| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to indicate our support for the amendment. In the event of the Secretary of State feeling it necessary to intervene because there are too many selective places in an area, this amendment would give her greater flexibility with regard to that intervention. I should have thought that that would benefit the conduct of business in those circumstances. Therefore, I hope that this will be regarded as a helpful amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the reserve power allows the Secretary of State to designate areas in which the threshold for introducing selection would be 20 per cent. for all schools, but it is a fall back power. It would only be used if it were evident that pupils were not getting places at local schools due to the number of selective places in an area.
We think it reasonable that all schools should have the flexibility to introduce at least 20 per cent. selection. This is more likely to permit a separate form of entry than the current 15 per cent. flexibility, but I do not accept that what would still be a modest element of
selection will adversely affect the overall supply of places in an area. Indeed, we do not envisage having to use the power in the Bill to reduce the ceiling for all schools to 20 per cent. often, if at all. Experience suggests that admission authorities co-operate sensibly so that pupils are not left without school places.It is also important to remember that we have put in the Bill a provision which would prevent schools which were partially selective from holding open places if they had applicants waiting who did not meet the selective criteria. It is wrong to say that a particular level of selective places necessarily disenfranchises local children. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before withdrawing the amendment, I note only that the Minister did not address the issue of why he might not give his right honourable friend the flexibility which may assist her in her decision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 26:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to define more specifically the purposes for which the Funding Agency for Schools may make grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools.
Clause 16 would allow the Funding Agency for Schools to make grants to the promoters of grant-maintained schools in connection with expenditure incurred by them in formulating the proposals and preparing the particulars of the proposed premises. This amendment seeks to ensure that the promoter of a new school is not reimbursed for expenditure incurred in, for example, employing a public relations company to encourage support among the public, or lobbying in support of the proposal. This is not to suggest that such practice would be commonplace; but it is important to ensure that it would not be possible for public money to be used in this way, especially as local education authorities might also be spending money in preparing proposals at the same time.
Grants from the Funding Agency for Schools should be limited to expenditure on professional development fees related to the proposed site and buildings. This may include fees which have to be met in relation to the employment of architects and engineers, and any fees incurred in obtaining legal advice about the proposed development of the site. These are all costs which would have to be met if the local education authority was itself developing a similar proposal and as such it would be perfectly reasonable for the promoter of a grant-maintained school to have this expenditure reimbursed by a grant from the Funding Agency for Schools.
The Minister accepted when this matter was debated in Committee (Hansard, 25th February, col. 1099) that the wording of the then Clause 14 did not expressly prohibit the payment of grant for the purposes of propaganda, and that it is not a function of the Funding Agency for Schools to fund propaganda or to promote the grant-maintained sector. It is quite clear therefore that to provide money for this purpose would be outside the remit of the Funding Agency for Schools and on that basis it would be helpful if the amendment is accepted so that the funding agency is quite clear as to Parliament's intention. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment bites upon Clause 16 which enables the funding authority to pay grant to prospective promoters of new GM schools to help them develop their proposals. A number of costs can be incurred by prospective promoters of new GM schools in developing their proposals. Typical examples might be architects' and surveyors' fees on premises-related aspects of the proposals and legal advice on land tenure and trust arrangements. Promoters 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.
by the promoter. There can be no justification for restricting the categories of grant to professional fees only. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is excessively restrictive. This reduces the flexibility that the funding authority may need if it is to respond helpfully to the promoter. The whole purpose of Clause 16 is to enable the funding authority to provide such help in the interests of enabling potentially sound proposals to go forward for publication which might not otherwise have done so without such grant. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask whether he agrees that the funding of propaganda is not really legitimate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the funding of propaganda is not right, just as the funding of propaganda by the local education authority against a proposal by a school to go grant-maintained would not be legitimate. What we are saying is that the words "professional fees only" are excessively limiting.
Baroness David: My Lords, when I moved the amendment I believe I said that, for example, the employment of a public relations company to encourage support among the public would not be a legitimate use. It may be that the amendment is drawn too widely and that "professional fee" covers too many matters. Given the possibility that the Bill may have a Third Reading, I suppose that one can return with a more specific amendment. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 27:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the establishment of a new grant-maintained school does not lead to the education in other schools in the neighbourhood ceasing to be of a satisfactory standard by reason of the intake of those schools being significantly affected. The amendment is an attempt to prevent the spending of public money on the promotion of new grant-maintained schools in areas where the creation of such a school with, say, 750 places for 11 to 16 year-olds would be likely to impact on other schools in the area to the extent that those other schools might be unable to provide as good an education as now or even not provide a satisfactory standard of education.
As the clause currently stands, it appears to give carte blanche to the promoters of a grant-maintained school to spend public money to drum up support for a school in any area of the country, including presumably areas in which there are plenty of places in existing schools and no demand for a new one. While the Government have acknowledged in subsection (3) that the viability of any new school must be such as to ensure that it is able to provide a satisfactory education, what the clause fails to take cognisance of is the impact on other schools in an area.
This difference of view between the Government and this side of the Chamber goes to the heart of what separates the two approaches to the Bill. On the one hand, the Government operate in the belief that a free market in school places will ensure that eventually there is some semblance of equilibrium between supply and demand, in spite of the Trading Places report in which the Audit Commission exposed so cruelly the failure of the market approach. On the other hand, the view of the Opposition parties is that there needs to be a strategic management of school places for the good of all the pupils in an area. The idea of schools withering on the vine may appear attractive to certain elements of the party opposite, but they have less to say about what happens to the pupils while this often protracted process takes place.
Speaking subject to correction, I recall very well that the only contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I see is sadly not in his place at the moment, was on 25th February when he said:
That is entirely opposed to the way in which we on these Benches, and I believe many noble Lords on the Benches opposite, view schools. To close a school in such a situation is a big operation that has deleterious effects on all kinds of people, particularly the children. I was shocked at what I heard on that occasion.
While it is considered in many ways a vice to have a few too many places in an LEA school, it seems to be a virtue to have whole new grant-maintained schools
There will be a high level of interest in exactly how the concept of "viability" is applied. In his letter of 10th March to me, the Minister usefully detailed a number of ways in which potential viability could be demonstrated. It is the intention of the DfEE to offer detailed guidance to the FAS on this matter. There are many, however, who fear that, should this responsibility be delegated to the FAS, it may find too little difficulty in sorting out what both "viable" and "satisfactory" means if there is a possibility of setting up a grant-maintained school. The FAS will want to do so. We believe it is wrong that the FAS should be given the power to decide whether it shall do so. I beg to move.
Page 14, line 43, at end insert ("on professional development fees").
"expenditure incurred or to be incurred",
Page 15, line 21, at end insert ("and if the viability of neighbouring schools would not be significantly affected.").
"I believe that the clause does not go nearly far enough. Schools should be allowed to expand and contract as their market demands and as parents want them to do, without having complicated number systems. If there are surplus places in schools, the schools should be closed down. If the school is not working, why should we as taxpayers go on subsidising something which does not work?".--[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1069.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page