| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David: I do not find that a very convincing answer. If the young person has a scholarship, he or she is presumably not really in need of an assisted place. It seems to me that it really is pre-empting choice for other pupils. I am not in favour of the assisted places scheme but at least it ought to work fairly if it does work. This seems to be giving an unfair advantage to those children who are already in independent schools and their parents.
We may think again about this. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument but I shall not divide the Committee at this time of night. The provision seems to be very discriminatory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 94:
Leave out Clause 18 and insert the following new Clause--
(" .--(1) Sections 479 to 481 of the Education Act 1996 shall cease to have effect save to the extent that they shall continue to apply to provision made prior to the coming into force of this Act, whereby education is provided in participating schools as defined in section 479(2) of that Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may apply monies available to him for the purposes of the implementation of sections 479 to 481 of the Education Act 1996 prior to the passing of this Act and not required under subsection (1) of this section for such other purposes as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment, as a replacement clause, would be to limit the assisted places scheme to its current provision prior
We oppose the assisted places scheme, injecting as it does public resources into the private sector at a time when almost all areas of the public sector are being squeezed of resources. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris has indicated, evidence suggests that the majority of places on the scheme do not necessarily go to children of parents on low income to increase opportunity, as the scheme is intended to do. Sir George Walden MP commented during the Queen's Speech debate that there are only two things wrong with the assisted places scheme--the principle and the practice. A further extension of the assisted places scheme to the independent schools providing primary education is an attempt to expand and revive the scheme and it is a misuse of resources.
The Government seem to believe that the education system in this country needs to be starved of resources with the exception of a small sector which they favour and to which they are prepared to give in some cases uncontrolled, unlimited and ever-expanding resources. The Government's belief that this is what the country needs and what the overwhelming majority of parents want to see could not be further from the truth. We on these Benches believe that at a time when the Government have taken money from local government and circulated nursery vouchers to parents--this is relevant because it is a case of coals to Newcastle--who are on the maximum income and whose vouchers are worth £1,800 a year approximately, as opposed to parents on the lowest incomes, they should relent for once and see that the majority of the nation's children should come first.
Giving cake to the few and meagre rations to the many is not a way to equip us for the future. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was indicating disagreement when I referred to "meagre rations" for the rest. Parents in this country whose children are being educated in local primary schools with ever-increasing class sizes view that as meagre rations, while even the crumbs are kept on the rich man's table. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I support this amendment. The Minister responded to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that he had been unable to accept any Opposition amendment on the last two Bills--in fact they are the only two Bills that I have had to deal with--and explained it by saying that it was consistent. It is certainly that; we cannot disagree with that. The Minister is saying that he will consistently oppose amendments from the Opposition Benches regardless of the merits of the arguments and the strength of the case but simply on the grounds that they come from those Benches. At least we are clear now that our suspicions are well founded.
I never had any expectations of the Government accepting this amendment. We on these Benches have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme--and still do. It must follow logically from that that we shall
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, explained all the reasons why in our view the scheme is a wholly inappropriate use of public money. On the previous amendment my noble friend Lady Thomas put it succinctly but extremely well. In her view--a view which all of us on the Opposition Benches share; I certainly do--government money should be used in what we might call "government schools". I hasten to add that I use the term loosely.
The assisted places scheme is a wrong priority for the use of public money. I said earlier that one of the problems facing this country's maintained education sector is its chronic underfunding. The additional money that is being used for assisted places would not go very far towards helping to ameliorate that chronic underfunding, but it would at least be a step in the right direction. In my opinion, this is very much a misuse of public funding. It is a wrong priority. As resources are always scarce, the priorities that we set for using that money are what is important. None of us will ever be able to have the resources to do all that we would wish, so we must prioritise. It is wrong to prioritise the assisted places scheme; extending the scheme to the primary sector is even worse. We resist that wrong priority. Therefore, I support the amendment most warmly.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Haslam: I have been wincing now for some time when listening to Opposition speeches about the assisted places scheme. I happen to be chairman of the governors of Bolton School, which has 2,000 pupils. We have over 550 assisted places. The present school buildings were endowed by the first Lord Leverhulme in 1926. One of his criteria was that any child in Bolton who had the academic ability to benefit from an education at Bolton School should have the opportunity irrespective of the financial circumstances of the family. That concept is revered in Bolton.
What would happen if the assisted places scheme was to be abandoned? As I have said, we have 550 assisted places and we could find at least 550 or even 1,000 parents prepared to pay the fees for Bolton School. The result would be that 550 talented children from humble families would be denied that education, but the Government would still have to finance their education elsewhere. To pretend that the assisted places scheme is a great bonanza is nonsense.
This matter needs putting into perspective. The Opposition are on the wrong track in trying to abolish the assisted places scheme. I come from Bolton and I have seen the benefits of the scheme for quite humble
families whose youngsters have benefited enormously. It is nonsensical for the Opposition to talk in these terms.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Haslam for his support for the scheme. I believe that that support is shared 100 per cent. on the Benches behind me.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, implied that I was unbending, as did the noble Lord, Lord Morris, earlier, when he said that I refuse ever to accept any Opposition amendments. However, I have written to both noble Lords following Second Reading, setting out just where I was prepared to unbend a little and outlining a number of government amendments. Furthermore, the noble Lords are aware of the amendments that have been tabled by the right reverend Prelate--I appreciate that the right reverend Prelate does not sit on the Opposition Benches, although sometimes the Benches on which the right reverend Prelate sits can appear not dissimilar to the Opposition Benches--and I can give the teeniest weeniest hint that we might be prepared on Monday to accept the right reverend Prelate's amendments. Noble Lords also know that we listen to all the arguments that are put before us, as I explained earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady David.
I was somewhat concerned by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. When speaking to an earlier amendment he referred to those going to the private sector with support from either the Armed Services or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I believe that the electorate and all those serving in the Armed Forces and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be interested to know whether the arrangements from which they now benefit may suffer as a result of the faint possibility of a Labour Government coming to power. I believe that that ought to be spelt out to those who serve this country in both the Armed Forces and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page