---

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I support Amendments Nos. 59 to 62, but I would like to speak specifically to Amendments Nos. 60 and 62. The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that no new nurseries are created without procedures being followed which safeguard effective planning and the effective use of resources--two laudable objectives with which I hope the Minister will agree.

The Bill proposes an expansion of the grant-maintained nursery sector without reference to statutory procedures and following only such consultation as the governing body sees fit. That could mean that the LEAs have to meet the cost without being able to express a view on the need for it. There seems to be little regard paid to the question of the LEAs' existing provisions or plans for expansion.

At present grant-maintained schools are funded either through the annual maintenance grant or an allocation under the common funding policy. Costs are recouped from the relevant local authority. The introduction at short notice of new nursery provision in grant-maintained schools could undermine that process, which is currently subject to a well-established planning procedure under which local authorities at least know what their obligations will be and can plan accordingly.

Nursery education is a discretionary service and the level of provision the LEA chooses to make is not directly reflected in its standard spending assessment. Indeed, the AMA had correspondence with the Minister

25 Feb 1997 : Column 1078

for schools in another place in 1994 about whether it would be constitutionally improper to force an authority to pay for provision that was neither statutorily required nor funded by an SSA. That was discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. The Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Eric Forth, undertook to write to Mr. Win Griffiths, which he duly did last December. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of all this. I shall be very grateful to him if he can tell me--because I do not find it at all clear--whether the letter from Mr. Forth means that, even though the clause will remove the requirement to publish statutory proposals where a grant-maintained school proposes to expand or establish nursery provision, the Government still intend to continue to take account of LEA policy in considering whether to approve the change in nursery capacity or the establishment of new nursery provision. We shall all find it very helpful if the Minister can give us a reply to that when he has the opportunity.

Baroness David: My name is attached to Amendment No. 61, which is part of this group of four amendments. Its purpose is to prevent new schools being established or existing schools being closed without reference to statutory procedures. This amendment incorporates the purpose of Amendment No. 62, which seeks to retain the requirement of published proposals in the case of pre- and post-compulsory school age provision by ensuring that proposals must be formally published to introduce or to end provision for any age range.

Clause 5(1) specifies those circumstances in which existing publication procedures would not apply. Instead, the governing body may carry out whatever consultation it sees fit. The existing requirement to publish statutory proposals under the Education Act 1996 ensures that all those who may be affected by the proposals, in particular local schools, colleges and nurseries and local residents, have the opportunity to express a view on how they will be affected.

What I am particularly concerned about--and I have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject--is the likely effect on sixth-form colleges. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has made many of the points that I would wish to make. I have had a huge correspondence on this subject. I have been sent a copy of a letter from the FEFC to the Secretary of State. It has great concerns about this matter and it has expressed its reasons to the Secretary of State. It fears that the numbers recruited by colleges will be reduced and the range of subjects offered will become much more limited. The curriculum will, of course, become narrower.

The council also asks the Secretary of State to retain power to reject proposals. If the 24 grant-maintained schools which have had proposals rejected previously take advantage of the new opportunities now provided in the Bill to establish a new sixth form, that could be disastrous for the colleges which have been such a tremendous success. Two schools which have resubmitted proposals have already had approval granted. The Funding Agency for Schools has also questioned the ability of the boards of governors of

25 Feb 1997 : Column 1079

grant-maintained schools to operate responsibly in an unregulated market. Surely the FAS is in a good position to comment.

As regards the cost-effectiveness of the proposals, most colleges can find extra places at the demand-led element (DLE) rate, which is about £1,000, but the new grant-maintained schools sixth forms would recoup £2,500 plus per year per full-time place. Where is the logic of such an arrangement? It seems absolutely illogical to me when the Government, I thought, were rather keen on being careful about money. I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to look again at these disquieting proposals in the Bill. There are very real anxieties and, I believe, they are rightly founded.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My name is also attached to Amendment No. 59 and I would like to speak briefly in support of all of the amendments in this group. I was particularly struck by the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in supporting the amendment relating to sixth-form education. I am extremely concerned about the totally disorderly increase in nursery provision and the effect that that could have on the finances of local education authorities. Some Members of the Committee may remember that on Second Reading I raised the matter of how the provisions of this Bill would impact on the finances of LEAs. This is quite a good illustration of the relevance of that concern. I support the amendments and hope that, even if the Minister does not accept them today, he will at least reconsider the matter and perhaps return at a later stage with some thoughts in this direction.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): The Question is--

5.30 p.m.

Lord Henley: I think that I should be allowed to respond to the amendment. I am sure that it would be appropriate.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments, which seek to wreck our policy to give grant-maintained schools more freedom to introduce sixth forms or nursery provision and to extend choice for parents. We think that it is right that they should have more freedom. Grant-maintained schools are more than able to make a considered judgment about whether such provision is needed and is likely to be attractive to parents and pupils. It would clearly be foolhardy of any school to attempt to add new provision where there was no demand for it.

I made it clear earlier that there will be consultation. Consultation will be a requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, was concerned about that consultation and quoted the words "consultation (if any)". I cannot remember whether the noble Lord was in his place yesterday when, if I remember correctly, we discussed that phrase. I think that I made it clear then that the provision sought to rule out consultation in those cases where the change being proposed was so small as not to warrant consultation. However, in the vast majority of cases--and obviously when a school is setting up a sixth

25 Feb 1997 : Column 1080

form or a new nursery--consultation is appropriate. Again, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the consultation will be thorough and that we shall be issuing guidance on it. As I made clear on an earlier amendment, the guidance itself will be issued in draft for consultation and we shall await interested comments on who should or should not be consulted--

Lord Walton of Detchant: Although I fully appreciate the strength of the Minister's argument, I wonder whether he would agree that the inclusion of those words on the face of the Bill would allow a maverick grant-maintained school to go ahead and establish a sixth form without any consultation whatever when in all the circumstances it was quite inappropriate to do that. That is my principal concern.

Lord Henley: That would not be the case. If a so-called "maverick" school went ahead and did such a large thing without consultation, it would obviously not be acting reasonably. I am sure that there would be ways and means and legal processes to stop such a school from acting in that way. Again, I have made it clear that we shall be issuing guidance on the consultation. I hope that when in due course the noble Lord sees that guidance, he will agree that it is appropriate in all the circumstances.

I appreciate that many Members of the Committee feel that new provision could sometimes appear to be a threat to other providers. We have heard about sixth form colleges from various noble Lords and I agree that, in the main, sixth form colleges do a very good job. I am very pleased with how they work. However, there is always a tendency to try to protect existing provision whatever the cost. I do not think that it is necessarily a line that we should pursue. If we are truly to increase choice within the system and the quality of what is available, individual governing bodies need the freedom to respond to the needs and wishes of pupils and parents in the area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, also asked about the funding of nurseries. The power contained in the clause for grant-maintained schools to set up nursery classes does not change in any way the existing funding mechanisms. It will remain the case that the money will not necessarily be recovered from the LEA for the running costs of the new nurseries. In that case, the LEAs have nothing to fear.

As I said at the beginning, the amendments undermine our policy of giving grant-maintained schools the greater freedoms that we think are necessary in order to extend choice for parents. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

---