| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the right reverend Prelate. He has put the case so clearly that I am reluctant to attempt to repeat it. Therefore, I shall simply ask the Minister
quite straightforwardly if he can say whether or not it is the Government's policy that county schools should have an advantage over voluntary-aided schools in the matter of providing new nursery education?
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend Lord Henley may say, I, too, support the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will find that he is able to give an encouraging answer.
I believe that it is absolutely right that the governing body should have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. But it is also right that, in giving that guidance, the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to ensure that there is consistency across the board between all the schools in one specific group in a diocese. The amendment provides a simple way of achieving that.
We should pay tribute to the work which the various Church schools do, especially in the light of the reports on primary education. Various types of Church schools came out best. That is splendid, but it may not be sufficient to ensure that we achieve the results that we want. Consistent consultation should be the key to the matter.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment. What I shall say will fit neatly with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said.
Church schools are popular. If I may make so bold, they are sometimes particularly popular with speakers from the Government Front Benches. In recent statistics, those schools proved themselves to be successful in educating our younger children.
It seems particularly odd, therefore, that the Secretary of State should apparently display a bias against such schools opening nursery schools. I say that in the context of the arrival of nursery vouchers. As everyone knows who has thought about the issue or read about the subject, parents will try to get their child into a nursery class at the school that they wish their child to attend during his primary years. They will be one jump ahead, as it were. In the cases cited by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, far from being encouraged within the context of local authority planning to set up nursery schools, Church schools are being discouraged from doing so. Has the Minister considered how that will interact with the nursery voucher scheme? Perhaps in his own interests he might consider changing his mind on the matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall consider carefully whether I need to take advice from the noble Baroness about what my own interests are.
This is not a question as to whether Church schools are disadvantaged against county schools. We discussed the issue at Committee stage. The right reverend Prelate brought forward similar amendments allowing Church schools to open or close nursery classes subject to the consent of the diocese.
First, my principal objection was this. I believe that I used the words "cherry picking" that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I made the point that the
provision was cherry picking one element out of the wider grant-maintained deregulation package. Secondly, it could impose a potentially significant new financial burden on LEAs if voluntary schools had discretion to open new nurseries with the LEA automatically having to pick up the bill.The new clause meets the second of those objections. It provides that schools would have to gain the consent in writing of the LEA before they could proceed. I accept that that would allow the LEA to constrain increases in spending to whatever level it felt it could afford. However, by meeting that one objection I fear the amendment reinforces my other objection--the cherry picking of one element from the deregulation package. The effect is that before a voluntary school could open a new nursery it would have to gain, first, the consent of the LEA and, secondly, the consent of the diocese, and, thirdly, it would have to consult with all interested parties. Further, even if the LEA supported a proposal to add a nursery, the Secretary of State paying capital grants where that was needed, the amendment would not change the need to obtain capital from and the permission of the Secretary of State. That means that we end up much where we were when we started. The new arrangements require much the same level of regulation and control, as the school has to go through in publishing its proposals.
Perhaps I may return to the expression of cherry picking and mix the metaphor. I think that the cherry the right reverend Prelate has picked is in danger of being so shrivelled that it is neither fish nor fowl.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that I was mixing my metaphors.
If the right reverend Prelate wishes to support the Government in promoting serious deregulation of voluntary schools, obviously he would be most welcome. But I do not believe that the amendment would confer any serious deregulatory benefit. For that reason, I would not wish to support the amendment. I do not believe that it achieves the aims that the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate wish. Before the right reverend Prelate sums up, I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister confuses the issue unreasonably. Does he not agree that LEAs can develop their plans or proposals for nursery units and classes only in the light of the capital allocation that they receive? The voluntary-aided schools' building allocation situation is exactly the same. If the voluntary-aided sector puts in a bid for the right to capital allocation, it, too, has to wait. There would not be cherry picking. The only reason that the cherry to which the Minister referred is shrivelled is because this Government distributed part of the capital
allocation unfairly in favour of the grant-maintained sector at the expense, among others, of the voluntary-aided schools.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that totally. I do not accept the allegation that we have unfairly favoured grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools are funded on a different basis. Now is not the right time to go into a debate on that other than to say that I do not accept the noble Baroness's allegations.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not answer my question. Are not the voluntary-aided schools disadvantaged in comparison with voluntary schools under the present system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House--I remind noble Lords that we are at Report stage--we do not believe that they are disadvantaged. We do not believe that they should be given the same advantages as grant-maintained schools--that is the one element of the grant-maintained deregulation package. If the Church schools wish to go down that route, all well and good. But to take out that one element would not be right.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he justify his statement that voluntary schools are not disadvantaged in this respect? Every speaker made that precise point; they are disadvantaged. I am not clear that he has addressed that issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with all due respect to noble Lords--I again remind the House that we are at Report stage--I do not believe that the schools are disadvantaged. The amendment seeks to give further advantages to the voluntary-aided schools going down the line towards grant-maintained status. If they wish to have the advantage of being grant maintained, they should go down that route.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am extraordinarily disappointed at the Minister's reply. He has totally failed to address the main issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken from every Bench in your Lordships' House. I feel that there was considerable support for the point I made. If I dare say so, I believe that the Minister is circumscribed by the outlook enshrined in the Bill and has therefore been unable to address the issue raised. In my view, and in that of other speakers, the position was quite clearly one of disadvantage. I am sorry that the Minister cannot recognise what seems to the remainder of us to be so clear. However, at this stage of the debate I do not feel it right to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Relaxation of controls on changes in age groups for admission etc.]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 17:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I was not satisfied with the Minister's reply and wish to ask the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Page 6, leave out lines 28 to 31.
6.50 p.m.
Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.
Barnett, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blease, L.
Calverley, L.
Carlisle, E.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Craigavon, V.
David, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Hamwee, B.
Hanworth, V.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hooson, L.
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lockwood, B.
Longford, E.
Lovell-Davis, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McNair, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marsh, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Meston, L.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Redesdale, L.
Richard, L.
Ripon, Bp.
Russell, E.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Sefton of Garston, L.
Sewel, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Warnock, B.
Weatherill, L.
White, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Addison, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.
Ampthill, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Annaly, L.
Ashbourne, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Banbury of Southam, L.
Belstead, L.
Blatch, B.
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Brentford, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Butterworth, L.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clark of Kempston, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L.
Courtown, E. [Teller.]
Craig of Radley, L.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Cranworth, L.
Cross, V.
Cumberlege, B.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denbigh, E.
Denham, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundonald, E.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Flather, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.
Goschen, V.
Greenway, L.
Haig, E.
Halsbury, E.
Harding of Petherton, L.
Harlech, L.
Harmsworth, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Hemphill, L.
Henley, L.
Holderness, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hothfield, L.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kinnoull, E.
Kintore, E.
Lauderdale, E.
Leigh, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.
Marlesford, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Monk Bretton, L.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Mottistone, L.
Mountevans, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L.
Northbourne, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Rankeillour, L.
Rennell, L.
Renton, L.
Renwick, L.
Rowallan, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Westbury, L.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Clause 7 [Consultation and notification where proposals do not need to be published]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page