HL Deb 10 July 1997 vol 581 cc751-61

5.7 p.m.

House again in Committee.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

I have delayed speaking until this stage in the Bill because my objection to the Bill goes wider than merely the monetary considerations which were discussed largely at the earlier stage.

History will relate that the first act of an incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was to introduce on 17th May a very short education Bill, the purpose of which was to restore to local authorities and local people the right to choose the type of secondary education in their areas by removing the compulsion placed upon them to reorganise all secondary schools on comprehensive lines.

The first major Bill, brought in almost immediately after the Summer Recess and debated on 5th November 1979, included among its aims that of expanding parental choice and of setting up the assisted places scheme. While we are debating a clause of a Bill, the intention of which is to abolish that scheme, it is right to remind Members briefly of the purpose for which that Bill was intended.

The purpose of the Bill was to reduce the damage that had been done by the destruction of the direct grant grammar schools; two-thirds of which had gone into the independent sector. It also sought to ensure that the high quality academic education that those schools had provided—particularly in the industrial inner city areas—to children of ability, irrespective of the means of their parents, should continue to be available to those children whose parents would be unable to pay the bill. In moving that Second Reading, I said, We believe that the education opportunity provided by those and similar schools should be open to children of ability whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees that they charge. It is with that intention that we bring in this part of this Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/79; col. 41.] I say at once to the Committee that I was proud to be able to introduce that Bill as I have been proud to be able to introduce the first of the education Bills. I was and remain proud of the assisted places scheme. I cannot claim to have been the total author of that scheme. I noticed a moment ago my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley move through the Chamber, who could claim more of that privilege than I can. However, I can certainly claim to have been the Minister responsible for introducing it.

Therefore, I find it both ironic and sad that almost the first act of an incoming Labour Government, 18 years later, is to remove that opportunity from those children so that in future those schools will yet again become available only to those fortunate enough to have parents who are able to pay the fees. What is more, though I accept that the intention of the Labour Party to remove the assisted places scheme has been clear from the outset, it is largely contrary to the spirit of what was said in the manifesto. In its manifesto on education the Labour Party said, Labour will never force the abolition of good schools whether in the private or state sector … We wish to build bridges wherever we can across education divides. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system". In introducing the assisted places scheme on 5th November 1979 I said to the other place on this very matter: The scheme is intended not to divide the two areas but to bring them closer together. It is intended not to be contradictory to the State schools but to be complementary to them. It will lead to a greater and better social mix within those schools".—[Col. 43.] I repeat, I find it sad and ironic that the first act carried out by the new Labour Administration effectively is to abolish the one scheme that aimed to reduce that divide in a way in which the Labour Party claimed to believe. They abolish it not only to the damage of the pupils who have benefited from the scheme over recent years, but also to the damage of the schools themselves.

I said that it has been known from the outset that the Labour Party was committed to the abolition of the scheme. I congratulate New Labour in one respect; that is, that it has made one substantial difference to that which was proposed by old Labour, however much the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may regret it. Its original commitment made at the time by Mr. Neil Kinnock in another place was to put an immediate end to the scheme so that all financial assistance should be immediately withdrawn and those children being educated in those schools would have their education disrupted and be required to go elsewhere. At least that degree of callousness does not now appear in the Bill.

Nevertheless, the Bill remains no more than a sop to the left wing of the Labour Party with its inbuilt dislike of any form of independent education. The fact is that 80,000 people have benefited under the assisted places scheme; the fact is that there are now 37,000 people taking part in those schools. One is told by the critics that the scheme has not benefited those that it set out to benefit. I do not accept that. Of those receiving assisted places, 42 per cent. have their fees wholly paid. That means that the income of their family is less than £9,843 a year; 80 per cent. of the families benefiting from the assisted places scheme come from families with less than the national average household income of £18,000. Indeed, the annual average income of all the assisted places families is in the region of £10,500.

I believe particularly that in those areas with which I was concerned—they are ones the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would know well, though she is not at present in the Chamber; Blackburn, Bolton, Stockport, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester—the direct-grant schools which had been abolished by a previous government and saved by the assisted places scheme (as schools they will survive) will no longer be able to give the opportunity to those children because of the effect of what is—I agree with my noble friend Lord Henley—a mean and nasty Bill.

For what purpose is that being done? It cannot be suggested for one moment that it is being done for educational purposes. No one is suggesting that those who are in those schools are not benefiting from education of the highest standard. It is being done to save money. I do not want to become involved—I would not dare—with the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Skidelsky, on the issues of economics. Of course there will be some money saved. But to suggest, as the Labour Party has, that we take the gross cost of the assisted places scheme and propound that as the money that is going to be saved as though there were no counteracting charges, is bogus and dishonest.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, jumps to his feet, I remind him of what his manifesto said on the matter: We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to 30 or under". How is that to be done? By phasing out the assisted places scheme, the cost of which is set to rise to £180 million per year". Anybody reading that would be entitled to think that, first, £180 million was the cost at the time that was written; secondly, that the savings would be the total gross cost of the scheme; and, thirdly, that the savings would be adequate to reduce all class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to under 30.

Lord Peston

Perhaps the noble Lord will give way, if I may interrupt him. I am not criticising him as a Secretary of State; he held that position admirably. I should like to ask him a question, assuming that it does not fall within the Official Secrets Act. When he was Secretary of State and pushing for this scheme, did he go to the Treasury and say, "You must let me have this scheme because it is completely costless. It costs no money whatever because anything I am spending on the scheme is immediately offset by exactly the amount that I will save in other schools". I do not believe that he said that and, if he did, I doubt very much that the Treasury would wear it. That is the only point that I was making earlier.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

I accept that I said totally the reverse. I said, and can probably find it if I look, that it was being provided by additional money provided by the Treasury for that purpose. It was not being done at the cost of other expenditure. Of course there is some saving, but to suggest, as the manifesto does, that the gross cost of the scheme is the same as the savings that will be made is nonsense. The only fair system to follow is to assess the difference between the cost of education per child under the assisted places scheme and the cost of educating the same child in the state system. To suggest that merely because there are 80,000 spare places one can somehow accommodate all the children without any additional expenditure is economic nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle and I agree with that.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I have not given her notice of it and if she says that she cannot answer, I will appreciate that. It occurred to me, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to ask what arrangements have been made for the future financing of Chetham School, Manchester? At the moment the whole of its finance comes through the assisted places scheme. It is a music school of the highest calibre. What is happening to the equivalent school formerly in London, which is also being funded out of the scheme? What provision has been made for them? Do they come before the reduction in the size of the classes of four, five and six year-olds? Or is Chetham School in danger of having its whole future killed off?

There is nothing wrong—indeed I think it admirable—about the Government aiming to reduce the size of classes for five to seven year-olds to under 30. It is an excellent aim and should be encouraged. But surely the Government should have the honesty, like the Liberal Democrat Party, to say that more money should be provided for education rather than to suggest, bogusly, that it can be counteracted by savings under this Bill.

As I said, I believe that this is a nasty, mean clause and that it will reduce educational opportunities. It is particularly unfortunate for those who have been pupils at the great grammar schools of the northern industrial cities of this country. I do not understand—frankly, I never have understood—why members of the Labour Party, many of whom come from that part of the world and who have benefited from the education provided by those schools, should now wish to deny the same opportunity to others, It is hypocritical and wrong.

I agree with Mrs. Shephard, who said in another place: The House today is being asked to agree the destruction of the centuries-old tradition of some of our must illustrious schools to provide for a full cross-section of pupils. It is being asked to agree to the destruction of choice and of the freedom to choose a different route for many thousands of children from less well-off families".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/97; col. 32.] I have looked through the report of last week's debate which I was unable to attend. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I was particularly taken by her speech. I appreciate that although we may have agreed on matters of penal reform in the past, clearly I have been removed from what she described as the vanishing list of enlightened Tories. I could not have agreed less with every word that she said on this subject. I reject wholeheartedly her description of the assisted places scheme as unprincipled. I object to the argument that it merely gave help to the few at the expense of the many. I believe that it gave opportunities to many, which they otherwise would not have had. It gave particular opportunity to those from whom opportunity had been taken away. I believe that the intended abolition of the scheme, which this clause sets out to do, will come to be looked on as a stain on the present Labour Government.

Lord Henley

Perhaps I may briefly intervene. My noble friend quoted from the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. I wish to quote from a more recent document, the Excellence in Schools White Paper, published at the beginning of this week. The noble Baroness will recognise the paragraph at page 72: The best independent schools can offer children extensive facilities in sport, music and the other arts; specialist teaching in subjects such as the less common foreign languages; nationally important provision for certain types of special educational needs; and a variety of patterns of boarding provision. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole educational system". That was a statement of policy made by the Government. Clause 1 removes a duty from the Secretary of State to provide assisted places. Bearing in mind what is said in that paragraph and the evidence we have had of the success of the scheme and what it has done for a number of individual pupils—I shall not return to the research that my noble friend Lady Young mentioned, which came from the LSE and showed how much better children were doing as a result of the assisted places scheme than they might otherwise have done—and bearing in mind that it is just possible that the Government may change their mind, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past on a great many matters despite the fact that they have stuck to this view for 18 years, will they consider, having removed the duty, substituting a power? We shall be discussing later an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in which he seeks some kind of annual review of the scheme and the effects of its abolition.

My skills at drafting are relatively limited, despite what I said earlier about offering advice on deleting part of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I am advised that drafting the appropriate number of amendments to the 1996 Act, which is what one has to do to substitute the duty with a power, would be quite tricky, but no doubt it can be done and it might be borne in mind for later stages of the Bill.

I ask the noble Baroness to address the question as to whether we might consider replacing the duty that we are seeking to abolish in Clause 1 with a power of the Secretary of State to run such a scheme if and when the party opposite changes its mind.

5.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, made a very fine Second Reading speech. Under most circumstances I would take exception to that because the place for such speeches is at Second Reading, but not in the case of the noble Lord. After all, he holds a special position in relation to the Bill because he was the author of the original legislation for the assisted places scheme which we are now proposing to phase out. I believe that the Committee will forgive him for his passionate intervention and the way in which he made it. That is not to say that we agree with his arguments. We certainly do not agree with the very strong words such as "mean" and "hypocritical" which he applied to the Bill and to those who support it. I shall return to his point when I have considered the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill and the issue of what part the clause plays in the construction of the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, recognised, those who support the Bill have always had deep-rooted objections to the principles on which the assisted places scheme was founded. The noble Lord disagrees with that, but that is a matter of fact and we cannot do anything about it. However, whatever the disagreements may be in principle, it is the disagreement about the practice which is now before the Committee. That is what we have to consider. The scheme has not met its objective. It has failed on a number of counts. It has not increased parental choice because it has sent children to schools which practise selection. Nearly one-third of the pupils on the scheme came from the independent sector anyway, so we have to ask whether those pupils need the help that is provided by the scheme. One in five pupils come from families with incomes above the national average. That means that the well off are often being subsidised by those poorer than themselves. As only 46 per cent. of pupils come from working class backgrounds, the scheme hardly represents a ladder of opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, gave figures relating to the proportion of pupils who have their fees fully paid as if they were the poorest families. I must advise the noble Lord that in a significant number of cases they are not the poorest families but are separated parents, particularly mothers whose husbands' income is not taken into account for the purpose of the calculation.

Above all, the costs of the scheme are not justified. The average cost of an assisted secondary school place is £4,100 for the year 1997–98, which is 47 per cent. more than the standard spending assessment for pupils in the state sector. I am but one of many to have expressed concern about the way in which the SSA is calculated, but it is there and it is the best estimate that we have of the cost of education per pupil in the state sector.

Furthermore, the assisted places scheme fails to add value in educational terms. I do not want to return to the question which arose on Second Reading when some noble Lords used the unfortunate phrase "dust heap" to describe the state sector in which pupils would be placed instead of the independent sector. Nevertheless, there is no statistical evidence of value added in terms of results achieved at A-level.

Lord Henley

My noble friend Lady Young cited the evidence produced in the LSE report—I do not know whether the Minister has read it although the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, claims to have done so—which showed clearly that pupils in the assisted places scheme were doing better then they would otherwise.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

There is plenty of evidence in the other direction. I acknowledge straightaway that I have not read the LSE evidence, but there is plenty of other evidence showing not only that such schools do not perform better but, much more importantly, that small class sizes for those aged five, six and seven make a substantial difference to educational out-turn. We should concentrate our minds on that when looking at added value.

Lord Henley

Perhaps I may intervene again. We accept that smaller class sizes are a desirable aim, but the evidence of the advantages of smaller class sizes is the evidence from LSE which shows that smaller class sizes are, indeed, better, but only when there are significant reductions and when the class size falls to below 20 pupils, not when there is mere tinkering around the 30-pupil mark.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That is not the evidence that I have. The 1995 Ofsted report on class size said that small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education. Once pupils have achieved competency in basic learning, particularly in literacy, they are more able to learn effectively in larger classes. That is why we have concentrated on the early years. I would willingly enter into a debate or correspondence with the noble Lord on the effects of the assisted places scheme, but the evidence that I have is that there is no statistical difference in A-level out-turns between pupils in the assisted places scheme and those who remain in state schools.

The noble Lord referred earlier to the LSE research. I am now informed that that does not provide convincing evidence of the success of the scheme. Although wider studies showed an overall benefit of two A-level grades from an assisted place, the main part of the study—the matched pairs analysis—showed that in only one of the three indicators used did the difference in results reach statistical significance.

The previous government spent over £1 billion on the assisted places scheme. We believe that that money could have been better spent on educating young children. The money released by phasing out the assisted places scheme will, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone, said, be sufficient—at £100 million by the year 2000 and a further £100 million a year thereafter.

That will enable us to meet our pledge to reduce class sizes for infant pupils. As my noble friend said, £100 million a year is equivalent to 4,000 teacher hours. Redirecting such resources to the early years of a child's education will reap large benefits in the long term. We believe that the most crucial years are at the ages of five, six and seven. That is where the foundation for future learning is laid.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred to the objectives of the original scheme in 1979 and said that it was triggered by what he described as the "destruction" of direct grant grammar schools which were forced into the independent sector. The noble Lord then quoted a Labour Party document which stated that we will never force the abolition of good schools. That is correct. We will never force the abolition of good schools. Indeed, the noble Lord confirmed that later in his speech when he said that such schools will survive. We can confirm that our evidence is that they will survive because, overall, only 7 per cent. of pupils in the independent sector have an assisted place. Even in participating schools, the average is only 14 per cent. It is therefore most unlikely that any such schools will fall by the wayside.

The noble Lord referred to Chetham School in Manchester. That school is a special case. as the noble Lord will recognise, because it is a specialist music school. There are other specialist music schools, such as the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Purcell School. We recognise that there is a need for specialist provision which is not available in the maintained sector. The scheme that provides that, the music and ballet scheme, will continue and we shall continue to maintain it. I hope that that will set at rest the noble Lord's fears—

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

I asked about Chetham School because I was heavily involved with it at the time with regard to the provisions which the previous government had provided for the Yehudi Menuhin and the Purcell schools but had not provided for Chetham School. At that stage, Chetham School was being financed by means of the assisted places scheme. All places in the school were open to such funding. If the noble Lord is saying that it will now come under another fund, I am glad to hear it, but I am concerned to hear that it has a secure future. I am sure that the noble Lord is similarly concerned.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The specific assurance that I am giving is that the music and ballet scheme will continue. That is the most important assurance that I can give. If there are particular problems relating to Chetham School in Manchester which I do not know about, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord about them.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

I am grateful for that assurance. I asked out of ignorance of the present situation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

On a number of occasions the noble Lord quoted Labour Party statements about partnership and about seeking to reduce the divide between the public and the private sectors in education. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, recognised, the White Paper is particularly concerned with partnership. The White Paper will set in motion consultation with local education authorities and individual schools to see how the partnership can be made effective where it can only be made effective on a local basis. Partnership is not encouraged by a national assisted places scheme but by local education authorities dealing with the independent schools in their areas and seeking to make better overall provision for those pupils.

I believe that fundamentally this is a wrecking amendment. This was a manifesto pledge. To seek to take out Clause 1 of the Bill would destroy that pledge. We gave the electorate five key pledges, of which this was the first to show that this was the top priority. I ask whether it is acceptable to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill when it is such an essential part of the legislation.

Lord Henley

To spare the noble Lord's righteous indignation at this stage, I assure the Committee that I have no intention of pressing this amendment. It was merely a device to raise certain subjects. Perhaps I should have made that clear earlier. I am not in the business of tabling wrecking amendments. I recognised at Second Reading that this was a manifesto commitment. However, that does not prevent us from asking questions relating to our legitimate concerns about the Bill.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I occupied the noble Lord's position on the Opposition Front Bench for nearly 14 years. I took it to be my responsibility not to table amendments that I did not mean simply for the sake of hearing an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Sometimes one tables probing amendments for further information but no one can say that this is a probing amendment. This is an excuse for not examining the Bill closely enough and dealing with issues that deserve to be dealt with.

Lord Henley

If the noble Lord would like the odd little example I could refer him to the previous Education Bill, now an Act, with which I was concerned before the election. I recall that certain amendments were tabled by the party opposite, who were then in opposition, which suggested that certain clauses should not stand part, despite the fact that noble Lords opposite supported those particular clauses. This is a perfectly legitimate device to engage in discussion on certain generalities. I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding his agreement.

5.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that it was wrong to table a clause stand part amendment. That is a perfectly legitimate device, but normally it is tabled to extract information or a commitment from the Government. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Henley, nor the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has done that.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes

As the noble Lord has expressed a desire to be probed, can I ask him about one of the statistics to which he referred relating to the kind of background from which children in assisted places come? He referred to working class backgrounds. Can he inform the Committee how working class backgrounds are defined for the purposes of these statistics?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

It is a very common equivalence between socio-economic groups C2, D and E and working class. It is very commonly used. C2 is regarded as skilled working class. I shall be tempted into making market research explanations before long. I am grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for at last making a probing point.

We have made it clear that Clause 1 is essential to the Bill. I have not been given any questions to answer. I hope that the Committee will agree that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put one other probing point. The noble Lord was an experienced local government man in years gone by. He explained that the money saved on the assisted places scheme would go to local authorities to reduce class sizes. Can the noble Lord inform the Committee how the Government intend to ensure that the money goes to the cause intended? Will it be ring-fenced? If so, does the noble Lord, as a local government man, approve of it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I thought that my noble friend Lady Blackstone had already made that clear both today and in the Statement that she made about the Excellence in Schools White Paper. We do not need primary legislation for some of the purposes, but in so far as we do require primary legislation that will be introduced following the consultation process with schools and local education authorities that is promised in the White Paper.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

That was not what I wanted to know. Is the money that is to be given to local authorities for this purpose to be ring-fenced so that it must be spent on that and not on something else? If so, does he approve of that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That is a perfectly valid question. It is for that reason that there will be consultation. At the end of the consultation we shall reach a decision. If and when legislation is necessary it will be introduced. I understand perfectly well the point that the noble Baroness makes about the ring-fencing of this particular expenditure, but she anticipates the results of consultation which I suggest it is unwise to do.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

There is not to be a White Paper in Scotland. How will consultation take place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

There is no reason why there should not be consultation in Scotland as well as in Wales.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 2:

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—