Education (Assisted Places)

HC Deb 24 January 1984 vol 52 cc871-91 10.25 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn)

I beg to move, That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

I think it fair to say now that the assisted places scheme has come of age. Some four years ago, when the Act which set it up — the Education Act 1980 — was under consideration in this House, it attracted a deal of opposition. The scheme was untried and untested. Some critics argued, no doubt in good faith, that it would be nothing more than a subsidy to the rich. Others of a more negative turn of mind simply squirmed at the idea of so significant an extension of parental choice of school.

Events since then have roundly vindicated our faith in the scheme. The figures prove that it is no subsidy to the rich. On the contrary, the great majority benefiting come from below average income households. I do not know if many of the remaining critics of the scheme have troubled, as I have done, actually to meet some of the children involved and their parents. It is quite clear from talking to them that the scheme has opened up for them what would otherwise have been undreamed-of opportunities. Their enthusiastic endorsement of the scheme is as good evidence as any that it is working, and working well.

There are now more than 13.000 children on assisted places at more than 200 of the best independent schools in the country. That represents not far short of 15 per cent. of the total intake to independent schools of the relevant age groups. It represents more like a third of the total intake at the schools actually in the scheme. The House must remember that these are among the very best of the independent schools in the country. Many of them are famous names. All of them meet the extremely exacting academic standards we require for participation.

I ask the House to ponder these figures. A full 40 per cent. of the children now in the scheme come from families whose gross combined income is less than £6,000. Nearly three quarters come from families with incomes below the national household average. The scale for determining the amount of fee remission is intentionally a stiff one, and only those with incomes below about £5,600 a year qualify in the current year for entirely free places. Anyone whose family's gross combined income is above about £14,000 will get little, if any, assistance. With that evidence, I should be ready to take on anyone who would still describe the assisted places scheme as a subsidy to the rich.

Neither is it a means of sustaining those, albeit of lower income, who would somehow have had their children at independent schools anyway. The regulations governing the scheme enjoin schools to ensure that at any time at least 60 per cent. of their aided pupils attended maintained schools immediately before moving to the independent school. A small number of schools have, for one reason or another, found that difficult to achieve, and in those cases we have reduced their intake quotas to a level at which they can meet the objectives of the scheme. The great majority of schools, however, have no difficulty at all in finding the entrants they want from the maintained sector, and we have indeed been able to give increased quotas to some of the most successful recruiters.

An area of difficulty when the scheme first got off the ground was sixth-form recruitment. There are about 1,000 assisted places available annually to sixth-form entrants. As hon. Members will recall, under the original regulations a pupil could not transfer to an assisted sixth-form place from a maintained school unless he had the consent of the local education authority in which he lived. This provision was incorporated in answer to the fears expressed by the local authority associations that substantial poaching from maintained schools at this stage could, in some instances, jeopardise maintained sixth-form provision. A further safeguard was, however, provided by our refusal in practice to give any school a quota of more than five assisted places per sixth-form intake. This, the House will be pleased to know, on its own proved, in fact, to be all that was necessary. Last year, therefore, the House approved amending regulations that removed the local education authorities' formal power of veto.

Although not many LEAs had in fact used the veto, the few that did gave sixth-form transfers something of a bad name. As a consequence, sixth-form recruitment in the first two years of the scheme was relatively low. By last September, however, with the veto removed, sixth-form recruitment was well up, and closing in on recruitment at 11 to 13. I am delighted to see that, left to itself, the assisted places scheme can be shown to offer as much to sixth formers as to younger pupils.

Let me reassure the House also that this has not taken place to any significant disadvantage of maintained sixth forms. Returns from assisted places schools show that very few of them recruited more than one pupil from any given maintained school. I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the impact on maintained sixth forms is negligible.

All the factors I have been describing — the consistently low income profiles of the families benefiting, the successful recruitment of pupils who had probably never seen the inside of an independent school before, the redistribution of quotas away from poor recruiters to successful ones, the rapid improvement in arrangements at sixth-form level—underline what I was saying at the beginning, that the assisted places scheme has come of age. It is familiar to people from all walks of life. Indeed, it is very popular with the majority of the population and with hon. Members on both sides of the House. It reflects no small credit on those who set it up that it is already working so smoothly.

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

Name one.

Mr. Dunn

I meant to say "on this side of the House." Being a man of great generosity, I am delighted always to accede to the wishes of Members on the Opposition Benches.

This has been a fitting stage, therefore, at which to review, in the light of experience, the detailed procedures laid down in the regulations for running the scheme. Very little, in fact, has appeared to want changing. The amended regulations before us are designed mainly to iron out some minor wrinkles in the original arrangements, though, as in the past, provision is also made for the revaluation of the parental income scale.

I shall describe each of the amendments in turn and, if there are detailed queries that hon. Members wish to raise during the course of the debate, I shall be happy to attempt to answer them at the end.

Regulations 1 and 2 are entirely technical and I shall not trouble the House with comment on them. Regulation 3 is intended to make the administration of the scheme less burdensome for schools. As the House knows, the Secretary of State has a reserve power to disallow fee increases at any of the schools in the scheme if he considers what is proposed to be unreasonable. To this end, the present regulations require schools to give two months' notice of any intended fee increases, and the Secretary of State then has a month in which he must give directions to a school if he has doubts about the proposal. Given the timetabling of governors' meetings and other matters, the requirements of this timetable is often very hard for schools to meet.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Will the Minister permit me to intervene?

Mr. Dunn

No.

In the light of experience, in the very occasional use of this power we see no problems in shortening this timetable. Regulations 3 therefore reduces the period of notice to one month and the period in which the Secretary of State must issue any directions is reduced from a month to a week.

Regulation 4 is put forward in response to a number of hard cases that have been brought to our attention. For the current assessment of fee remission, the income of both parents is taken into account, unless the parents are divorced or separated, or one of them cannot be traced, or something of the sort. Under the existing regulations, it is not enough for this purpose for parents to be separated by simple deed; there must be a formal court order. This contrasts with Inland Revenue practice where separation under a deed is sufficient for income tax purposes. Regulations 4 will therefore bring us more closely into line with Inland Revenue practice and extend relief to a number of children from broken homes who hitherto could not benefit for the simple absence of a formal court order.

Mr. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Dunn

Turning to Regulation 5, under the existing regulations the circumstances are closely prescribed in which a child may take up an assisted place at other than at one of the school's normal ages of entry; 11, 12 or 13 and 16-plus. This has prevented from benefiting a number of children who to all intents and purposes would be regarded as very deserving cases. Regulation 5 relaxes this and will allow a child to take up a place at any age over 11 provided that he will be in a class with other assisted pupils. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) may now intervene.

Mr. Bennett

On how many occasions under the regulations has the Secretary of State used his power to refuse the increase sought?

Mr. Dunn

I do not have the answer to that at hand. The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question which I will answer when I reply to the debate.

Regulation 6 provides for the updating of the income scale used for assessing the amount of parents' contributions towards the fees in line with increases in earnings. The threshold below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised to £6,046 gross. Families with average incomes will be liable to pay just under £500 towards fees in 1984–85, but the three quarters or so coming forward who have lower incomes than the average will pay less, and often much less.

Regulation 7 is proposed purely for purposes of clarification. Many hon. Members present will recall that last year we amended the regulations to provide that a teacher barred from teaching in a maintained school would be automatically barred from teaching in an APS school. Regulation 7 simply makes clear, for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that this applies only to those who have been barred on grounds of misconduct. It does not apply to any teachers who are disqualified for any other reason.

Finally, regulation 8 makes three changes of a more or less technical nature to the rules for assessing income. Regulation 8(1) simply updates the reference to relevant income tax legislation in the principal regulations. Regulation 8(2) deletes one provision and substitutes a rather different one it its place, both in the interests of greater equity. Under the existing regulations, redundancy payments must normally be counted towards the assessment of income. The deletion proposed would bring the regulations into line with current Inland Revenue practice, under which the first £25,000 of any redundancy payments is excluded from the computation of income. The replacement provision proposed in regulation 8(2) provides for adoption allowances, which previously had to be counted towards gross income, also to be excluded from the calculation of income.

I am confident that the changes that I have described tonight will have the backing of the schools in the scheme and — more important — that of the parents and the children themselves. The new regulations will make for smoother and fairer administration under the handful of headings where there was a need for improvement. They will only enhance what is already now a thoroughly succesful scheme.

10.41 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

The Minister claimed that the scheme is popular. None of my constituents has come to comment on the scheme. I suspect that the vast majority of people are not aware of it and do not accord it any popularity. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many of his constituents have benefited from the scheme and how many have come to him to praise it. I suspect that there are very few.

Mr. Dunn

I am pleased to be able to give an answer to the earlier point that the hon. Gentleman raised. A number of queries have been raised on the same point, and the answer is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has forbidden one fee increase.

Mr. Bennett

I thank the Minister for that information, and perhaps in due course he can find out whether any of his constituents have benefited from the scheme.

I do not want to complain that the Secretary of State is not here. I am sure that that is not through any lack of interest in the scheme. It is perhaps that he wants symbolically to distance himself from it.

Mr. Dunn

Rubbish.

Mr. Bennett

It was noticeable that the Secretary of State received a good notice at Sheffield, not for what he said, but because he managed to omit references to the assisted places scheme, student loans, vouchers, selective schools and all the other mumbo-jumbo that we have heard so often from the Conservative Benches. He went back to the safe topic of education standards, which have, on the whole, united educationists since we first debated the subject in the House in 1868, when people were arguing for state education for all children. It is interesting that it was the Secretary of State's efforts to talk about rising standards that got him the enthusiasm of the educationists rather than his earlier ideas about assisted places and vouchers.

On Friday the Secretary of State went even further in the education debate in the House. He ventured the view that if educationists and the Opposition could show that to raise standards he has to raise a little more money, he might go back to the Cabinet and ask for extra resources to improve education standards. I thought that we were making some progress, but it appears that we have slipped back tonight and that the Conservative party has not changed its attitudes. It wants to confer privilege on a small number of students and privilege and status on a small group of institutions, and it does not care about the basic state system and the vast majority of children. It always wants to go for a selective group.

The Minister claimed that the selected group were people on relatively low incomes. Our complaint does not concern whether they are on low or high incomes; it is that the Conservative party is concerned with conferring privilege on a particular group of people, rather than with giving all children a decent education.

That is what is wrong with these regulations, and with the enthusiasm of Conservative Members. They believe in giving privilege to a few people. Why do they not believe in giving a decent education to everybody and removing the necessity for schemes of this nature?

Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

It is called choice.

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman talks about choice. Let us give everyone the choice of having a better education. Conservative Members say, "Let us select a small group and give those people privilege — not everybody." So it is not a question of choice. Not every person can apply for the scheme. A test is involved, and the scheme is there only for a privileged group. It does not matter how one chooses the privileged group. Only some people are allowed to benefit from the scheme, such as it is.

I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. In an intervention I asked him about the number of times on which he had objected to schools putting up their fees. Can he tell us what the average increase in fees has been in these selected schools, and how that compares with the average increase in resources available for state schools during the period? Logically, one would think that an increase in fees should be no more than the increase in resources or the cut in resources in many of our state schools. Can the Minister tell us how many were refused? He said in his intervention that there had been one. I am pleased to hear that there has been one, but I wonder how big an increase that school applied for? When he gets information from schools, is there an analysis of what the increase is for — staff, or books, or whatever? Again, how does that compare with the salary scales that can be paid in the state schools, and how far does it compare with the amount that is available for books?

There is great resentment in many state schools because the Secretary of State and others continually complain that they do not achieve standards, although they have To stick to the Burnham rates of pay. Many of the schools in this scheme can pay over the odds to attract teachers who, in effect, work longer hours. I wonder how far the Minister has looked at the fees claimed to see whether—

Mr. Dunn

The hon. Gentleman talks about schools in the independent sector paying over the odds. Would he care to give evidence of schools that have done that?

Mr. Bennett

I could give the Minister examples of independent schools, but I shall not quote them off the cuff. However, I shall write to him giving individual instances of schools which I understand pay over the odds.

However, I was asking the Minister to give the House some information. I asked him to give us instances where he has checked the fees in independent schools to see whether what I say about them paying over the odds is true. I shall send him one or two instances where I claim that rates of pay have been over the Burnham rates.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that very little research is needed to establish that some pupils on assisted places require less to be paid in fees to the institution concerned than children at maintained schools?

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman suggests that one reason is that many of these schools have school hours and terms which are very different from those in the state system. They have never stuck to the Burnham rates. They claim that they make extra payments for all sorts of reasons. I claim that, in assessing the fees, it is important for the Minister to take into account the salaries that have been paid in the schools, and why. That is another example of the way in which the scheme confers privilege on a small group rather than offers benefit to the whole of the state system.

Mr. Greenway

What I am saying is that it costs less per pupil in some schools under the assisted places scheme than it does in some maintained schools.

Mr. Bennett

Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account all the figures? One must consider the problem for the local authority, which still has a duty to provide the school buildings and so on. The staff for a place at each school have to be covered, in addition to the Government paying the money for the assisted place, so there is a double cost to take into account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish. Hon. Members have not considered the facts. Once a school has been built, capital charges have to be paid whether or not the school is used. The local authority could not get rid of the capital charges even if it wanted to. Heating, caretaking and other things have to be provided whether there are 30 children or 31. If one child is taken out of the school and given an assisted place, the local authority does not get rid of the cost. It still has the cost of providing that place.

Can the Minister tell us whether the increases in the means-test scales are in line with inflation? When he talked about the way in which the scheme was being brought into line with income tax, he also claimed that it was supposed to benefit the least well off. May I explain to him that the least well off in our society are involved not with income tax but with supplementary benefit. Instead of taking the disregards limits for supplementary benefit, which is about £3,000, he is putting in a figure of £25,000. That involves a different set of figures. If the Minister is so concerned about the scheme helping the very poor, I am puzzled about why he links it to income tax, which tends to be for people on higher incomes, rather than to the supplementary benefit scheme, which is for those on the lowest incomes.

Mr. Dunn

We are trying to line up the practice within the scheme with Inland Revenue practice. We have brought the two together. In another context the hon. Gentleman would no doubt complain bitterly if we left them as they are.

Mr. Bennett

The point is simple. The Minister claimed that the whole scheme was to be for the least well off. If he wants to link it to the least well off, he should remember that they have to deal with the disregards for supplementary benefit rather than for income tax. I should have thought that it would be a good idea to increase the disregards limit for supplementary benefit, but of course that would cost money, and the Government are too keen to spend it on things like this scheme instead of helping people who are on really low incomes.

Mr. Dunn

rose—

Mr. Bennett

No. The Minister was reluctant to give way when I wanted to intervene during his speech. I think that I ought to make more progress.

The Minister claimed that the scheme helps families where the parents have split up. I accept that, although I wonder whether he has not built into the scheme a disincentive for those who have separated to come together again. In the regulations there is a considerable financial disincentive for people to patch up disagreements.

How much extra will the regulations cost the Exchequer, and what will be the total expenditure? What will be the effect on state schools? If three children each year end up going to a school that is involved in the assisted places scheme and they are within the catchment area of a substantial comprehensive school, we are talking about 20 to 22 pupils over six or seven years. That means that the school will lose its entitlement to a teacher, and in many instances a school in that position will see its curriculum reduced as a result of the loss of a teacher. I hope that the Minister will confirm that by implementing the assisted places scheme he is denying schools some of their most able pupils, some teachers and the resources which they might otherwise have. That means that their curriculum will become restricted. The Minister is compounding the problem of falling rolls by taking away teachers and reducing the width of the curriculum.

The money that we are talking about is money that is desperately needed for most state schools for their buildings. It is money that is needed also to improve reading schemes. The Secretary of State talks about the need to improve education standards. I have visited many schools recently—I do not know how often the Minister visits schools — which would very much like to introduce new reading schemes in the primary sector. We find that the £500 or £600 that is required for a new reading scheme is almost impossible to find within the allowance that is made for equipment. It is amazing that the Government can find money for the assisted places scheme but not to ensure that buildings in the maintained sector are adequate. They cannot find money for new reading schemes in primary schools and they have cut the provision of remedial teachers in primary schools. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

The Minister talked about removing the veto on recruitment into sixth forms.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Did my hon. Friend hear Conservative Members say that it is rubbish to say that remedial teachers have been removed from primary schools? Is he aware that that has happened in my consitituency in Silvertown, in London's dockland, and that it is not rubbish?

Mr. Bennett

I am aware that remedial teachers have disappeard from many primary schools, and that is one of the results of the assisted places scheme and the Government's allocation of money. If the Government had managed to put sufficient money into education to avoid the loss of remedial teachers, for example, it might have been possible to talk about assisted places. But if the Government have only a limited amount of money and they place priority on assisted places and not on remedial teachers, they cannot expect the Opposition to support their policy. The argument is not confined to remedial teachers, for it embraces all the extra provision that is needed within the state system.

The Minister said that the Government have taken away the veto which stopped recruitment into sixth forms. Is he not worried that there will be creaming off by the sixth forms? The Minister claims that the problem did not arise and that the Government think it right to remove the veto. I understand that one or two local authorities have put forward proposals for reorganising their comprehensive schools with a view to establishing sixth-form colleges. Schools which have been operating assisted places schemes in those authorities have lobbied hard against sixth-form colleges because they fear that if a state sixth-form college is established in the locality it will attract pupils away from the direct grant schools or the independent schools. I suspect that a veto has been exercised by one or two of the schools, which have said to the Secretary of State, "If you introduce sixth-form colleges in our area, or allow the local authority to do so, you will damage us as an independent school." I suspect that there is considerable evidence that that has happened.

How many people have been opting out of the scheme? When we pressed this question in Committee, the Government did not give much information about how much assistance—

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bennett

Not at the moment—they were given to help people. The Government helped with fees, but the trouble with many state and independent schools is that they require parents to pay for a large number of extras. For people on low incomes the extras demanded by schools cause many problems. Will the Minister assure us that those who have been encouraged and inveigled by the Government into participating in these schemes have not run into financial difficulty because of the extras demanded by schools?

The Government are about to announce their technical and vocational education initiative. Are any of the independent schools involved? When the Government were putting forward their scheme for technical and vocational education, they claimed that it was to go across the whole sector of education, but presumably they do not intend that to happen in independent schools.

I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he address himself to a serious problem. Before standards in education can be raised, he must lift the morale of all teachers. Unfortunately, this scheme does not do that, but makes most teachers feel that they are being unfairly treated and discriminated against. We want a clear commitment from the Under-Secretary that he is determined to lift the morale of all teachers and to ensure that there are adequate resources so that all teachers can do a good job for all our children. He should not concentrate all his efforts on this scheme, which is designed to offer a little privilege to a small group of children and to distract the country from the problem of raising standards for all our children. I hope that my hon. Friends will oppose the motion.

11.2 pm

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)

It is always interesting to be involved in a debate on education, because everyone seems to know something about it. In one way or another, we have all experienced it and been through the system. We all have memories of our school days—good and bad—and both sides of the House have their philosophical convictions about education.

Education is vital in the modern world which is subject to constant change. For society, a well-educated and adaptable work force is one of the keys to a sound and prosperous economy. An end to stereotypes — I am afraid that this evening we have heard some—must be the aim in obtaining the best possible education for all our children in the national interest.

A good education is paramount for the individual pupil and his or her parents, and there is undoubtedly a demand for the child to be able to develop his or her individual talents to the full, to enjoy a good basic education and to study a wide curriculum. Only through those factors can the child be equipped to maximise his or her opportunities in the wider world when school is left. The education provided must be relevant to the child's abilities and to the needs of the individual within the modern world. It should encourage also the development of the child's creative and imaginative talents.

I am sure that, in all sincerity, all hon. Members are looking for the best education for all children.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Nonsense.

Mr. Evennett

Conservative Members certainly are.

The amendment does not radically alter any educational provision or any of the Government's objectives. It is merely a legal tidying-up operation with an inclusion to amend the financial limits in line with inflation, as required by the original legislation.

I understand that the Government remain totally committed to the principle of the assisted places scheme and I am sure that all Conservative Members agree that that is right. It is not only right for the children concerned, but it is in line with the Government's philosophy of a good basic education for all our children with an attempt to develop academic excellence in those with special ability. The aim remains that of advancement on the basis of merit.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, there is no overall expansion of the scheme. The criteria for obtaining assisted places — low family income and the ability to cope with a highly academic curriculum — remain unchanged. Labour Members oppose not only the technical change being made but the principle behind the scheme. Some 13,000 children of considerable academic talent and potential are already benefiting from the scheme, children who will no doubt go on to make a valuable contribution to the life of the nation but whose parents' financial circumstances would not otherwise have allowed them to obtain that kind of education.

My hon. Friend the Minister dealt conclusively with the subject of the increased cost to the nation. The increase in cost will be negligible, if indeed there is any increase because the child would otherwise be in a state school. If the parents could afford to pay for a place at an independent school the child would not qualify under the scheme. As we have heard, 40 per cent. of the children benefiting from the scheme come from families with incomes below £6,000 per year.

The Opposition constantly — and rightly — urge the Government to do more for families with low incomes and talented children. Those are the very people who qualify under the scheme, but the Opposition are still complaining. The Government wish not only to help those people but to ensure that the qualification levels are updated in line with inflation.

This debate is especially relevant on a day on which many London schools have been subject to disruption due to politically motivated action by those who wish to flout the will of the people of this country — [Interruption.] The Opposition do not like the truth even when the facts are staring them in the face. Today many children's education has been halted for a day.

Our aim is an improvement in the opportunities for all children. We wish to increase education provision so that an ever-increasing number of children are offered the very best. We do not wish to reduce that opportunity or to downgrade the talent of our young people. The issue before us today is not the principle of the assisted places scheme but a technical change in it. To object to the main policy is regrettable but to object to the amendment before us is just downright mean.

11.5 pm

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

I have nothing against the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1984. I join the Minister n not objecting to regulations 1 and 2 in part I. The Minister did not unerstand them, and I do not understand them. They are procedural. Regulation 3 seems to be all right to me, although if, on reflection, the Minister decided to cut two months to one month and one month to one week, one wonders why he did not reflect when he introduced the regulations.

I am not troubled by regulation 4, which refers to people who are divorced or separated — that sort of thing. It seems to be all right. I have no objection to regulation 5. Regulation 6 is a simple financial regulation. Regulation 7 is familiar, although astonishing. If a teacher commits a misdemeanour he is disqualified, but if he is simply incompetent, deaf or illiterate, he may go on working. I have no objection to regulation 8. I welcome the fact that those who adopt children will now benefit.

The trouble is that the Act was wrong, the regulations are wrong and the whole concept of assisted places is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not further widen the debate. The concept embodied in the primary legislation is not at issue. We are discussing amendments to the regulations.

Mr. Freud

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to contract my widening criticism.

I have no objection to the regulations. What I mind is the furtherance of a rotten scheme. I have spoken about it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was my party's education spokesman, has spoken about it. I will not rehearse the arguments, because they are on the record. I simply wish to say that, if the regulations are approved, they will be approved as part and parcel of a totally objectionable concept.

11.7 pm

Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

We have heard an untypically imaginative speech from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It may be that he had to use his imagination in order to dredge up any arguments against these excellent regulations. The only part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which I could applaud was his reference to the recent speech of the Secretary of State. He was right to commend that speech and in time it will be recognised as a clear beacon. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman's unqualified support for what my right hon. Friend said.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if, on this occasion, I am a little critical of the regulations before the House. I find them a disappointment, because there seems to be no proposal to enlarge or increase the scope of the assisted places scheme. I am confident that thousands of parents will be equally disappointed. When first introduced, the scheme was modest and self-effacing. Sadly, it has not progressed. It has not yet grown to the full stature envisaged by the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) when he introduced it in the Education Act 1980.

The assisted places scheme has proved popular with parents, contrary to the forecasts made by Opposition Members when they sought to reject the original Bill.

The scheme certainly extends choice, but only about 13,000 children are able to accept places. The choice is limited. That is one reason why I find the present regulations disappointing. I am anxious to see the parents' power to choose extended. We have not gone far enough. About 40,000 children apply to the 200 or so schools in the scheme, but only one third of that number are actually placed. The House will recall that only two qualifications are necessary for entry to the scheme. The first is the ability to pass the entrance examination.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must remind the hon. Member of the point I made to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire North-East (Mr. Freud), that the House should be discussing the content of the document that is before us and not the general principles of the scheme.

Mr. Pawsey

Of course, I note your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to confine my remarks to answering some of the points made by the Opposition spokesman. I felt that one or two of his remarks should be challenged. I was seeking to do so with your guidance.

I wonder whether I might correct a general misapprehension. The scheme should not be confused with the old direct grant system. This scheme provides help to parents and families and not to schools. That is the fundamental difference between the assisted places scheme and the direct grant scheme.

Uninformed critics—we have perhaps heard some of them speaking from the Opposition Benches — sometimes argue that this measure is expensive. That is not the case. There is little significant difference in the cost of places at an independent school and a state school. The child must be educated at a cost. If the costs are the same, why should not parents have a choice? Why should they not be able to decide at which school their children should be educated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Member to which regulation he is addressing his remarks. I find it difficult to relate his speech to the document that I have before me. I hope that he will stick closer to the matter before the House.

Mr. Pawsey

I was thinking of regulation 3, which refers to increases in fees. I was suggesting that although there had been an increase in fees, the cost of the state and private sectors was much the same. That was the point that I was seeking to make.

The scheme, in the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, provides "a ladder of opportunity", a ladder of opportunity which does not disadvantage anyone. It provides stimulus and a clear measure of competition. The 200 schools participating in the scheme are all of proven worth and highly academic. That should reassure Opposition Members who in Committee expressed anxiety about the quality and standards of schools that were likely to be in the scheme. They should be reassured, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening speech, that the schools are all of proven worth.

No subsidy is being given to the schools or even to the children since the cost of educating children is the same in whichever system they are educated.

One of the interesting points is that about 70 per cent. of the children attending schools in the scheme come from families with below average incomes. I am delighted that families are taking advantage of the assisted places scheme to give their children a good and different start in life.

I hope that when we next debate this measure my hon. Friend will be able to announce an extension of what has become a worthwhile scheme. Let it grow from the modest beginnings that it has so far enjoyed into something more ambitious. Let it develop and build more bridges between the private and state sectors. Let it assist more of our children to have a choice and achieve an excellent education.

11.19 pm

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I have taught some difficult classes in my time, but never one so clearly backward that resists the truth so determinedly.

When I hear that the regulations, which are referred to now and again to keep within the remit of the debate, are in the best interests of education for all, the imagination boggles. We all know that the Conservative party wants the regulations to use public money, which is scarce for the education of millions of children, in private education for a group of people who are filling the places in the private schools that would be empty if it were not for the public money that is being drained from us by such regulations. It is taxpayers' money. The regulations should be called the Education (Assisted Places) Emergency Provisions. As soon as we get back into office, which we shall, we shall scrap them and the assisted places scheme because it is anti-educational and against the interests of most of our children. The aim of the regulations is, as a result of inflation, to update the moneys that are going into the private sector. That is different from the clawback from the pensioners, which the Conservative party engaged in some time ago.

According to a parliamentary answer on 25 October 1983, 13,000 children are taking part in the scheme. When it is fully operational, it will cost £55 million. That is not chickenfeed. We had a major debate on education a few weeks ago and discussed the sum of less than £40 million. In time, the scheme will cover almost one quarter of all the children in the private sector. It is as big as that.

We maintain that the regulations are a farce as they will take money away from children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, remedial teachers of reading are now being dispensed with all over the country, as a result of the regulations, for example in the school where I live. Many things of that nature are occurring in the education system, so much so that in order to fulfil the regulations head teachers are taking the place of remedial teachers to try to teach the children how to read, while there is luxury teaching in the schools that we are talking about.

Therefore, the regulations are an abuse of the state system. They are elitist. They say that children do not get a good education in the public sector. They convey the impression that in the state sector education is no good and that the thing to do is to get into the private sector—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has heard me remind the House several times that hon. Members must address themselves to the regulations. I hope that he will bring his speech closer to the content of the regulations.

Mr. Flannery

I have spoken in previous debates on the matter. We must refer to the cause of the regulations. If I have to cease to do that, my speech will be a waste of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Purely because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are interpreting the debate so narrowly, it is a waste of time trying to address the fundamental problem that we are confronting. The cheers from Conservative Benches prove that the debate is far too narrow if that is all that we shall do.

11.24 pm

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

I must declare an interest as a parliamentary adviser to the independent schools. In that role I must say that I welcome the regulations as far as they go, but I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that it would be nice if the Government announced another extension of the assisted places scheme. We know from opinion polls that 60 per cent. of the public support the scheme. Perhaps Opposition Members should remember that.

I should like to draw attention to a funny fact about the Opposition. It was interesting to hear the social engineer-in-chief, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), open the case for the Opposition. Arrayed around him we have the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who is an old boy of Winchester, and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) who is an old boy of St. Paul's school and Dartington hall. We also have the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is an old Etonian, no less. No doubt we shall soon hear his views of the subject. Moreover, we just heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) who managed to become a schoolmaster and a Member of Parliament by being educated at a grammar school, as he has told us before. That list illustrates the hypocrisy of Opposition Members attacking regulations which help extremely bright children who might come from deprived homes onto the ladder by which they can achieve what Opposition Members have achieved.

I am glad that the regulations extend the threshold. The scheme goes from strength to strength. It has grown from 4,000 to 13,000 pupils. It grows by about 5,000 pupils a year. If the Opposition talked of such growth in other areas they would be cheering. However, they are complaining that 5,000 more pupils are being given a chance in life by the scheme which the regulations extend. No less than 40 per cent. of the parents of children who go into the scheme earn less than £6,000 a year. Conservative Members rightly applaud that. We also welcome Westminster school to the scheme. It is one of the finest schools in the country. Its governors and, I trust, its headmaster have decided that it is right for it to join the scheme.

I draw the attention of Opposition Members to the joy on the faces of parents and children who have profited from the scheme who recently came to London to meet my hon. Friend the Minister. More children will profit by an extension of the regulations. I know of a Birkenhead bus driver and his daughter, a Bradford teacher, who welcomed the scheme and suggested that the Government should go further, an unemployed man from Manchester who has one child on the assisted places scheme with another to follow, a teacher from London, a caretaker from Newcastle—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Tracey

I shall not give way—and a man and wife from Sheffield with two children on the assisted places scheme who asked me, when I was privileged to talk to them, to pass on a challenge to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) to visit them, and they would take great pleasure in extending his education.

11.30 pm

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

It is extremely interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Hon. Members will appreciate the quality of advice that the Independent Schools Association is receiving, and they can judge for themselves the desperate straits that the schools must be in if they need that quality of advice and feel that they can profit from the educational experience and skill of the hon. Member for Surbiton.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and I have taught on wet Wednesday afternoons more unruly classes than the one now before us that have benefited from what we said. I trust that Conservative Members will also benefit from what we have to say.

Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 widen the scope of the provisions, which I and my hon. Friends regret. We would prefer the regulations to be diminished to zero, because they are an attempt to catch more children. I consider the regulations to be selective rather than comprehensive. Once we go down the road of selection, we are assessing criteria and trying to decide which children should qualify for one or other forms of education. We are dealing not with standards, but with prejudice in assessing the criteria to be used. The Opposition hold as a basic tenet of education and faith that all children should have a universal standard of education and that nothing else is acceptable.

For Conservative Members to consider providing different standards of education for different children is nonsense and an aberration. If they reflected upon the matter without their political prejudice, they would realise that different standards of education are not in the interests of children.

Regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6, by widening the scope of the provisions, are taking us down the wrong road. Similarly we must ask whether the regulations improve the quality of education. Nothing said by the Minister or any Conservative Member gives any substance to their argument. How do the regulations improve the quality of education for all children so that the country is a wiser and better educated place? Nothing said by any Conservative Member has substantiated that view. The scheme is nothing but a subsidy for the private schools that does nothing to improve the overall quality of education in Britain. Surely, as the legislative body for this country, our main objective should be to improve the quality of education for the whole of the country.

Regulation 6 increases the financial provision for the scheme. As my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Hillsborough and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) said, that £55 million could be better spent elsewhere.

Before Christmas many hon. Members present tonight debated the Education (Grants and Awards) Bill, which will impose a tax of 0.5 per cent. on the spending of local authorities on education. The financial provisions of the regulations could be used to prevent that tithe on local authorities, and experimentation in curriculum and new ideas could be financed.

Mr. David Model (Bedfordshire, South-West)

It is not a tithe but a redistribution of spending on education. The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the Bill.

Mr. Fisher

We are not here to debate that Bill again. However, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. All authorities will have to give up a percentage of their education grant to central Government, who will redistribute it to the schemes of which they approve.

The important point is that we are talking about £55 million of taxpayers' money which could be better spent elsewhere in the education service. Many of the areas of concern about which hon. Members spoke in debate last Friday could be financed by that £55 million. The country would be better off as a country and an educational culture if it was spent in that way. The schemes suggested by Opposition Memers and also those mentioned by the Secretary of State in his speech at Sheffield could be financed by that £55 million. Regulation 6 is not in the interests of the children.

Nothing that I have said has been refuted by the Minister or Conservative Members. The widening of the scheme in regulations 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the financial provisions in regulation 6 are against the interests of the education service in Britain, which is what we should be debating, and that is why the Opposition wholly oppose the regulations.

11.39 pm

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

During my brief speech I shall seek to argue that the regulations should be passed so that the assisted places scheme can continue to operate successfully.

I have some relevant personal experience of the scheme which I wish briefly to mention. I have been involved with the selection, interviewing and teaching of pupils on an assisted places scheme. I happen to believe, as a result of that personal experience, that if the Opposition would think of education being about people rather than a political argument or dogma such as the House has heard in the debate, and if they could see the individual boys and girls who have benefited from the assisted places scheme, they would be as enthusiastic as Conservative Members are about it.

The scheme works, it is successful and it should continue. Pupils benefit because they have the chance to go to a particular school which runs a course in, for example, music or physics, and provides a good opportunity for the individual. The independent school has benefits because of the wider range of pupils within the school. I am sure that the majority of Opposition Members, if they thought for one moment about the issues involved, would approve of that wider range of pupils within an independent school.

The majority of people in the country and, I am sure, the majority of hon. Members, believe that the independent sector should have the right and freedom to continue to exist. I think that there are very few people who seriously wish to destroy that system. For years people have looked for channels of communication between the state and the independent sector, against opposition from both sides of that divide. I believe that it is beneficial to open up channels of communication between the state and the independent sector. Opposition Members will surely agree with that concept. The assisted places scheme, although small, is a contribution in that direction. It is popular, its cost to the state is negligible, and it is beneficial to the schools involved. The regulations must be passed, because to discontinue this excellent scheme would be negative and would achieve nothing, just as to attack the independent sector is negative, destructive and achieves nothing.

My hopes in education, which I am sure are shared by Opposition Members, are for a high quality, well-supported, maintained system with the freedom for the independent sector to flourish and be supportive. In order to continue to address ourselves to the important matters in education, such as high standards in classroom teaching, an improved curriculum, better training, in-service training for teachers and increased parental choice, such as the assisted places scheme provides, we must pass the regulations. Although the assisted places scheme affects a small number of pupils and schools at a cost of some £16 million, it is consistent with the overall aims and can only enhance and encourage the high standards in education for which Conservative Members are working and campaigning. That is why we support the recent statement of policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

The House must pass the regulations in order to continue to support the assisted places scheme. The scheme is contributing to a better flow of information and communications between the two parts of the education service, and is helping individual pupils. To destroy it would do no good for anyone.

11.43 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I support the regulations because, in my experience, those who will profit are the children, who are what the debate is about. Children have hardly been mentioned. The regulations will broaden opportunities for children to go to a different kind of school from the restricted type of secondary school envisaged by the Labour party. That is to the benefit of the children and of the education system.

I have a constituent who needs to benefit from regulation 6. He is not well paid. He has two children profiting from the assisted places scheme. They are doing extremely well and he is happy, but his income is low and the revised figures will help him considerably to make the small contribution that he has to make. He rightly says that the Labour party's view about the scheme is totally vindictive, and the fact that it is vindictive has been made clear by Opposition Members in the debate.

I mentioned that my constituent would benefit from the regulations. He states that the argument of Labour Members that they would, given the opportunity, put a stop to the scheme tomorrow and cast the children on the streets, so to speak, is totally vindictive. That fact is not lost on my constituent, who is a hard-working member of the community and who is merely seeking to improve the opportunities available to his children.

I look back over my long experience in teaching and recall the damage that the Labour party did to children through its reorganisation scheme. It is clear that its attitude towards this scheme and the regulations is typical of its attitude to education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffild, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is a personal friend of mine, but, when he said that he lived in a school, I thought that he was about to say that he lived in a shoe. I am surprised that he would withdraw the scheme and thereby damage the opportunities of children. I ask Labour Members to think again about their attitude to the regulations. The fact that 13,000 children benefit from the scheme and that more will benefit as a result of the regulations must be to the benefit of children.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that three children taken out of a comprehensive—because they would benefit from these regulations—would so damage that comprehensive as to make it and the children in it suffer seriously. That comment was insulting to the teachers at that school. I say that as one who worked for 23 years in comprehensives, and the hon. Gentleman knows that what I am saying is right.

Regulations 4, 5 and 6 carry the assisted places scheme forward at a vital time. They will lead to a broadening of opportunities for children. Labour Members say that not every child in the land will get on in the assisted places scheme as a result of the regulations. They should accept that every child will at least have the opportunity to try. That must be what life is about—about providing people with opportunities — and the late Iain Macleod put it well when he said that the purpose of the state in education was to give people an equal opportunity to prove themselves unequal. That put the ethic of the state in education — whether in the assisted places scheme as revised by these regulations or in maintained schools— in perspective. Equality does not achieve the same purpose in education, and I urge Opposition Members to reconsider their attitude to the scheme because it is for poor children. To keep knocking it is to damage the chances of poor children.

11.49 pm

Mr. Dunn

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to our short debate. My hon. Friends will understand me when I say that the debate has followed traditional lines. I am always pleased to have the involvement of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) in these debates, because he brings a robust, but wrong, view to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) made an excellent speech in which he got the tone of the regulations right. I was delighted to hear such a robust voice. He pointed out that the Labour party would say that there was a cost to the nation from the scheme, and we accept that. There is also an enormous benefit to the nation—many bright and gifted children from ordinary families are given the opportunity to experience an educational opportunity that would otherwise be denied to them.

The Labour party does not understand the lessons of history. On occasions, I have reminded the House that I understand the nature of state education, because, unlike many Opposition Members, I have had no other experience except that which the state offers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister has heard me reproach a number of hon. Gentlemen for straying from the regulations and discussing the principles of the scheme. I hope that he will address himself to the regulations.

Mr. Dunn

I apologise for being slightly deaf in my left ear, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) gently chided the Government for not providing more places under the scheme — that point was echoed by a number of my hon. Friends, although by no Opposition Members. However, no resources are available to expand the scheme. If resources became available, there would be some expansion. In the meantime, we have to concentrate on improving the match of supply with demand, as we have been doing this year with the marginal redeployment of places from those schools that have not taken them up to those schools that wish to take them up. I welcome the inclusion of Westminster school, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), and that of other schools.

As I said earlier, the safeguard about the veto, which was removed over a year ago from the local education authorities, remains that of limiting to five in any one year the number of children who can enter a sixth form. It would take the fantasising minds of some Opposition Members to argue that such a number would radically dilute the maintained sector. It clearly would not. The House will welcome the information that across the country fewer than 200 pupils last year transferred at sixth form level—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 86.

Division No. 137]	[11.53 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Amess, David	Eggar, Tim
Ashby, David	Emery, Sir Peter
Aspinwall, Jack	Evennett, David
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Eyre, Sir Reginald
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Fallon, Michael
Baldry, Anthony	Farr, John
Batiste, Spencer	Favell, Anthony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Bellingham, Henry	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Benyon, William	Forth, Eric
Berry, Sir Anthony	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Freeman, Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Gale, Roger
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Galley, Roy
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Goodlad, Alastair
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Gow, Ian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Greenway, Harry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gregory, Conal
Bright, Graham	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Brinton, Tim	Ground, Patrick
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bruinvels, Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Buck, Sir Antony	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bulmer, Esmond	Hanley, Jeremy
Burt, Alistair	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Butcher, John	Harris, David
Butterfill, John	Harvey, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawksley, Warren
Carttiss, Michael	Hayes, J.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hayward, Robert
Churchill, W. S.	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Hickmet, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hind, Kenneth
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hirst, Michael
Cockeram, Eric	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Colvin, Michael	Holt, Richard
Coombs, Simon	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Cope, John	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Couchman, James	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cranborne, Viscount	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dorrell, Stephen	Jackson, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dover, Denshore	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Dunn, Robert	Key, Robert

King, Rt Hon Tom	Nicholls, Patrick
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Norris, Steven
Knowles, Michael	Onslow, Cranley
Lang, Ian	Oppenheim, Philip
Latham, Michael	Osborn, Sir John
Lawler, Geoffrey	Ottaway, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Lester, Jim	Parris, Matthew
Lightbown, David	Pawsey, James
Lilley, Peter	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)	Porter, Barry
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Powell, William (Corby)
Lord, Michael	Powley, John
Lyell, Nicholas	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Proctor, K. Harvey
Macfarlane, Neil	Raffan, Keith
MacGregor, John	Rhodes James, Robert
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Maclean, David John.	Rowe, Andrew
Madel, David	Ryder, Richard
Malins, Humfrey	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Malone, Gerald	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Maples, John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Marland, Paul	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Marlow, Antony	Speed, Keith
Mates, Michael	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mather, Carol	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Maude, Francis	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Merchant, Piers	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Tracey, Richard
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Trippier, David
Mills, lain (Meriden)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Moate, Roger	Walden, George
Moore, John	Warren, Kenneth
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)	Wheeler, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Wood, Timothy
Moynihan, Hon C.
Murphy, Christopher	Tellers for the Ayes:
Neale, Gerrard	Mr. Michael Neubert and
Nelson, Anthony	Mr. John Major.
Newton, Tony

NOES
Alton, David	Freud, Clement
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Godman, Dr Norman
Beith, A. J.	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Haynes, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Blair, Anthony	Home Robertson, John
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Howells, Geraint
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Kirkwood, Archibald
Canavan, Dennis	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Litherland, Robert
Clay, Robert	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Loyden, Edward
Cohen, Harry	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	McNamara, Kevin
Cowans, Harry	Madden, Max
Craigen, J. M.	Marek, Dr John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Maxton, John
Cunningham, Dr John	Meadowcroft, Michael
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Michie, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric	Nellist, David
Dormand, Jack	O'Neill, Martin
Douglas, Dick	Park, George
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Parry, Robert
Eastham, Ken	Patchett, Terry
Ellis, Raymond	Pike, Peter
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fatchett, Derek	Prescott, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Radice, Giles
Fisher, Mark	Randall, Stuart
Flannery, Martin	Redmond, M.

Rooker, J. W.	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Rowlands, Ted	Wallace, James
Sheerman, Barry	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Skinner, Dennis	Wareing. Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Welsh, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)	Winnick, David
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel	Tellers for the Noes:
Stott, Roger	Mr. John McWilliam and
Strang. Gavin	Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.