| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister said that if he could get the information that I asked for he would write. If he cannot get the information, will he also write to me? I ask that quite seriously for two reasons. First of all, I think that is of immense importance to the amendment we are discussing. But, what is perhaps even more important, this is the Government who are always, they say, looking after the pounds and the pennies the whole time and who criticise the Labour Party for what they consider to be profligate spending. Therefore we are entitled to know that this Government are keeping a careful eye on the money they are spending on something which is strongly opposed by people on these Benches.
Lord Henley: I think we have a pretty good record of keeping a tight control on public finances, particularly compared to the promises amounting to some £30 billion of extra expenditure offered by the party opposite. I do not think today is the time or the place to engage in financial or economic debate, but I just thought I would have the beginnings of it. Certainly I give an assurance to the noble Lord that
I shall write to him whatever the case may be. Or, if I may write to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I shall copy that letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall resist the bait that he offers me to consider how either party will pay for its proposals. Perhaps we should not pursue that tonight. I am grateful to the Minister for his careful reply. I am sure that he will copy to me as the mover of the amendment the prolific correspondence he is about to engage in as a result of my amendment. I shall consider both the report of his speech and the correspondence. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 81:
The noble Baroness said: We are continuing the debate on expenditure with this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to define more specifically the purposes for which the funding agency may make grants, thus seeking to safeguard the effective and efficient use of public funds, which we know is almost priority No. 1 for the Government. Therefore I am sure that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
The power proposed in Clause 14 for the funding authority not only conflicts with the Government's original remit for the FAS, but, more significantly, it introduces the risk of wasting public money on formulating proposals which are already the responsibility of the LEA.
The current drafting of subsection (4),
lacks adequate definition to prevent the funding agency from making grants to promoters for public relations activities which might include lobbying in support of their proposals. One hopes, of course, that that would not occur. But whether or not it is likely that such expenditure would occur is a matter for conjecture, and the intention is not to cast aspersions on the motivation of the funding agency. The purpose of this amendment however is to ensure that it is not legally possible for money to be spent in such a way.
Public expenditure should be constrained to those professional development fees which are legitimate costs incurred in the preparation of proposals. This may include fees, for example, for architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, building control inspectors, legal advice or preliminary planning applications. This would reflect the services which LEAs are currently entitled to pay for in developing proposals.
During debate of this clause in another place, the Minister indicated that he would seek advice on whether the clause as it currently stands would enable the FAS to permit money to be spent on propaganda. That is at col. 336 of the Official Report of 10th December. It would be helpful to have clarification on this point and
The amendment would clarify the purpose of such grants and constrain the funding agency's expenditure in the interests of public probity to fees for services which are a legitimate contribution to the formulation of proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As an aside, I am interested in the news about the miscounting by our Whips on an earlier amendment. They seem to have been two out, out of 171. Our colleagues in the Commons were only out by one out of 273. I suspect from now on that we should refrain from criticising our colleagues in another place. It might reflect upon the golden age of education from which many of us ventured so long ago.
Turning to the amendment, prospective promoters of new grant-maintained schools can incur a number of costs in developing their proposals. Typical examples might be architects' and surveyors' fees on premises-related aspects of proposals and legal advice on land tenure and trust arrangements. They might also incur expenditure related to advice on curriculum and financial matters or on a survey of parents. Some items of expenditure might be described as professional development fees. Others will not.
The point is that the term "expenditure" in Clause 14 includes all types of costs, including professional development fees. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The noble Baroness expressed concern as to whether the grants could be used for propaganda purposes and referred to the consideration that one of my honourable friends gave to these matters. I cannot say that the wording of Clause 14 in itself expressly prohibits the payment of grant for the purposes of propaganda, whatever that means. However, I think it odd to focus on that aspect of the funding authority's power to pay grants to help prospective promoters to develop their proposals.
The funding authorities are themselves responsible bodies. In Wales, the funding authority is the Secretary of State and in England it is the Funding Agency for Schools. It is not a function of the Funding Agency for Schools in England to fund propaganda or to promote the grant-maintained sector. The functions of the agency are set out in legislation and in its management statement and corporate plans. The agency's management statement and the code of conduct made clear that board members have a key responsibility to ensure that activities undertaken by the agency are consistent with the legal framework governing the operation of the agency. Moreover, the terms and conditions attached to the grant to be paid to the FAS are set out in the financial memorandum. Responsibilities placed on the agency's accounting officer include safeguarding all public funds and assets in the agency's charge and ensuring that they are applied only to the purposes of the agency as approved by Parliament.
I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that the money will not be spent on what she describes as propaganda, whatever that might mean.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Since the intention of the amendment is, if I understand it correctly, to define more specifically the purposes for which the funding agency may make grants, first, can the Minister assist us as regards the problem which my noble friend put forward? She said that the power proposed in Clause 14 for the funding authority conflicts with the Government's original remit for the FAS. Is that the case? If so, can the Minister reconcile the discrepancy, or should we be considering some other amendment?
Secondly, as regards propaganda, can the Minister take us a little further and give some clarification? For example, if it were alleged that propaganda had been supported by public funds, how would this be tried, proved or not proved? What sanctions would the Government have against alleged offenders found guilty by whatever means we hope to employ?
Lord Henley: The usual accountancy processes would be the obvious route through which one would pursue these matters. The fact that the funding agency accounts have to be approved by whatever bodies--I forget them--would surely allow for that.
As regards the noble Lord's first point, I shall read carefully what he said. I fail to understand how Clause 14 conflicts with the original purposes for which the funding agency was set up. I shall read carefully tomorrow what the noble Lord said, but I do not see any conflict.
Baroness David: If the Minister is willing to find out exactly how the proposal in Clause 14 conflicts with the original remit, perhaps he will have another look at the amendment in the light of his lack of knowledge. That would be helpful. Will the noble Lord agree to look at the provision so that he can tell us what he really thinks?
Lord Henley: As always--it is one of the points of the Committee stage of a Bill--one gives a commitment that one will look at a particular clause and concerns. I shall study carefully what the noble Baroness said as regards Amendment No. 81 and what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said on other amendments. I am content with the provision. If I have misunderstood some of the concerns, it would be right that I should consider the matter again. But I am not sure that that is the case.
Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("or professional development fees").
"Grants may be made under this section on such terms and conditions as the funding authority think fit",
6.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page