New clause (Hansard, 15 July 1998)

HC Deb 15 July 1998 vol 316 cc520-5 520

§ Lords amendment: No. 142, after clause 120, to insert the following new clause—Transfer of assisted places— .—(1) In section 3(2) of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 (regulations for purposes of transitional arrangements), after paragraph (f) there shall be added— (g) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has at any time held) an assisted place provided by a school under section 2(1), to authorise another school which is either—

(i) a former participating school, or
(ii) a new school authorised to provide assisted places by virtue of paragraph (f) above,

to provide for the pupil under section 2(1) the assisted place which the first-mentioned school was authorised to provide. (2) In section 75A(9A) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (regulations in connection with assisted places)— (a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted "; and (c) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has, at any time since the beginning of the first term of the 1997–98 school year, held) an assisted place at a school under a scheme operated by virtue of subsection (1) above, to authorise another school which is, or is treated as, a participating school to provide for the pupil under such a scheme the assisted place which the first—mentioned school was authorised to provide."

§ Mr. Byers
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 177, 179, 182 to 186, 383 and 386.

§ Mr. Byers
The amendments cover perhaps only a handful of young people, but they are important. At present, the law on phasing out the assisted places scheme does not permit a child to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. However, there may be pressing reasons why a child should be able to do so. Ministers' attention has been drawn to several cases in which there are family and social reasons why an alternative school is needed.
The amendments would give the Secretary of State a power to agree that an assisted place can be transferred in exceptional circumstances where compassion demands it. The amendments respond to the situations that have been raised with us. We shall operate the discretionary power responsibly and sensibly. We have already 521 exercised existing discretionary powers in considering 180 applications for transfer. More than half have been agreed to, which shows that we have been fair and reasonable.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Can the Minister confirm that three criteria apply in such cases, and that the Government have exercised discretion reflecting compassion and the needs of the child in only two cases that do not meet those criteria?

§ Mr. Byers
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with detailed figures, as I do not have them to hand. I believe that more than two have been agreed on grounds beyond the three specified criteria. Wherever possible, we have sought to be generous and sympathetic, as these amendments are.

§ Mrs. May
I welcome the amendments. As the Minister has said, a number of young people may benefit from what I must call a U-turn by the Government. Those points were raised by Opposition Members during the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill. The Government set their face implacably against the discretion that their amendments introduce.
I fear that the Government's sudden transformation came not because they had considered the concerns of parents or the education of any of the children involved but because a parent decided to take them to the High Court to challenge the fact that his son was not being allowed to transfer to a second school. The Government decided to pull out of the case and allow the child to transfer to a second school. The case involved junior and senior schools at Ely.

§ Mr. Byers
The hon. Lady has totally misunderstood the consequences of the amendments, which relate to a child at secondary school who wants to transfer to a different secondary school. That is why we tabled them. The situation that she describes is covered by the Education (Schools) Act 1997. She needs to be clear about the consequences of the amendments, but her contribution so far has shown that she is unclear about them.

10.45 pm

§ Mrs. May
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, because it suggests that he does not understand the sort of case that I was citing. The amendment, as I read it, does not refer to the two schools being secondary schools but talks about a pupil transferring to another school to continue the assisted place. That was what was happening in the High Court case of Alastair Sanderson.

§ Mr. Byers
The hon. Lady is misleading the House—inadvertently, I am sure. I do not think that it is helpful to mention individual cases in the way that she did but that case has now been agreed under the discretion that the Secretary of State already has. Tonight, we are considering a quite different discretion to allow an individual who already has an assisted place to move to another school with it. That is quite different. The case she mentions has nothing to do with the Lords amendment.

§ Mrs. May
It seems that, every time the Minister speaks on this, he talks about increased flexibility in the Government's provisions for children who have been granted assisted places. It is precisely that point that the 522 amendment addresses and to which I want to refer in respect of other cases. I am sorry that he feels that it is not helpful to refer to individual cases, because it is clear that there are several cases in which people are happy to be quoted on this issue. They have found themselves in difficulty because the Government have exercised discretion on assisted places in some cases, and not in others and are extending their powers in the Lords amendment on such decisions. Those are people who accepted assisted places in 1996 or 1997 on the basis of assurances given them by the Labour party before the general election and subsequently.

§ Mr. Blunkett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is out of order. She is dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances. The amendment is to do with the transfer of children who have places but who, because of family circumstances, move to another part of the country and take up another place. I know that, because it was on my instructions that we tabled the amendment to overcome what I considered an unacceptable anomaly.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
Order. Let me answer the first point of order. I shall not be long in coming back to the hon. Gentleman.
There is an ambiguity in the mind of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It is for Ministers to put her right. She is raising a matter and is entitled to an explanation. If the Minister feels that a full and proper explanation has been given, we shall have to end it at that.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State issues instructions to his officials to draft a new clause, but they give it a wider ambit that permits a wider debate, is it in order for the Secretary of State to try to limit the debate in the House to the clause that he originally intended to table, but clearly failed to do?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. I think that my ruling was excellent. It was a first-class ruling.

§ Mrs. May
Your rulings are always excellent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order to allay your concerns and any concerns held by Ministers, I should say that my remarks are pertinent to the Lords amendment. It relates to the circumstances in which a pupil seeks to move from one school to another, but to transfer his assisted place. It was interesting that the Secretary of State rose to say that I was out of order before he had heard about the cases. Either he is telepathic or he knows well the concerns that have been raised by parents.
The cases that I was starting to quote were instances in which individuals believed that they had places at schools which were defined as all-through schools, which the Labour party before the election told them would be honoured. The Secretary of State, in a letter, sent—

523

§ Mr. Blunkett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is confusing vertical with horizontal. The amendment deals with transfer across. She is referring to transfer upwards.

§ Mrs. Browning
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Everyone wants to raise a point of order. I have to reply to the point of order. Let me say to the Minister that those are matters for debate.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mrs. Browning
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. After the hon. Member for Maidenhead has said her piece, I will happily call either the Secretary of State or the Minister to reply to her. That is the way that things are done in the House. The Minister can then rebut her argument. So far, her argument has not been out of order. If it had been out of order, I would have told her so.

§ Mrs. Browning
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Whatever the Secretary of State may wish to say in response to my hon. Friend, it would be extremely helpful if she could be allowed to complete what she has to say. I am finding it extremely frustrating. Just as I am beginning to follow her line of reasoning, the Secretary of State intervenes to cut her off. May I ask you to assist the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am assisting the House. I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead.

§ Mrs. May
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I trust that I shall be able to reach the question that I wish to ask the Government on the basis of the cases to which I have referred. It is interesting that the Secretary of State finds such need to stand up and try to break off the argument on this issue. It suggests a certain sensitivity on his part.
I was about to refer—this is part of the question that I wish to ask the Secretary of State or the Minister—to a letter that the Secretary of State sent out on 10 March this year to a Mrs. Teed in Maidstone in Kent. He made it clear that there was—[Interruption.] Perhaps if I may be allowed to complete the argument, the Secretary of State or the Minister will be able to say whether the issue is relevant. In that letter, the Secretary of State talked about vertical schooling, in the sense that he said to Mrs. Teed: Where there was provision of an 'all through' school and where there had been a clear promise of a place through to the age of 18, we have agreed to honour that promise. 524 Parents and grandparents are being told that that promise will not be honoured—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must say to the Minister that the hon. Lady has the Floor. She is the only one who is going to address the Chamber at this moment.

§ Mrs. May
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mrs. May
If the Secretary of State could have a little patience, I was almost at the point—

§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)
Get on with it.

§ Mrs. May
If the Government Whip wants me to get on, he should keep his Secretary of State from constantly standing up.
In his letter of 10 March, the Secretary of State said that the Government would honour the provision of an all-through school place where it had been promised through to the age of 18, but parents have discovered that those places are not being honoured. They are being told that the senior school of the school in which their child has been given a junior school place constitutes a separate school, and that it is not an all-through place.
The point is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State a power of discretion in those cases where a child wishes to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. My question, which I could have asked several minutes ago had the Secretary of State allowed me the opportunity to do so, is this. Is it possible for those parents who have written to me—having written several times to the Secretary of State, having checked the Labour party's policy when it was in opposition and having had that assurance from the Secretary of State, but having found that the all-through places are not being honoured because the schools are now defined as being separate schools—to ask the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion under the new powers given in the amendment, which the Government introduced in the House of Lords, which the Lords passed and which the Government now claim gives them extra flexibility—which it does; there has been a U-turn from the position taken last summer when what became the Education (Schools) Act 1987 went through the House—because the DfEE has now defined the school in which the place was given as being two separate schools? I should tell the Secretary of State that the amendment at which I am looking makes no reference to horizontal transfer, but only to transfer to another school under the assisted places scheme.
Parents and children are being disappointed because they trusted Labour's word when it was in opposition, but they have found that that word, that promise, that pledge, to them has been broken. Children who thought that they had a school place through to the age of 18 have had, or are about to have, that place taken away at the age of 11. Under the Lords amendment, which the Government tabled, the Secretary of State has extra discretion in respect of the operation of the assisted places scheme and the phasing out of that scheme. Will he now confirm that the Government will go away, consider the Lords 525 amendment in relation to the cases raised by parents who are greatly concerned about what is happening to their children because of the Government's broken pledges, and decide that those people who were given clear pledges by the Government will now have those pledges honoured at last?

§ Mr. Byers
I hope that I shall be able to clarify the position for the benefit of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Amendment No. 142 is the substantive amendment in this group, and I had thought that, when introducing the debate on the amendment, I had identified the circumstances in which the Secretary of State intended to exercise the new discretion that the amendment would give him.
What we said—it was said in the House of Lords as well, and I commend the comments made on this matter when the Government moved the amendment there—is that the specific situation that we have in mind is where a transfer will be made, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, horizontally—in other words, a child who already has an assisted place, perhaps for family reasons, needs to transfer to another school. In such circumstances, we felt it would be appropriate to have a discretion to continue that assisted place.
Amendment No. 142 is an enabling provision; it creates a new discretionary power. We shall have to produce regulations to show how we intend to exercise that power, and I had thought that I had already illustrated the circumstances in which we would exercise it. It is restricted solely to the circumstances I have described. One or two Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends who are not currently in the Chamber have raised constituency cases which we have considered. In the light of those cases, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that the amendment should be tabled in the House of Lords. That is a very good demonstration of how, away from the fiery rhetoric of the Chamber, we act in response to particular cases to meet the needs of individual children.
This evening, we have had a rerun of the debate that we had last summer when we passed the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The Government's commitment to the phasing out of the assisted places scheme was made crystal clear in the run-up to the last election. Chapter and verse was given. Letters written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 10 March do not countermand what was said in the run-up to the election, when our position was made clear.

§ Mr. St. Aubyn
Will the Minister give way?

§ 11 pm

§ Mr. Byers
No, because we have debated this matter on numerous occasions and the hon. Gentleman brings nothing new to the argument.
The House is aware of the arguments. We have the opportunity this evening to agree with the Lords amendment that will give the Secretary of State a discretionary power to use in accordance with regulations to apply to a small number of cases, in which, for compassionate reasons, young people should be allowed to move school and keep their assisted place. That makes sense. The Government are acting reasonably and compassionately, and I hope that, in that spirit, the House will agree to the amendment.

§ Lords amendment agreed to.