HL Deb 16 July 1992 vol 539 cc380-6

3.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I present to your Lordships for approval the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1992. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox)

My Lords, the Question is, That this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, will say "Content"—

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I apologise to the House for the delay. I had hoped that there would be an explanation from the Minister before I rose to speak.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am absolutely prepared to give a full explanation; but I checked with the usual channels about half an hour before coming to the Dispatch Box and I was told that it would not be necessary. However, I shall of course give the explanation. I have it with me.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, perhaps I may say something about the Opposition's views of the regulations and the scheme. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we on this side of the House oppose not just the order but the whole scheme to which it refers. We have made our opposition clear from the outset. It is a bad scheme; it is wrong in its conception and is a failure in terms of its operation. As such, it is a complete waste of public money. Nearly £80 million went down the drain during 1991–92 to fund the scheme. This sum would be much better spent on countless other high priority needs.

Would it not be better to use the money to expand nursery education, especially in our inner cities? Would this not be a better way of helping to improve educational opportunities for children from low income homes? Would it not be better to use the money to provide an extended school day in our primary and secondary schools in inner cities so that young people could benefit from a variety of extracurricular opportunities that the extra time would allow? This again would enrich opportunities for children from poor families far more than the assisted places scheme.

Would it not be more valuable to dedicate £80 million to providing large numbers of children whose family income is low with opportunities for school visits to places of interest, for school trips or exchanges in Europe, or for environmental studies in the country?

Any one of these alternatives would reach far more children and have a better chance of helping many more pupils who come from disadvantaged homes than the nonsense of the assisted places scheme. It is a nonsense because most of the children benefiting from the scheme come from middle class back-grounds. But more than that, it is an underhand way of using taxpayers' money to shore up private schools. Worse still, it removes talented young people from state schools, demoralising teachers in so doing and implying that state schools are inadequate to meet the educational needs of their pupils. That is worse than nonsense; frankly, it is a disgrace.

What saddens me most about the scheme and the annual ritual we now go through in up-rating the parental contributions and amending the regulations in other minor ways, is the unwillingness of the Government to listen to their own advisers. Despite the clearly expressed views of Her Majesty's Inspectorate that it is perfectly possible to cater for very able children in the normal school curriculum, the Government go on implying that it is not and that somehow able pupils will be worse off in state schools than in private ones. Hence the Government's scheme to provide places at lower fees in the private schools.

I should like to know what evidence the Government have that a pupil who is given an assisted place on the scheme does any better than that pupil would do in a state school. Perhaps the Minister would also comment on the findings of the Audit Commission. Like Her Majesty's Inspectorate, it is an organisation which I should have thought the Government would respect. I should have thought that the Government would respond to its findings. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to comment on what the Government think about the Audit Commission's view that children assisted in private schools do not receive a measurably greater added value from their schooling as a result. That is an important finding since the last time we debated these regulations.

If the Audit Commission is right, we have wasted £500 million of taxpayers' money on the scheme over the past 11 years. Will the Minister agree that the Audit Commission's finding earlier this year that there was an overspend of £3 million on the scheme, even though the target numbers of pupils have not been met, is in itself a severe criticism of the running of the scheme? Was it not unfortunate that halfway through the year the Government had to intervene to remind schools of the ceiling of 12 per cent. in the increases that could be covered? Meanwhile, state schools were being forced to manage on a 7 per cent. increase in their current expenditure. What do the Government intend to do this year to prevent a recurrence of last year's problems? What kind of cap will be provided, and will it be at the current rate of inflation? Will the Minister undertake to examine the huge differentials in the fees charged in private schools?

Will the Minister find out whether value for money is being provided for taxpayers subsidising fees through this scheme in those schools where the fees are three times higher than in some other schools in the scheme? A number of private schools receive over £1 million of public money for assisted places and some receive over £1.5 million. So far as I can make out, there is no proper system of accountability and no real checks on whether this is money well spent. It is, as The Times newspaper rightly described it, a misuse of public money to subsidise a private industry". We know private schools are having a hard time in the recession but I thought the Government's view was that the private sector had to stand on its own two feet and operate efficiently in the market place. That is the philosophy the Government apply to firms.

In the debate on these regulations that took place in your Lordships' House last year, I made it clear that the findings of research projects have shown that most of the pupils in the scheme come from homes where the parents have received a relatively privileged education. A majority of the parents have attended either independent or selective schools. I know of no evidence that challenges those findings. Most of the parents are, through this scheme, finding a cheap way into the private sector.

The Independent Schools Information Service admits that only 16 per cent. of pupils in the scheme come from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds. Many of the pupils in the scheme have divorced or separated parents. I wish to ask the Minister a direct question on that matter. Does she think it right to continue to assess parental income, where a child is living with a mother, on the basis of the mother's income alone? Should not the child's father's income be taken into account? Fathers ought to be responsible for supporting their children in these circumstances.

It is clear that as only one-third of those on the scheme qualify for full remission of fees, the scheme is not only benefiting what one Conservative politician has described as distressed gentle folk, but it is also providing a way into private schools for the children of people who are on average and above-average incomes. Those people pay reduced fees at the expense of other taxpayers. Parliament is being asked to approve not just continued expenditure on a deeply flawed scheme but also to approve an increase in expenditure from £76 million to £87 million. That is a further £11 million. That represents an increase of 10 per cent. in real terms. We are being asked to approve a scheme that flies in the face of the Government's apparent commitment to improve standards in state schools.

Plenty of talented and able pupils do well in state schools and their very presence in them helps, through the example they provide and the encouragement they can give to their peers by the high standards they set, to raise the overall standards of those schools. Yet the Government wish to continue with this scheme and to increase spending on it which removes these children from maintained schools. The Government are damaging the schools in this respect by siphoning funding away from them to spend on private schools instead. The Government are neglecting the majority of pupils in favour of a misguided scheme that supports a small minority of pupils. In the light of those remarks, it is hard to take seriously the Government's claim that they are committed to improving standards for children and young people as a whole.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should say that we too do not go along with this scheme and that we have always said so. I shall not weary the House by repeating much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has just said as we are in general agreement with her comments. In particular, I do not like the principle whereby the best children are taken from a school. I know from my own long experience that the brightest and best children are important to a school. When they are creamed off, the school, and the other children in particular, suffer greatly. That is a regrettable aspect of the scheme.

I should like to ask the noble Baroness certain questions, of which I should have given her notice. If she cannot answer them immediately, and I think that she probably will not be able to, I should be very grateful if she would write to me.

One point occurs to me, which I have never heard raised before. It arises from the Education Act 1980 when the system was first instituted. It was said, though not in the Act, that this was a scheme whereby bright children from less well-off backgrounds should be enabled to go to high quality independent schools. It has only just occurred to me to wonder who decides which are the bright children? Is it a decision of the headmaster of the schools which they attend? Is it a decision made by the parents? Or is it a totally subjective opinion as to who is bright enough to enjoy the privilege? I feel that I should know the answer to that question but perhaps the noble Baroness will kindly put me right.

I should also like to know what, if any, proportion of children have enjoyed that privilege not so much because they are bright as for certain other specific reasons. For example, some children may be deemed psychologically unfit for the rigours of the state system. They may need a small community and small classes. Have such children ever been able to enjoy the advantages of an assisted place in an independent school?

What about children who obviously need specialist teaching of one sort or another? I am thinking, for example, of a child who is particularly gifted in music. Have such children enjoyed assisted places? Are there examples of their being able to benefit from the scheme? There is also the case of, for example, highly intelligent dyslexic children. Have there been cases of such children being able to enjoy the scheme and, if so, how many?

Finally, I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she has any information as to whether the benefits are reaching the lowest income families. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of the places being enjoyed mainly by comparatively well-to-do middle-class families. That idea is current. Is it accurate?

I should be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to those questions.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the House has just witnessed possibly the best example of the politics of envy that we have heard in this House for a very long time. The assisted places scheme is now in its 11 th successful year. I can assure all noble Lords that any doubts which they may have about it are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited and will continue to benefit from it.

There are now 27,600 pupils in the assisted places scheme of whom about two-thirds—66 per cent.—come from families with incomes below £12,500 per annum. The scale for determining the amount of fee remission is intentionally a demanding one and only those families with incomes currently below £8,714, to be uprated to £9,056 by these amendment regulations, qualify for completely free places.

In the current school year 35 per cent. of all assisted pupils are eligible for full remission of fees. That means that this year 35 per cent. of those families are earning below £8,714. It is clear that the scheme is working to the advantage of those families of humble means for whom it is intended and who would never have been given the opportunity to consider a choice of education for their children had it not been for the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, asked what would happen in the case of a child with expertise in music or in art. I look to the noble Lord to support us in encouraging specialisms in maintained schools as well as in the independent sector when we come to that matter.

Entry into the scheme is by examination. There is an objective assessment of ability in order to qualify for the places. There is also a means test of the income of the family.

The assisted places scheme provides excellent value for money. In the last year for which comparable figures are available—1989–90—the average cost to the taxpayer of each assisted place was £2,364, and the corresponding average cost of a pupil in the maintained sector is estimated to be about £2,135, a difference of only £229. Even this small difference is largely due to the high proportion of sixth form provision which the scheme supports, and that narrows the gap even more. But in any event I ask noble Lords not to lose sight of the fact in considering the costs of this scheme that if there was no assisted places scheme the costs of educating more than 27,600 children would have to be borne by the total costs to be met for education in the maintained sector and all we would be doing would be transferring the costs to provide for that education.

The excellence of the output from the assisted places scheme expenditure is beyond question. Last summer 90 per cent. of A-level entries by assisted places scheme pupils resulted in grades A to C compared with 61 per cent. in all independent schools and 44 per cent. in maintained schools. In addition,92 per cent. of GCSE entries by assisted places scheme pupils resulted in grades A to C compared with 82 per cent. in all independent schools and 47 per cent. in maintained schools. Of that 92 per cent.,45 per cent. achieved grade A and 33 per cent. achieved grade B. What further proof is necessary as to the success of the scheme? Noble Lords opposite believe in equality of opportunity for all pupils. We believe that the assisted places scheme plays a vital part in this process and does so by levelling up rather than down. The assisted places scheme is plainly achieving its objective of opening up some of the best independent schools to children who almost certainly would not otherwise have been able to look to them as an option. That can only be to the advantage of those children and the nation.

The vote on this subject has been taken and the whole of the debate so far is out of order. I hope that the House will now go on to approve the regulations.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to say that every other order discussed this afternoon was first introduced by the Minister and the Opposition were then allowed to reply. It is entirely wrong to say that a vote has been taken. I was caught completely unawares by the failure of the Minister to introduce this order, as I think is normal practice. Therefore I hope that she will withdraw the remark that this debate is out of order.

Perhaps I may also ask her whether she would accept that it is the marginal cost that we should be taking into account when comparing the cost of this scheme with the cost of a place in a maintained secondary school. After all, there are a large number of spare places in maintained secondary schools and to talk about a comparison using the full cost is entirely inappropriate. I should also be grateful if she would answer the direct question I put to her about parents.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, before I came into the Chamber to answer the debate I spoke to the noble Baroness's Chief Whip on these matters. The Chief Whip told me I would not be asked for detailed information. The detailed information I have been asked for I have given. The noble Baroness chose not to stand up at the appropriate time when the order was called in the House. It was only after the vote was taken that she chose to rise to the Dispatch Box. I believe I am entirely in order and that the House has been exceptionally indulgent in accepting both the speech of the noble Baroness and my own in reply.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I cannot speak for any conversation which went on between the Opposition Chief Whip and either the Minister or anybody else on the Government Benches. All I can say is that this is a complete change from the way in which we debated the order last year. I think it would have been appropriate to inform the Opposition Front Bench spokesman of any intention completely to change the way the order was to be debated.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I shall make my final comment. I think the fault lies in the communications between the noble Baroness's Chief Whip and the noble Baroness herself, not between myself and the noble Baroness's Chief Whip.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in rising. The noble Baroness was pleased to describe what the Opposition Benches had to say as the politics of envy. That is not so. We were making detailed comments on our objections to the scheme. They were not based upon envy but upon our sense of equity and justice.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I believe this is entirely out of order. The debate has finished and the vote has been taken.

On Question, Motion agreed to.