| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David: My Lords, in relation to this amendment I should like to raise the question of sixth-form colleges. I believe that they could be made unviable if GM schools with sixth forms were created. That raises again the question whether sixth-form colleges, which have been so successful and have provided such a good service to students in the community, may have difficulty if certain plans are taken forward. I support the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I believe it is very important that the viability of one school, whoever establishes it, should not be bought, as it were, at the expense of loss of viability of other schools. It is extremely expensive for a local authority to run and fund such a school and not good for children to have to learn in a declining school. To create a situation in which surrounding schools may be rendered less viable is not desirable.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that this is an exceedingly important amendment. It contains the words and spirit of a number of matters that have already been debated. In those circumstances, I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is not a single Conservative Member on the Back Benches opposite. The Minister may recall that not long ago there was a debate on education and, unwisely and uncharacteristically, he made reference to the fact that some of us who were interested in education were not in the Chamber. He included my name in that list. I think it is right to say that no one on the Tory Back Benches is interested in a part of a Bill which the Government have said time and again is so important to the future of this country.
When the Minister replies perhaps he will define "viability". That is the most important word in this debate. From what has been said in previous debates on
the Bill it appears that the Government's definition of "viability" is somewhat different from ours. That may make a difference when he comes to reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, makes well the point about the absence of my noble friends behind me. I dare say it is unlikely that the noble Lord and his noble friends will want to divide the House, but I am sure that if he did so he would find that there were considerable numbers of my noble friends in the House--probably all glued to the television watching every moment of this debate and taking enormous interest in it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if that is the case, why does the noble Lord believe that we were not glued to the television when he was talking about our absence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, because I believed that the noble Lord was elsewhere and not in the House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how does the noble Lord know where his noble friends are?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I say that because I have faith in those behind me.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, returned to the question of sixth-form colleges. It is interesting to discuss that again at this time of night. However, we discussed it earlier and divided upon Amendment No. 17 as a result of an intervention by her noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I believe that that is a matter on which the House has come to, dare I say it, a fairly conclusive decision. On that occasion a considerable number of my noble friends were here and slightly fewer of the noble Lord's noble friends.
I was interested also in what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had to say about the intervention of my noble friend Lord Onslow. It was a fine speech, although he went slightly beyond what is the accepted policy on these Benches. That is something to which the noble Lord will be well used with some of the interventions that he has noticed not necessarily on this Bill but on a number of other Bills and on a number of other occasions from those who sit behind him. One cannot always guarantee the total support of those who sit behind you, although one can always guarantee the total agreement.
The clause, as amended by a government amendment in another place, provides that grants should not be paid to help the promoters develop their proposals unless the funding authority is satisfied that it is likely that the school will be viable. At this point it may be worth referring the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, to Clause 16, where we insert new Section 213A. Subsection (3) of that new section provides a definition of "viable". It states:
- "For the purposes of subsection (2) a proposed school would be a viable school if there would be a sufficient demand for places at the school to ensure that a satisfactory standard of education was provided there".
That is a suitable definition which deals with the noble Lord's point.
There is the exception that the funding authority would be able to exercise its judgment under subsection (2)(b) where it believed it likely that it would be so satisfied once further work was done. The amendment adds a further test. The definition of viability in subsection (3) would include the test that the viability of neighbouring schools would not be significantly affected.
It is certainly the case that the funding authority would take account of the level of surplus places in the area of a proposed new school when it considered proposals during the consultation phase. The Secretary of State also of course takes that factor into account, among others, during her consideration of proposals which come to her. But it is one of a number of considerations which are weighed in the balance. One important factor would also be whether the proposed new school was likely to enhance the quality, choice and diversity of provision in the area.
The difficulty is one of making judgments about how far the viability of particular schools is dependent upon the existence of another. It could by no means be certain that the existence of a new GM school would by itself affect the viability of local schools. There can be a number of factors in the case. An existing school may not be popular with parents. It may not be a good school and may already have a number of unused places as a result. A new GM school might because of its character draw from a very wide area, perhaps drawing pupils from across the LEA boundary, so that the extent of its impact on any one individual school in the locality may be difficult to assess.
That is not to say that the level of surplus places in an area is not an important factor for the funding authority and the Secretary of State to take into account. But creating an absolute test of viability in relation to the position at neighbouring schools could well be unworkable. And in its very absoluteness it denies the opportunity for other factors to be taken into account as to the merits and soundness of proposals. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which I found helpful. To paraphrase Evelyn Waugh: Up to a point, Lord Henley, up to a point. I take the Minister's point that impact is something which is difficult to assess. In this case there is a great deal of common ground between us. We need not pursue this amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of start-up grants]:
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 28:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to insert a simple requirement that, first, the Secretary of State should consult the LEA or appropriate voluntary authorities before exercising her powers under Clause 17 to recoup from the LEA the start-up costs of any new grant-maintained school; and, secondly, that she act reasonably in setting the level of recoupment in each case.
The amendment is essentially a probing amendment. It relates to statements made by Ministers during the Bill's passage in another place and by the Minister himself in Committee on 25th February, when he said:
In rejecting previous amendments proposed by the Opposition, which would have put limits on the amount which could have been recouped from LEAs to the equivalent start-up costs of a new county or voluntary school, the Government attempted to offer assurances that the Secretary of State would always have to act reasonably when exercising the recoupment powers envisaged in the Bill. The Minister himself conceded:
Since that is the Government's publicly and often stated position, will the Minister now confirm that he is prepared to accept this simple, straightforward amendment on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we support the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Page 15, line 43, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with the local education authority or any appropriate body which appoints foundation governors to one or more schools in the area, reasonably").
"It is our intention to consult the LEAs in individual cases so that the LEA view can be taken fully into account".
"Indeed, the Secretary of State could be challenged in the courts if she did not take the views of the LEAs into account and did not act reasonably".--[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1102.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page