again on a second occasion on the Floor of the House at Report stage. On the second occasion, the Minister sought to explain the defeat in the House of Commons as due to "procedural problems". He went on, quite properly, to say that the result at the Report stage had been a tied vote. The fact remains that the clause not only arrives without the endorsement of the Commons but has actually been excluded from the Bill on two separate occasions by them.
The question therefore arises as to whether the Government are right to ask the House of Lords to insert into the Bill a clause which has twice been excluded by the Commons. The Minister might like to inform the Committee--I am sure that he has looked it up--whether there is a precedent for the Government acting in that way. New clauses are quite naturally frequently introduced in your Lordships' House as proposals develop or in response to earlier amendments. This new clause arises quite differently: it is tabled in the Lords purely and simply because it could not be agreed in the Commons. Can the Minister point to previous instances when it has been thought proper to proceed in that way?
The importance of the clause is underlined for us by the Government's apparent adamantine determination to seek to reintroduce it. For that very reason, however, we believe that it ought to have the approval of the Commons before the Lords are asked to endorse it.
Lord Tope: I start where the noble Lord, Lord Morris, concluded. I too share the constitutional--if it is not too strong a word--concern about the amendment, even before we consider its merits or otherwise. The Minister pooh-poohs that statement, but I question whether it is right for the House of Lords to introduce by way of amendment the approval of a clause which is both important and demonstrably controversial when they have failed to get it through the elected other place. I look forward to the Minister's answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about what precedent there is for the proposal under these circumstances. It is potentially quite a serious and perhaps even a dangerous step for your Lordships' House to take and it is one which we should contemplate seriously before we judge the merits or otherwise of the argument.
It will come as little surprise to the Minister or other Members of the Committee that I do not see much merit in the arguments for the clause either and will accept that to some extent that may prejudice my concern about its constitutional aspects.
It is self-evident that a school increasing its capacity by up to 50 per cent. is bound to have a significant effect on other schools, whether they are LEA schools, grant-maintained schools or even schools in the private
That is important because if a school is to propose to increase its size by such an extent, the consultation arrangements are crucially important, particularly with the LEA but not only with the LEA. When the Minister replies, would he care to enlarge a little more on what he expects to be in the guidance? Who is to be consulted, on what terms and under what circumstances? Who then decides, as a result of the consultation, whether proposals should or should not go ahead? The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that it is not the Secretary of State who decides. Who does decide where it goes?
The Minister also acknowledged that it is probable--highly probable, I suggest--that a measure like this will increase surplus places at least in the short term. Again, that is a matter of great concern to LEAs. We were discussing yesterday Trading Places, the report from the Audit Commission which drew attention to the large waste, as the commission describes it, of public money in surplus places. I wonder how to deal with, and who will deal with, the question of the surplus places that are bound to arise, should the measure come about.
I conclude that the whole purpose of the clause is to try to pump some life back into what was yesterday admitted to be the failed policy of grant-maintained schools. That is what it is about. We discussed it yesterday. The Government have failed to encourage either governing bodies or a sufficient number of parents to ballot for schools to go grant-maintained. This is now a sixth attempt to relaunch what is demonstrably a failed policy--grant-maintained schools. It should therefore be buried more quietly than the previous five attempts and we should not go ahead with it.
Finally, another point which concerns me is that it is also a way not only to expand the number of grant-maintained schools but also to expand faster than would otherwise be the case the selective intake in grant-maintained schools. For all those reasons, this is a bad clause which should be rejected, as the other place has rightly seen fit to do. I hope that the Committee will think seriously not only about the issues in the clause but about whether your Lordships' House should pass a clause which has failed to get through the other place.
Line 24, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight").
4.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page