ASSISTED PLACES AT GRANT-AIDED AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

HC Deb 21 October 1981 vol 10 cc320-4

Lords amendment:

No. 20, in page 28, line 24, leave out "to benefit from" and insert "to attend and receive"

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

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

This amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place and the Government were happy to accept it. It does not, of course, alter the substance of the scheme but it helps to make two important points which we have taken great trouble to make during the Bill's passage and which Labour Members have stubbornly declined to accept. The scheme's detractors have sought to portray it as elitist and only for the academically bright. We have consistently refuted that claim in the House and in another place. That cannot be disputed or distorted, and any reference to our proceedings in Committee will assure the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).

The object of the scheme is primarily to widen parental choice of schools for families with lower incomes.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is about to develop his argument, but this seems an appropriate moment to ask a straight question, as it will avoid my making a separate speech. The Minister has just said that the object is to widen parental choice. That seems to be in conflict with the object as set out by the Minister in England, which is to make provision for the brighter child. How can the Government justify spending money in the independent sector simply to widen the number of schools to which a child can go when the public sector is already starved of funds?

Mr. Fletcher

I refute the claim that the public sector is starved of funds. I certainly have no evidence that educational provision in the public sector in the Highland region, for example, is starved of funds. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support his statement, I hope that he will waste no time in making sure that it gets into my hands.

There has always been a long tradition in Scotland of giving a small amount of Government financial support to the independent sector in a way which allows children from less well-off families to attend certain schools. By using the same sums of money, we have extended the scheme to bring in other schools.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that not in every case are the schools looking for the academically bright children. For example, there are many denominational reasons why a parent whose area has no denominational schools may wish to take advantage of a scheme of this kind. The alterations that we have made to the old grant-aided system now enable parents in Scotland, for whatever reason they think best, to apply to a school for admission of their children.

The schools continue with their existing practices, be they denominational, academic or otherwise. During the past five or 10 years, many schools which previously insisted only on academic ability have broadened the selective process which they use to admit children.

In this part of the Bill we are simply trying to ensure that a low income family is not debarred from having a wider choice. If a family needs it, it will be able to receive direct financial assistance from the taxpayer rather than the system under the old grant aid scheme in Scotland, whereby funds were made available to the schools to use as they wished, either to reduce the general level of fees regardless of family income for some other educational purpose.

Mr. O'Neill

We were surprised to learn of the Government's willingness to accept this Opposition amendment in the other place. First, I should be interested to know whether the Minister proposes to amend the regulations that govern the working of the scheme. Regulation 5 of part II states: The provisions to be met in so far as relevant in the case of a person to whom these regulations shall apply shall be as follows: (d)that he shall, if admitted to an assisted place be, in the opinion of the school, capable of benefiting from the education provided at that school.

I trust, therefore, that the Minister will seek to change the regulations to ensure that the word "benefiting" disappears from them. In the other place, the Opposition wanted to make it clear that there is no assumption that any individual pupil necessarily benefits from being in school. We take the view that most children would not benefit from attending schools that will operate under the assisted places scheme. It was for that reason more than any other that we wanted the word "benefiting" removed.

I note that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has left the Chamber. Had he been here I should have drawn to his attention the Conservative Party's manifesto at the last election, which made it clear that provision would be made to enable bright children from poorer backgrounds—I think that was the expression—to benefit from the private sector of education. The acceptance of this amendment may be a departure from the manifesto.

However, the Minister has started to clarify the matter, because when we pursued him on it on Second Reading and asked him on what basis the youngsters who would enter the schools under this scheme would be selected he was at a loss to make it clear what method would be used. I am not very much clearer even now about how many female Highland Catholics, for example, will benefit from the assisted places scheme.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position on denominational schools. How many places will be available? How many places will be available in the peripheral areas of Scotland where most of these schools will be located? Have there been any requests from local authorities to make places available at denominational schools under the assisted places scheme? His argument, which I find novel, was never advanced in Committee and I should like some further information.

I appreciate what the Government are trying to do in changing from direct grant schools to the new assisted places scheme. Rather than one group, they seek to subsidise another. Instead of all students at direct grant schools being subsidised, a group of students will now be subsidised under the assisted places scheme, but the assumption is that they will no longer necessarily benefit from the subsidy.

4.45 pm

We are not unhappy about the amendment being accepted, but perhaps we are at variance with the Minister on some of the reasons that he put forward. The fact still remains that if a school has to make a choice between one young person and another, at the end of the day, if there is a tremendous demand for the scheme, the simplest and easiest way to select a child will be on the basis of academic ability. As yet, we do not know how many young people will be successful in applying for a place under the scheme.

We have been told that a certain proportion of young people will come from less well-off homes, but as yet there has been no undertaking by the Government to provide statistics of the profile of the take-up that would enable us to see the income distribution of those families. As far as we can ascertain, it can be about £10,000 a year for a family with one child. What reason can the Minister give for retaining the word "benefiting" in the regulations? If he does not change them, the acceptance of this amendment will be a hollow act by the Government.

Mr. Fletcher

I am happy to advise the hon. Gentleman that we shall change the regulations. Unlike the Labour Party, we are happy to listen to all views and to change our opinion from time to time in the light of discussions. The hostility of the Labour Party to the assisted places scheme shows a completely closed mind. I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment—I think that he also made it in Committee—that in his view, and presumably in his party's view, children will not benefit from independent schools that are part of the assisted places scheme.

With respect, it is not for the hon. Gentleman or any other member of his party to decide whether children will benefit, despite the recent Opposition pamphlet in which I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was involved, which suggests that politicians know best. The whole point of choice and the whole message of the Bill—not just the assisted places scheme, but the sections on parental choice—is that the Government believe that it is for parents to choose and to decide what education—whether in the public or private sector—is right for their children. I would put my trust in the decisions of parents on this matter any day before I would put my trust in the decisions of Opposition Members.

Our scheme gives a much wider geographical spread of denominational schools. In particular, it includes denominational schools in rural areas that were not previously able to take advantage of the scheme, and I am sure that that will meet the requirements of many families who were previously debarred from the scheme. I freely admit that the old grant-aided schools were concentrated not only in the central belt of Scotland, but especially in Edinburgh—my area. I wish to use every means at our disposal to ensure that these benefits are spread more evenly throughout Scotland. That is why we have introduced more schools into the scheme than those covered by the old system.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Conservative Party manifesto commitment. We are ignoring the blindness of the Opposition and their arguments and improving the way in which we implement our manifesto where we believe that that will bring greater benefit.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

What I actually said concerned politicians having to take decisions on education. The Minister's remarks were surprising, especially on this part of the Bill. It is one part of the Bill on which politicians have clearly taken decisions against the advice of practically every educational organisation in Scotland, with the exception of the independent and fee-paying schools. Every public sector education authority—95 per cent. of the total—has condemned the scheme. Yet the politicians have gone ahead.

In reply to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) the Minister said that parents might wish to make a choice for denominational reasons. He talked of the peripheral areas. One assumes that he meant Roman Catholic schools. He made a clear point in support of his case. How many Roman Catholic independent boarding schools are there in Scotland? How many students can they take? How many are they prepared to take on the assisted places scheme? I am aware of only one such school, which is comparatively small. The Minister's argument is bogus.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the Minister that these are Lords amendments and that he needs the leave of the House to speak for a third time.

Mr. Fletcher

With the leave of the House. I tell the hon. Member for Cathcart that I do not have at my fingertips the number of Roman Catholic boarding schools in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton

The Minister should have.

Mr. Fletcher

However, just under 10 per cent. of the places given in the first year of the scheme have been in Roman Catholic schools in Scotland. Since the assisted places scheme was introduced earlier this year, 776 places have been granted, 69 of which are in Roman Catholic schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:

No. 21, in page 29, line 41, at end insert— ( ) the information which participating schools, on a written request from a parent of a pupil who is eligible for an assisted place, shall supply to that parent;".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

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

This amendment was made for the removal of doubt and to allay the fears of Opposition Members in another place over the Government's intention with regard to the provision of information by schools participating in the assisted places scheme. The Bill contains a general power enabling regulations to be made about such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite for the purposes of the scheme.

However, to confirm that there is to be no difference of treatment between the private and public sectors of education in this respect a specific requirement, as already exists in clause 1 of the Bill, new section 28B(1), for education authority schools, has been inserted to make the obligations of schools participating in the assisted places scheme clearer.

Mr. O'Neill

It would have saved a great deal of time had the Minister acceded to our request in Committee. That remark also applies to other points that the other place has seen fit to accept.

Although we are unhappy about the assisted places scheme, we feel that schools within the scheme and in the local authority sector should be accountable.

Question put and agreed to.