| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 92:
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State, among other considerations which are a requirement upon the Secretary of State when having regard to the allocation of places under the assisted places scheme, has regard to the availability of places in the LEA maintained schools and in the grant-maintained school sector.
In seeking to introduce a further requirement in that regard, the amendment raises the important issue of surplus places in the maintained school system. While surplus places are inevitably a part of any system to a limited degree to allow a reasonable level of choice, it would be a very unfortunate result if the unplanned consequences of the Government's proposals in the Bill to extend the number of places in the assisted places scheme preparatory schools were seriously to increase the level of surplus places in the maintained sector.
There are arguments about whether or not the Government will seek to portray this proposal as a deliberate attempt to restrict parental choice in opposition to their proposals to extend the scheme. The Minister in the other place, in Standing Committee D, refused to address the issue of the risk of an increase in surplus places in the maintained sector and the consequent threat of rising unit costs for the children to be educated in maintained schools.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed seriously. Local government, local authorities and the schools within the grant-maintained school sector, notwithstanding their more favourable treatment, are constrained not to undertake action which deliberately wastes public resources.
It is important that the Government are challenged seriously on not duplicating the spending of money. Two outcomes may result: one is the reduction of parental choice for other parents in the locality; the other
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places throughout the country and between boys and girls. Those are proper considerations in the allocation of places. The noble Baroness is seeking to place an additional requirement on the Secretary of State; that is, to consider the availability of maintained school places.
We do not accept that it would be proper to restrict parental choice in that way. Parents should be able to choose an independent education for their children regardless of income and regardless of whether or not a specific LEA has a high number of surplus places. Children who happen to live in those areas where there are a high number of surplus places should not be denied the chance to benefit from the scheme. Parents should have the opportunity to make an informed choice for the best education of their child. The exercise of that choice should not be dependent on where they live. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am disappointed in the Minister's response. The Government persist in behaving as though parents were evenly spread; as though the number of children they have is equally evenly spread across the country; and as though all other elements can be applied regardless of local circumstances. There may be a degree of logic in the Government's argument in relation to some areas of the country, but not in relation to others.
In the Lancashire and Yorkshire fells there is a pressure to maintain provision of small, rural primary schools. In those areas the demand from the parents, under parental choice, is not for an Anglican denominational school alone to serve each village, but also for a Catholic school. The local authorities maintain access to those primary schools at exceptionally high cost.
Village schools, by their nature and the nature of the settlement, inevitably have surplus places. How can it be sensible, rational or fair to deliberately impose on them the requirement to spend public money to exacerbate that situation in those localities? The Government's attitude is incomprehensible in any other terms than those of dogma. I heard the Minister's reply. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, I despair of obtaining a sensible response to any logical case put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 93:
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the assisted places scheme. Its purpose is to give priority,
The arguments underpinning the amendment are that there are two disturbing trends in the assisted places scheme and the proposals of the Bill will only serve to exacerbate them. The point was debated in Standing Committee D on 10th December, when the amendment was lost.
The two issues are that, first, preparatory schools may arrange links with independent secondary schools to offer continuity in the assisted places scheme. Parents who want an assisted secondary place are encouraged to go for an assisted primary place in preparatory schools to enhance their chances of securing a place in the independent secondary school of their choice. An artificial inducement is provided by the Bill for parents to move into the independent sector earlier by means of the expanded assisted places scheme.
Secondly, the fact that the assisted places scheme effectively gives an unnecessary state subsidy to parents who can afford a place at an independent school anyhow or to families who are already paying makes it more difficult for those who have not benefited under the scheme to secure support for their children. The amendment would counter both these undesirable aspects.
The Government's response to the amendment in the Commons failed to address these two issues and the Minister, Mrs. Gillan, sought to reject the amendment on the grounds that it would,
This is not a credible or sufficient response to the issues which the amendment sought to address. I hope for a better response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I very much support this amendment. I have a rather personal attitude towards the whole business of assisted places. I think that when the Government are spending money they should spend it in their own schools. However, that may be beside the point. Meanwhile, as that is something we shall not achieve during the course of proceedings on the Bill, I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness, Lady David, hoped for a better response from the Minister than her colleagues received in another place. I hope that on this occasion she will be grateful for a consistency of responses, because we believe in consistency within the Government.
The assisted places regulations, which this House and another place debate annually, provide for schools to select children for places in accordance with such methods and procedures as appear to them appropriate. But the regulations also place an important restriction on schools' discretion over the allocation of places. They are required to fill at least 60 per cent. of their assisted places with pupils from the maintained sector.
The amendment seeks to place a further restriction on schools' freedom over the allocation of places. It would require a school always to give priority to a maintained sector applicant even over a better qualified independent sector applicant. That would severely restrict schools' freedom as regards pupil selection and might result in the most deserving candidate not receiving an assisted place. It could lead to an independent school candidate being ruled out of consideration even if on income grounds he or she was eligible and had previously only attended that independent school by virtue of, for example, a scholarship. If the amendment were passed, schools would not have the discretion to take account of individual circumstances such as that.
We believe that a balance has to be struck between the school's discretion over the selection of pupils and the conditions the Government attach to the exercise of that discretion. We believe that the present arrangements--the 60 per cent. I mentioned--strike an appropriate balance. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Page 16, line 18, at end insert--
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section, at the end there shall be added the words "and to the availability of places in grant-maintained schools and schools maintained by local education authorities".").
9.15 p.m.
Page 16, line 18, at end insert--
("(2) In subsection (5) of that section, at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "and
(c) shall require priority for the remission of fees to be given to pupils who have not previously attended an independent school".").
"for the remission of fees...to pupils who have not previously attended an independent school".
"entail undue fettering of schools' freedom over pupil selection and could result in the most deserving candidate not receiving an assisted place".--[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 10/12/96; col. 412.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page