Grant-Maintained Schools:Advertising (Hansard, 3 February 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, the present series of advertisements, which will run for a period of five weeks and are designed to provide factual information on grant-maintained status to parents, governors and schools, will cost about £200,000.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, does the Minister feel that it is proper to spend that or, indeed, any sum of money on advertisements which must only doubtfully be in accordance with the relevant code of practice of the Department for Education which states—I trust noble Lords will allow me to read what it says—that information, should be full and accurate, and should not mislead". Is the Minister aware of an advertisement from the Department for Education of 25th January which said: Going grant-maintained transfers financial control of a school to the people who best understand its needs—the head-teacher and governors."? However, local education authorities must currently delegate 85 per cent. of their schools' budgets to the governors who will decide how to spend it and will shortly be delegating 90 per cent. of their schools' budgets.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, first, I should welcome information from the noble Baroness about anything which is not accurate and which may be misleading. The information contained within the advertisements consists of actual statements by the very people in grant-maintained schools who have experienced GM status at first hand. Secondly, it is entirely in line with the code of practice. As for the third point made by the noble Baroness about funding, I must tell her that however the authorities fund their schools, the amount of money that they hold back for central services is handed over to the grant-maintained schools, so there will always be a plus factor. For example, even when the sum of money is 90 per cent., there will always be a plus factor for grant-maintained schools.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, in view of the Minister's response perhaps I may pursue the matter further. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee recently announced that it found the £13.6 million paid to grant-maintained schools "unacceptable"—and that was an all-party committee. One advertisement says that extra teachers are being supplied to grant-maintained schools. However, is the Minister aware (I am sure that she is) that a number of counties that have now fallen under the control of opposition parties have provided extra teachers for schools and that the Department for Education does not make equivalent funds available for those who oppose grant-maintained schools? Does the Minister argue that that is a level playing field? Is she willing to submit such advertisements to the Advertising Standards Authority for independent judgment?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, it is absolutely absurd that a government should fund an organisation opposed to government policy which has been subjected to parliamentary approval. The way in which grant-maintained schools are managing with the same money —it is the money that would have been held back by the centre —to provide more books, more teachers and to ensure that the money is better deployed in the schools is substantiated by all the evidence. Whatever an LEA passes on to its own schools it nevertheless holds money back at the centre to spend centrally. That proportion is 1377 handed on to the grant-maintained schools. All the evidence shows that the grant-maintained schools make better use of it.
As regards the Public Accounts Committee, the noble Baroness refers to what was known as "cash protection" for the early wave of schools which came out when a sum was assumed for central services and held back. That point has been entirely addressed. As the noble Baroness will know, that cash protection is being phased out. All the schools for the past two years, have received pound-for-pound the money that was held back by each local authority.

§ Baroness Cox
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have information as to whether any public money has been spent by local authorities in opposing schools while they are considering becoming grant maintained? Does she agree that any such opposition would be a great pity because grant-maintained schools are proving to be such an overwhelming success?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble friend asks an important question. The answer is very definitely, yes. Considerable sums of money are being spent by local authorities in opposing that policy.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, the Minister will know that the code of practice states that a ballot can be set aside if advertisements are misleading in deciding the outcome of that ballot. However, the point that my noble friend and I are making concerns. precisely the issue of misleading information. Will the Minister look again at her reply? There is no question but that the advertisements give the impression that extra teachers and equipment are restricted to grant-maintained schools. That is not correct.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, if the noble Baroness genuinely believes that our information has been misleading and that it breaches the advertising standards rule, I invite her to refer her complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, is it not a fact that the reason that this huge sum of money is being spent on advertising is that the Government's objective with grant-maintained schools is not being met? After about three years, out of a possible 23,000 schools—and the Minister will probably confirm the figures—the number of schools that have been given grant-maintained status is only 869. Is it not now time that the nonsense was stopped?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, over 1,000 schools have now voted to go grant maintained. I wonder why the noble Lord is so exercised about the matter. If he thinks that over half a million children being educated in grant-maintained schools is such a derisory number, I wonder why it is that we take so much time in the Chamber being so concerned with the issue. The schools that achieve grant-maintained status do so because the parents vote for it. As regards whether the money could be spent on other things, the totality of the money spent on grant-maintained schools' activities, information and advice since 1988 when the Act was passed is less than 20p per pupil.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, the reason that I am concerned is that better use could be made of the money. I did not say that the figure of 869 schools out of a possible 23,000 was derisory; but it is certainly not a success.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, less than 20p would hardly buy a pencil.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, can the Minister say, with reference to her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, what LEA has submitted an advertisement the, size of the one I am holding up which appeared in many newspapers? Has she any evidence as regards what advertisements have been put in newspapers by LEAs?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, that was not the point put to me by my noble friend Lady Cox. My noble friend asked whether money was being spent on opposing the policy. The answer is definitely yes, and the sums have been considerable.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, I asked about an advertisement the size of the one I have before me that appeared in many of the broadsheets.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the matter would not be conducted in that way. The methods used are much more subtle.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, if these schools are so attractive, why is it necessary to spend £200,000 of taxpayers' money on advertising?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, it is an important policy. It breaks up the monolith of every school being in the same comprehensive mould. Under the law, governing bodies now have to address the issue, on behalf of parents, of whether they wish to pursue grant-maintained status. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that they have information about that status. That is the whole point of providing information and the method adopted is a cost-effective way of doing so. The cost of this particular advertisement works out at less than 2.5 pence per pupil.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone:
My Lords, is it not somewhat paradoxical that when the Opposition do not approve of something they show great consideration about spending taxpayers' money, but when they want to spend money they call it investing in education?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point. I should make it clear that local authorities are entirely free to give information to parents and if they want to pass on to those parents information presented to them by an organisation that opposes grant-maintained status, they are as free to disseminate that information as they are to disseminate information that is pro-grant-maintained status.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords—

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I think we should move on.