Lords Sitting of 10 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Reproductive Health
Viscount Craigavonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What priority is being given by the Department for International Development, in the context of the Government's policy on human rights, to the continuing development of projects on women's reproductive health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government want to ensure that all people can realise their internationally defined human rights. Among those is the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health. The Government will give top priority to contributing to the OECD target of reproductive health for all by 2015 and a three-quarters reduction in maternal mortality by the same date.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging and detailed Answer. Does she accept that many of us who have been in this field for many years are encouraged by the comments of her colleague the Secretary of State? Even before the departmental White Paper is published, she has placed on record—in her characteristic and forthright language—that she supports reproductive health and population measures as the core of her attack on poverty and also her emphasis on sustainability.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that comment. I thank him also for his contribution as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population Development and Reproductive Health. I hope and believe that we can look forward to more from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development on World Population Day. She will be making a speech later today on these important topics. It is important to note a story of considerable success for reproductive health in recent years. Around 57 per cent. of the world's couples now use some form of contraception as compared with only 9 per cent. 30 years ago.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recent research from India shows that literacy, as a precursor to teaching about health issues, has failed? Will she make all efforts to encourage NGOs to link
718
literacy to family health issues and family planning to make literacy viable as well as to bring forward the programme for health education?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the point is well taken. The fact is that literate women are better able to control their fertility than illiterate women. They are the potential for an engine of massive human development which will transform and enhance social arrangements. Education and health are the key to sound development. Women and girls need access to education if they are to improve and protect their sexual and reproductive health.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not only literacy, but also the inter-relationship of mother and child health programmes and health programmes in general, together with overall economic development, that are central to success on this issue? We are therefore all looking to the White Paper to see how those are brought together in the interests of women and reproductive health.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, many factors are involved in this important matter, not least the question of resources. I am happy to say that the UK is the fourth largest donor in the field behind the United States, Japan and Germany. Indeed, the United Kingdom invested nearly £70 million in reproductive health last year.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on this side of the House we are extremely pleased that the Government are continuing the valiant work which was carried out in this field by my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey? Will she try to encourage the US, France, Italy and Belgium to desist from slackening their assistance?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in his tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for her valuable work in this field. Such work has brought home important achievements. The world's population was growing at a slower rate in the first five years of the 1990s than in the last five years of the 1980s. We shall continue to press our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to keep up their donations in this important field.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as well as encouraging international action by other countries that have possibly fallen by the wayside in their contributions, can my noble friend assure us that of the good proportion of the funds devoted to primary healthcare and other health matters in the social sector generally, the part going to reproductive health will be maintained as it was under previous governments, and possibly even increased?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, sadly, the US—which was the lead donor in population assistance—cut its foreign aid bill in that respect. That has led to a rather more uncertain position. Nonetheless, the UK looks to the UN population fund—the

719
UNFPA—to lead the global effort to ensure that adequate supplies of contraceptives are made available. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall maintain our own financial effort.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to watch not only reproductive health but also general health in terms of sexually transmitted diseases? Is she aware that many charities in this country—I declare an interest as chairman of Plan International—are raising money to help educate people in terms of sexual practices which are important in terms of sexual health and sexually transmitted diseases?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of the point made by the noble Baroness. It is not just a question of the risk to mothers at the time of pregnancy, though that is still a real risk in many developing countries. Sadly, it is still the position that 1 million people die each year throughout the world as a result of treatable sexually transmitted diseases—diseases other than HIV and AIDS. It is important that funds are maintained for education on those matters as well as healthcare.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a third strand in addition to health and education, hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? I refer to income generation targeted at women of childbearing age to provide additional income in the family. That is extremely important. I hope that the Minister will give encouragement to the voluntary sector which has targeted successfully programmes such as Care International.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important that lines of income to the voluntary sector are maintained in the way the noble Earl describes. At the heart of the issue is the question of dealing with world poverty. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made that clear on a number of occasions. I hope and believe that we can look forward to the interesting speech she will be giving on that subject later today.

Romania
3.10 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to support the closer integration of Romania into western institutions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are strong advocates of the enlargement of western institutions. With our European partners and bilaterally through the Know-How Fund, we are helping Romania to prepare herself for European Union membership as and when she is ready. We are also encouraging Romania to take full advantage of the opportunities for
720
closer involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which were announced at the Madrid Summit on 8th July.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is a double blow to Romania to be denied early membership first of NATO and—very likely in the next two weeks—of the European Union, given that Romania now has effective armed forces under civilian control and a fully democratic and, what is more, a relatively clean government? Can the Government do more to press their partners to give more importance to Romania, which is the second largest country in eastern Europe, with a very delicate relationship with Hungary, and which deserves our support?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not wish to anticipate any decision in relation to EU membership. I have stated to the House that the Government remain strongly committed to helping Romania integrate into western institutions. Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to what was said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place yesterday in relation to Romania. He said,
"I should say a particular word about Romania and Slovenia, whose applications were especially closely considered even though there was no consensus to invite them on this occasion. Both countries have indeed made remarkable progress. Romania's new Government deserve particular congratulation on the steps taken since they took office last November. A number of allies would have liked to see Romania and Slovenia included among those invited at Madrid. All, including ourselves, saw them as strong candidates for any future enlargement".—[ Official Report, Commons. 9/7/97; col. 937.]
I believe that is encouragement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what costs would be involved if Romania were to be invited and accepted an invitation to join NATO? We have heard many figures, but none about Romania.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that costings on specific countries are available, but I shall check. If they are available I shall write to my noble friend. I do not believe that they have been worked out. As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out to the House yesterday, on the broader question of costs, that is something which is still being sorted out in relation to the three countries which have been invited to join NATO.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many ways in which countries like Romania can become more closely associated with western countries without necessarily going into the rather more controversial area of the enlargement of NATO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed there are. As we know, Romania has now become a member of the World Health Organisation,

721
the International Labour Organisation and various other organisations, which brings that country closer integration into western institutions.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's reply, is it the Government's policy to develop further integration with Romania in the light of the human rights abuses which have been reported within the country, particularly towards members of the Roma population? How will the Government reconcile the inherent tension between a policy of integration with its human rights-led foreign policy approach?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. There have been concerns about respect for human rights in Romania, but there has been significant progress over recent years. The new Government, which took office last November, have committed themselves to further political reform in that respect. The noble Lord raised in particular the treatment of the Roma people. Sadly, they are often at the bottom of the social justice and economic ladder in many parts of Europe. They can face discrimination and prejudice. The problem is not unique to Romania. The new Government of Romania have committed themselves to improving the treatment of such minorities.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the difficulties in the expansion of NATO is that inevitably, in the foreseeable future, more will be denied membership than offered it? Does she therefore agree that it is absolutely essential that we throw all the weight that we can possibly muster into the success of OSCE and organisations of that kind, so that we encourage positive policies towards those who do not join NATO rather than justify why they have not been admitted at this juncture?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I believe I have made clear to the House on previous occasions in relation to those who have not been invited to join NATO, the Government are determined that the admission of new members must not in any way discriminate against those who have not been invited to join at this stage. That would risk creating new dividing lines in Europe which would make a very unhappy position for all of us. The noble Lord's point is well taken. There are many ways in which countries such as Romania can be integrated into western institutions. Such ways may be offered through the World Health Organisation, UNESCO, the ILO, and other organisations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the dangerous dividing lines that one could recreate would be precisely between Hungary, which joined NATO and the European Union, and Romania, which was left outside, given the extreme delicacy of relations over Transylvania? Can the Minister assure us that the British Government will take
722
into account the importance of maintaining open relations between those two countries when we negotiate on immigration and asylum limitations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the difficulties that the noble Lord points out. That is why we have been at such pains to show that we do not want to see these kinds of dividing lines appearing. The United Kingdom has been active in NATO's work to devise enhanced arrangements for co-operation with non-members. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the new, strengthened arrangements for Partnership for Peace are a significant pointer in that direction. They will enable those countries not invited to join to develop deeper co-operation with NATO.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the accession of Hungary commits us all to helping that country resist Romanian claims to keep Transylvania, which is claimed by Hungary?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the position between Romania and Hungary has a difficult history. The Romanian Government are committed to creating a genuine partnership with Hungary. The relationship between the two countries is on a much warmer and more open footing than was the case before the new government took over.

The Economy
3.17 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
What opinions on the current state of the British economy the Prime Minister expressed during the European Union meeting in Amsterdam and the G8 meeting in the United States.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Prime Minister put jobs at the top of the agenda at both the European Council meeting in Amsterdam and the G8 Summit in Denver, along with British ideas on competitiveness, flexible labour markets and employability. The Government intend to make the creation of real and lasting jobs a key theme of Britain's own presidency of the G8 and the European Union next year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I had rather expected—or hoped for—an Answer overflowing with useful and new information. There is some disappointment. Is the Minister aware that there had been a vague hope that his right honourable friend might feel able (in private conversation, of course) to express to his G8 colleagues his confidence in the economy which is so robust as to be able to withstand the adverse blows of a disappointing and rather damaging Budget?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a very specific Question about the opinions

723
the Prime Minister expressed. I am not aware that he made any specific comments on the record about the UK economy at either of the gatherings. Therefore, my Answer went well beyond his extremely limited Question. As the noble Lord suggests, the Government's policy is to have an economy which is stable and which provides low inflation and high growth, but it is by no means certain that we inherited an economy which was moving in that direction. Under the previous government we had the two longest and deepest recessions since the war. Britain had a growth rate below that of every other major industrial country. We had high unemployment, admittedly declining, but it was still above 2 million on the internationally accepted level. We had low productivity, lower than other major industrial countries, and weak public finances with a history of large public debt deficits with a steeply rising burden of public debt.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although it is possible that the present Government have inherited a rather better position than perhaps any incoming government since 1970, the position is a little more mixed than the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, indicated because the inflationary position is not quite as good as it looked: the public expenditure position is quite difficult; the balance of payments position is not bad and growth is quite strong, but is verging on overheating? It is not a bad position to be in; but it is not a great one, either.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I readily accept the force of the noble Lord's comments about the year 1970. As far as 1997 is concerned—which I suspect is what most noble Lords are interested in—comment seems to have concentrated on the undoubtedly successful management of the economy in the last months of Mr. Clarke's Chancellorship. What I hope to show by my answers is that that by no means represents a rosy picture for the British economy.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is a stickler for maximum information and correctness—indeed, he was almost the same when he was a Minister. But perhaps I may help the noble Lord and the House (and perhaps myself) by asking my noble friend whether, when the Prime Minister was addressing his colleagues, he referred to the question of interest rates and the forecasts made by the previous six economic advisers to the former Chancellor who had forecast that interest rates would be in a range between 5.8 per cent. and 7.8 per cent. by the end of this year. Can my noble friend also tell us which of those forecasts my right honourable friend the Chancellor used in his forecasts?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I shall rise to the last question, but my noble friend's claims are right. The point that should be made about interest rates is that the policies of this Government have in a very short period caused a decline in long-term interest rates. Indeed, long-term interest rates are now nearly half a per cent. lower than they
724
were. That cuts the government debt service, improves long-term investment and proves that the reforms that this Government have introduced have improved the credibility of government finances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister rightly said that the Prime Minister has not yet pronounced upon the economy. May I respectfully ask him this: is it not about time that he did so, with inflation beginning to rise, the strong pound crippling our export industry and other aspects of which all noble Lords in this House are well aware?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I know what the Prime Minister is going to say about the economy, but I know that this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responding to Questions about the interest rate rise announced by the Bank of England this morning. He will be saying that the Bank of England has agreed with him that we should prevent a return to the cycle of boom and bust and inflationary pressures on the economy which, despite persistent warnings, the previous Government failed to tackle and which must now be brought under control.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Prime Minister's opinions were delivered more quickly than the noble Lord's original Answer to the House this afternoon? How does the creation of jobs square with the Budget which has put up inflation, and which will put up inflation by 0.8 per cent. of 1 per cent? And how does it square with another one quarter per cent. increase in interest rates, all of which will have adverse effects on jobs and job creation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I have ever been criticised before for speaking too slowly. I had always thought that it was the other way around. The point about the Budget—this is recognised and agreed by the Bank of England, as the noble Lord will see if he reads its press release of this afternoon—is that the Bank agrees that the Budget has had a contractionary effect, but it believes that further adjustment is required. I should point out that there is a difference between short-term changes in interest rates and fine tuning the economy, which is the responsibility of the Bank of England, and the long-term strategy for reducing the fiscal deficit to rebalance the economy, which is the responsibility of the Government.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I return to the second answer which the Minister was good enough to give me. Will the noble Lord accept our sympathy that someone should have inserted into his papers—obviously unknown to him—a copy of one of the speeches that he made during the election campaign?

Private Pension Funds: Abolition of Tax Credits
3.26 p.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have calculated the consequences of the decisions on advance corporation tax on the minimum funding requirements for private pension funds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the decision to abolish the tax credit on equity dividends for pension schemes must be seen in the context of the Government's long-term strategy to encourage investment and future returns. It is part of a package of changes which will encourage investment and longer-term capital growth. What matters is the long-run performance of investments and the health of companies, including the companies providing occupational pensions. It is the long-term rates of return on pension fund investments which are reflected in the minimum funding requirement.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister's confidence about the long term, but what steps will Her Majesty's Government take on behalf of pensioners to remedy the fact that the average yield of the £300 billion-worth of pension funds in UK shares will now drop from an average of 4 per cent. yield to an average of 3.2 per cent.? Further, can the Minister give an estimate of the number of schemes which, as a result of the actions of her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will fall into deficit, laying particular emphasis on local government pension schemes?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should have thought that what matters is the total return to pension funds, including the capital growth of the companies whose shares are held. Since 1992 the yield from UK equities has been some 107 per cent.—it has more than doubled—and about three-quarters of that growth has been capital gain, not dividend yield. Had the tax credit not been in existence for those years, the total gain would still have been over 100 per cent.—indeed, it would have been 100.4 per cent. even without the distortion of the tax credit.
The second point raised by the noble Lord related to the number of schemes that will be affected. We do not yet know that, but it is right to remind the House that at the moment about half of all schemes are in surplus and are enjoying a full or partial holiday. Something like £50 billion-worth of assets are currently held in surplus in pension funds.
The noble Lord's third point related to the effect on local authorities. It is nonsense to suggest—there has been some speculation in the press—that council taxes are about to rise. Although the loss of tax credits will have some impact on the income of local authority pension funds, the extent to which those changes feed through to local authority budgets will depend on the
726
overall judgments made by the fund actuaries. There will be no effect on local authority budgets at least until the funds are revalued sometime next year. Contribution rates will not feed through until the millennium at the very earliest. I apologise to the House for the length of that answer, but the noble Lord asked me three important questions and I thought it right to do my best to answer them.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people who respect the great contribution that she has made to this House on the subject of pensions will be saddened and surprised by the answer that she has just given and her defence of an outrage? Does the noble Baroness accept that pension funds are concerned primarily with yield and not capital gain, which is the main reason why many fund managers will withdraw investments from companies when dividends cease to be paid or are reduced? Further, does she accept that it is a three-pronged abomination in that not only does it take £5 billion out of pension funds—the late Mr. Maxwell, whether he has gone up or down, must be laughing—but it also has a deleterious effect on the solvency of existing schemes, including the 50 per cent. that are already insolvent? Does the noble Baroness also agree that the impact on gilt yields is hound to have another deleterious effect on those who are forced to put their pension funds into annuities? I am surprised that the noble Baroness can remain in office and defend this monstrosity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I expect the National Association of Pension Funds to talk up the problems effected by this change, but I do not expect that from someone with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I am sure that many noble Lords agree, including the late financial adviser to the previous Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, in his recent article, that the abolition of tax credit is a change long overdue. "whose time has come." The effect of this tax distortion in this country over the years has produced greater reliance on dividend yield than capital growth. The noble Lord does not need me to tell him that in the late 1970s in the UK and its closest analogue the United States—most European funds do not have funded private pension schemes analogous to the UK—2 per cent. of GDP went into dividends. Today, 3 per cent. of US GDP goes into dividends and the figure for the UK is 6 per cent. As a result, this country has not had the investment in economic health and growth that it should. That was what the Budget was designed to alter. Together with the reduction of corporation tax by 2 per cent. we believe that we will have a sound economy on which the ultimate health of pension funds rests.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Bosnia: indicted war criminals.

727
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 31st July. I am not yet able to announce the date when the House will return, but I shall inform your Lordships as soon as it is known. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 31st July.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; to make further provision in relation to certain criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts about the proof of previous convictions and orders; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable effect to be given to certain provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty adopted in New York on 10th September 1996 and the Protocol to that Treaty; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of assisted places scheme in England and Wales]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("1996–97") and insert ("1999–2000").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 12, 16, 21, 22, 24 to 26 and 28. As noble Lords heard at Second Reading and as they will know from reading the
728
Bill, this legislation has two primary purposes. The first, set out in the body of the Bill, is the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Although that was part of the Government's manifesto, we believe it to be a nasty little measure based on meanness and envy. The second purpose of the Bill is set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum: it is not dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill's provisions will lead to savings to be spent on reducing infant class sizes in the maintained sector and that those savings will be realised from the 1998–99 financial year onwards.
All parts of the Committee will accept that that is a perfectly admirable aim to pursue, so long as one does not become over-obsessive about the question of class sizes. There are many other measures that are equally important in terms of raising standards in schools, for example, whole class teaching and other ideas which have now been embraced by the new Government. We welcome that Damascene conversion to such methods of teaching. However, because the Bill encompasses the abolition of assisted places and the reduction of class sizes by using the resultant savings it is important that we should explore those issues. The Government have to explain just how the savings will be made and exactly what they amount to. That is the purpose of the amendments.
I assure the noble Baroness that at this stage I have no intention of pressing this particular group of amendments. The noble Baroness would be very near to being right in saying, if I wished to press the amendments, that they were wrecking amendments and would delay the purposes of the Bill for some two years. At this stage I seek further explanation of what the savings will be and how they will be made. Obviously, the Minister's answers will very much influence the decisions that we must take at later stages in the passage of the Bill through the House.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Skidelsky is unable to be here today. He sends his apologies. Sadly, he is in Cambridge, not in Hyde Park as some of us were this morning. Noble Lords who attended the Second Reading debate or who have read the report of it will be aware that my noble friend made a very powerful case on the very question of the costs and savings. Quite clearly and very simply, he rejected the claims of the Government that additional pupils could be accommodated at no extra cost to the Government.
At Second Reading the noble Baroness rightly claimed that the reduction in the number of pupils taking up offers under the assisted places scheme, and therefore the small increase in numbers going into the maintained sector, would place no extra burden on the maintained sector. Noble Lords were informed that there were some 800,000 surplus places and that the absorption of the small number of extra pupils would not place any burden on the maintained sector. However, as my noble friend correctly pointed out, the figure of 800,000 surplus places is simply irrelevant to the arguments that we have to address today. As my noble friend said—and it is important for the Committee to remember this—schools are funded on a per-pupil basis. Therefore, we have to recognise that much of the cost allegedly

729
saved by pupils no longer being able to go into the assisted places scheme would not be clawed back. As my noble friend said, the average cost of an assisted place is some £3,900 and the average cost of a maintained place is about £2,700. That cost is a very real one because, as was mentioned at the time, schools are funded on a per-pupil basis.
If we take those crude figures as they are, we see that the difference between the two is some £1,200. As my noble friend put it, if one takes that net saving of £1,200 and multiples it by the number of pupils who would no longer be eligible for the assisted places scheme, by the end of the third year we have savings merely of some £28 million. That is way, way short of the £100 million that the noble Baroness and her right honourable and honourable friends have been quoting in another place and simply does not provide enough money to pay for the reduction in class sizes that is claimed to be one of the Bill's purposes.
In using those figures, my noble friend was painting what amounts to, as he put it, a particularly rosy picture from the Government's point of view. My noble friend very sensibly pointed out that no account had been taken of the fact that 9,000 assisted places are in sixth forms where, obviously, the costs are somewhat greater; in other words, the saving is somewhat smaller. Moreover, no account is taken of the capital costs of the pupils in the assisted places scheme. The capital costs for the independent sector must come out of the £3,900 figure relating to the average cost of an assisted place that I quoted. I can tell the noble Baroness that, on average, the independent sector estimates that it spends something in the order of £550 per pupil. Again, that is a figure which would be taken off the net savings that I quoted of £1,200 which brings down the £28 million probably by a matter of some 50 per cent., leaving it at a mere £14 million.
To be fair, since Second Reading the noble Baroness has written to my noble friend and copied the letter to me. In that letter of 3rd July she makes further claims about where the savings would come from. Perhaps I may refer to some extracts. The noble Baroness maintains that many of the pupils will stay on anyway in the independent schools and that those schools are confident that they will be able to fill the places previously occupied by pupils on the assisted places scheme with fee paying pupils. In other words, the noble Baroness is saying that they will get the savings and will do so by imposing the cost on the independent sector—a cost that was borne by the state.
The noble Baroness further claims that if phasing out the assisted places scheme does lead to a marginal increase in the number of pupils in the maintained sector, that increase is certain to be less than the number of surplus places in each and every LEA across the country. She says that LEAs, with the notice that they have, should have the ability to make appropriate arrangements to accommodate any additional pupils. In other words, the Minister has not moved any further from her original position; namely, that there are 800,000 surplus places and, therefore, the pupils can he absorbed at, as she puts it, "no extra cost".
This group of amendments covers not only England. As the noble Baroness will notice, it also covers Scotland. I have tabled amendments to Clause 5. It seems that the position in Scotland is somewhat different. A very similar scheme exists there, but obviously a different Minister—a Scottish Minister—deals with it. We have heard from Mr. Brian Wilson; indeed, I have an exclusive article from the Scotsman, although I regret to say that I have forgotten its date. However, Mr. Wilson has made remarks to the effect that it will not be possible to restrict primary classes to 30 and that there will not be sufficient money from the abolition of the scheme in Scotland to cover the extra costs of reducing class sizes. When the Minister comes to reply—no doubt some of my noble friends will wish to pass some comments—I hope that she will comment on what her honourable friend in the Scottish Office has been saying in Scotland about the effect of the abolition of the assisted places scheme and how that sacrifice fails to cut class sizes.
I have one further point to make. The Bill is designed not only to abolish the assisted places scheme but also to reduce class sizes. Obviously, if one wishes to reduce class sizes, it is most important to have sufficient teachers so to do. Indeed, one cannot reduce class sizes unless there are sufficient teachers. We heard only recently that there are some fairly major problems with teacher recruitment. Therefore, can the Minister say how many new teachers will be required to reduce class sizes in the three years that the Government are talking about for children aged five, six and seven? Can she also tell the Committee what are the current shortfalls in recruitment? Moreover, if there are such shortfalls, where are we to find the extra teachers, not only for reducing class sizes in primary schools but also for the other areas where there are shortages?
I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give us slightly more satisfactory answers on the issue of savings than we received either on Second Reading or in subsequent correspondence. Alternatively, perhaps the noble Baroness will give us the answers to questions raised by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. As I said, I have no intention at this stage of pressing this group of amendments. However, the answers that the Minister gives will certainly influence our decisions about how we take these matters forward at later stages. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 22, which is one of those now being discussed as it forms part of the grouping. That amendment to Clause 5, which deals with Scotland, would have a similar effect to Amendment No. 1; that is to say, postponement. There are especially cogent reasons for postponement in Scotland. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness told us that there would be a White Paper early in July. Indeed, on 7th July the White Paper was published and the noble Baroness repeated a Statement on it which was made in another place.

731
There was much advance publicity for the White Paper in the press and the impression was given that it would apply to the whole of Britain. I managed to obtain a copy just before the noble Baroness repeated the Statement. I could see at a glance that there was nothing in the White Paper—or, indeed, in the Statement—which had anything to do with Scotland. In fact, it is confined to England or to England and Wales. I asked the noble Baroness whether a White Paper for Scotland would be issued and when. She kindly said that she would write to me on the matter. That was only three days ago, so I am not complaining that I have not yet received her letter. However, the same day, the junior Minister at the Scottish Office dealing with education, the honourable gentleman Mr. Brian Wilson, gave a press conference lasting 45 minutes at the same time as the White Paper was published.
On Second Reading, the Minister told us that the White Paper was to be published and described it as a wide-ranging document. She said that there would be plenty of time to debate it. Not, apparently, in Scotland, and for Scottish parliamentarians. It did not range wide enough even to touch on Scotland. On Tuesday, headlines in the Scottish press ran, "Scotland's schools miss out", and:
"Better schools for all, apart from Scotland".
I was not the only person to feel that that had not been well handled.
Apparently no White Paper or document for discussion will appear in Scotland in the foreseeable future. A press conference is not equivalent to a public parliamentary document. It is totally inadequate. I am sure that my noble friends feel the same about it.
A further reason why postponement in Scotland is even more necessary is that, when the Bill was published, a press notice issued on 23rd May by the Department for Education and Employment stated that savings would amount to some £100 million by 2000. That was repeated by the Minister on Second Reading. Did that figure include Scotland? No one seems to know. I hope that we shall receive an answer today.
It is important to know, because of a decision reported in the Scottish press and referred to by my noble friend Lord Henley. I can give him the date. It was 2nd July—Wednesday of last week. Again, the report was that Scottish Office Ministers had stated that not enough money would be raised in Scotland from scrapping the assisted places scheme to enable the manifesto commitment to reduce primary school classes to be carried out. The headline in The Scotsman read:
"Assisted place sacrifice fails to cut classes".
The word "sacrifice" is significant. The assisted places scheme is widely well regarded in Scotland. Will a Minister confirm or comment on the point? I hope that the noble Baroness will today, because I do not see the Scottish Office Minister here. If reports are correct, then that is a cogent argument for at least postponing the
732
proposals for Scotland. Indeed, during the pause, it might be found that the best course would be to keep the assisted places for Scotland after all.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have one or two further questions that I would like to ask. I was unable to be present at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy made a number of excellent points about the plans for the assisted places scheme in Scotland. He has made further points which, had he not made them, I would have made myself.
The Government intend removing from Scottish young people the opportunity to take up about 3,500 assisted places. It is essential that we receive answers to the questions, but unfortunately there is not only no Scottish Office Minister in the House, I see not one Scottish Peer on the Benches opposite.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Perhaps the noble Baroness—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness has just appeared, and I am very glad to see her. Scottish Peers have been drifting in as I have been speaking. That is excellent, because they may be able to assist me. Amendments Nos. 22, 24 to 26 and 28 relate to Clause 5. They have roughly the same effect on the scheme as those in other clauses. What is going on in relation to the assisted place scheme in Scotland is, to say the least, surprising. I am delighted to see that the Scottish Office Minister has now appeared. That is excellent news, because he is no doubt well-briefed on the matter.
I first suspected that all was not well with the Government's plans when I asked a Written Question on 5th June, which, given the Government's promises during the election campaign, I imagined would be easy to answer. I asked what the Government expected to save each year from bringing the assisted places scheme to an end; what it would cost per annum to reduce class sizes to 30 and fewer. That was not an unreasonable question. I waited for 13 days, almost the maximum period, to receive the reply. Then I was not given replies to the question that I had asked. I was told that the Government's expenditure plans did not take account of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, but just the broad sums that were in the plan for the present scheme as it is.
I was told how many children were in classes of over 30 and how many classes of over 30 there were. I was told that it was not possible to calculate the annual cost of reducing those classes to 30 or fewer because the figures were not available. Clearly, at that point the Government did not know what they would require to reduce the classes, and, consequently, whether the savings from the assisted places scheme would be enough.
Since then, my suspicions have been somewhat enhanced, because we have heard, as my noble friend Lord Campbell said, that the Government do not intend to legislate to reduce class sizes because there would not be enough money. The education press in Scotland suggests that the Educational Institute of Scotland,

733
which is the teacher union to which most teachers belong, and the local authorities are blocking such a move to reduce class sizes in that way. I do not know whether that is true. It may well be, because since the Government came to power even more important matters have already been reneged upon. We understand that that is because of teacher and local authority objections.
The implementation of the curriculum for 16 to 18 year-olds which is so important, and which is known as Higher Still, and eagerly awaited by everyone in Scotland has been postponed for yet another year. So it will not happen for another two years. That is unfortunate. The plans for the compulsory appraisal of teachers have also been abandoned. We know that the teacher unions and the local authorities have told the Government that they just cannot see a way of implementing them. It may well be that the problem of reducing class sizes is meeting the same kind of difficulty. I ask the Minister whether it is true that the Government are breaking their promise on the question of reducing class sizes to 30 or less in Scotland? Is it the case that the Bill's financial memorandum, bearing in mind that it is a Great Britain Bill for England, Wales and Scotland, does not apply any more?
If so, are the Government going to proceed with removing the assisted places scheme in Scotland? If they are not going to use the money in that way, the scheme must be going simply out of prejudice, and prejudice about this scheme in Scotland is singularly unfortunate because polls have shown that it is well supported by a substantial majority of people in Scotland. There is considerable regret that this particular opportunity for young people in Scotland is to be removed.
I support this amendment because, obviously, postponement of the scheme would allow the Government to sort out the confusion into which they have fallen in Scotland and would enable them to produce a scheme which would meet the intentions which are expressed in the financial memorandum.
4 p.m.
Lord Peston: I hope it is in order for someone who is not a Scot to take part in debating this Bill.
Lord Henley: I am not a Scot.
Lord Peston: I hope that it is in order for me to debate the Bill, particularly the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is the main Opposition spokesman on these matters. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, and I have read the speech of his noble friend Lord Skidelsky on Second Reading. I was intrigued and extremely puzzled both by the original speech and by what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, now has to say, because it seemed to me to lack one crucial element which one would usually require in your Lordships' House; namely, an element of logicality.
The noble Lord seemed to be arguing, as did his noble friend, that there would be no savings from abolishing the assisted places scheme. I considered that and then
734
I thought, if they can believe that, they must also believe that the scheme costs nothing, that there are simply no net costs in having the assisted places scheme. If one reflects upon that, what they would then be saying is that my noble friend the Minister could, by chance, get up—I take it that she is not going to do so—and say, "We are going to extend the assisted places scheme by 50,000 places and, of course, we do not have to worry about that and I do not even have to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it will not cost anything". One only has to make that point to realise how preposterous it is. The assisted places scheme costs what the assisted places scheme costs, and it went into the public accounts costing that much.
I am sorry that the noble Lord referred to it as mean, nasty and envious to go against it. I thought that the Bill was rather mean, nasty and envious when it came in, as did several of my noble friends. It was not a Bill that we supported. I also believe that my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State are incredibly generous because they did not do what someone like me would have done; namely, abolish the scheme forthwith; they are going to go on spending hundreds of millions of pounds on this scheme for the next few years. I certainly do not mind being thought of as mean and nasty; it is my stock-in-trade, but the notion that my noble friend is being mean and nasty in any way is absurd. This is a use of public money—transferring public money from expenditure in the maintained system to expenditure in the fee paying system. That is what it is, and the Government have now announced that they will reverse it.
Noble Lords opposite may disagree with that and I do not blame them for doing so. It seems to me just as reasonable for them to disagree with that as it was for us to have disagreed with what they did in the first place. That is the nature of disagreement. But for them then to demand—my noble friend will no doubt respond to their demand because she is that type of person; she has a mission to explain, as I have—that she takes them through this in enormous detail is absurd. The amendments are ridiculous to start with. There is absolutely no doubt that this scheme costs those sums of money.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: What are the figures?
Lord Peston: At the current rate it will be getting on for over £200 million by the end of the century. One hundred and fifty million pounds was the sum left out as a result of the phasing process. There will still be some left after that.
The scheme is costing that much, and the way to check is to look in the public accounts, where you will see these figures. The fact remains that this Bill very generously eases out the assisted places scheme rather more slowly than some of us would like but, out of sheer loyalty to my noble friend, I support her and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on this. But to suggest that there are no savings, to suggest that all this scheme does is simply transfer money that would have been spent in the public sector to be spent in the private sector with no net costs to the system just does not stand

735
up for one minute. Yet that is precisely the view that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was putting forward. More to the point, that is the point his noble friend was advancing.
I do not see why we are wasting any time on these amendments. It is an absurd waste of the very valuable time of your Lordships' House.
Lord Tope: I do not want to waste any more of your Lordships' time on this, nor do I want to follow the particularly Scottish points that were being made, except to marvel at the ability of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to conjure up Scottish Labour Peers and even a Minister before our very eyes as she spoke. That is an ability I certainly envy.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for making clear when introducing the amendments that they are simply probing amendments on which he does not intend at this stage to press for a Vote. I must confess that, until he had said that, I had harboured the unworthy thought that possibly these amendments were intended to delay the implementation of the Bill simply because they viewed it as a mean and nasty Bill and were opposed to it.
As I said at Second Reading, we wholly share the aspirations of the Government, subject to some details, as regards this Bill. We have always opposed the assisted places scheme. We wish to see it phased out as quickly as possible, consistent with commitments that have been given. Similarly, to the extent that the phasing out of the assisted places scheme would help in the reduction of class sizes in infant schools, so, too, we support that enthusiastically. Indeed, it is well known that my party would have wished to go rather further and rather faster than that. We wholly support the intentions of the Bill, both as they appear in the Bill itself and as stated in the preamble.
However, we share the doubts that have been expressed both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the extent to which the phasing out of the assisted places scheme will actually contribute to the very laudable objective of reducing class sizes. It is in the nature of things that the Government, in proposing this measure, are likely to maximise the savings likely to be achieved and the Opposition is likely to do the opposite and to maximise the costs involved in reducing class sizes.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle and we will not know until it actually happens. We need to recognise that. Perhaps it is inevitable that the Liberal Democrats are somewhere in the middle. I suspect that the savings will not be as great as is claimed for them; I am sure that the costs will not be as great as some of those claiming that believe, but there are people who are perhaps more independent observers than some of us in this House who have grave doubts about whether the savings will be sufficient to meet the Government's commitments.
Doubts have been expressed by many, as has already been said today, and most recently by Mr. Brian Wilson. I was going to help the noble Lord, Lord Henley, by
736
telling him that it appeared on 2nd July in The Scotsman. He too has said that it is very unlikely that the savings will be sufficient. I have noticed, I believe, from statements made by Ministers either on the record or off the record that they seem to have shifted their language towards saying that it will contribute towards the costs in reducing class sizes. I believe that is a more honest and realistic statement to make.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I will assist him. Ministers might have shifted in what they are saying on this, but the Bill itself has not. If the noble Lord looks at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum he will see that it clearly says,
"The Bill's provisions will lead to savings which will be spent on reducing … class sizes".
Lord Tope: Perhaps it is not for me to explain what the Government mean in their Bill. I am sure that the Minister, when she replies, will do that more adequately than I can. I believe that it is the intention of the Bill that it will do as it says in the preamble and, to the extent that the savings are made, that is what they will be used for. I assume that is what it means, but it is perhaps not for me to say.
I do not want to delay your Lordships today. My party wishes this Bill well, subject to some small but important details. We will not be supporting measures designed overtly or otherwise to delay its passage or to delay its implementation, but I will certainly listen carefully to the reply that is given to the questions that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others because, to some extent, perhaps for different reasons and different motives, I share those concerns.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: You will never know how greatly relieved I was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henley, give the assurance that he does not wish to delay the implementation of this Bill for a period of two years.
We have annually debated the background to this Bill. We have looked at the assisted places scheme every year. We have trotted out the same old arguments until we all know them backwards. But the information and assurances which the noble Lord asked for will not take two years, two months or two hours to supply.
The letters to which the noble Lord referred seem to me to make it perfectly clear that the savings achieved by phasing out the assisted places scheme will result in phasing in smaller class sizes, as my noble friend Lord Peston made perfectly clear.
I wish to make three straightforward points in favour of bringing in this Bill as smoothly and as rapidly as possible. It seems to me that it cannot possibly be argued that the date or details of implementation come as any surprise to any Member of your Lordships' Committee. It has been our official policy since the assisted places scheme was introduced. Neither the schools nor the parents need any further period of notice or information. It was and is the first of the Labour Party's five pledges in the manifesto. Nobody could be given greater warning than that.

737
What is more, outside this Chamber I do not sense any passionate desire from the people concerned most closely for vast amounts of extra information and details down to the last tuppence ha'penny of what will be done where.
Not long before the general election I was invited to a great and famous independent secondary school in this country, which I shall forbear to name, to talk to a conference of some 40 independent prep-school headmasters. They were headmasters, not head teachers. Unfortunately, not one female, lady, woman, was in the position of being in charge of an independent preparatory school and prepared to come to that conference.
I prepared myself to address those gentlemen and to take their questions. They asked me many, many questions. None was concerned with the assisted places scheme. They may not have approved of it but they were in absolutely no doubt what it was about: how it worked; how it affected them; and what they needed to do about it.
Secondly, it cannot possibly be argued that that would be a better scheme if we had any form of delay or reconsideration or that it needs any greater degree of time to perfect. Always there will be disputes about exact numbers and figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we shall have to work out the very fine detail as we go along because the thing will not stand still. Numbers and figures will change. But we cannot leave it. We cannot say, "We will give it another year or so just to settle down and see if we can bring it in then". We cannot say with Shakespeare's Viola:
"Oh Time, thou must untangle this, not I; It is too hard a knot for me t'untie".
It is up to the Opposition to demonstrate that additional time would allow any specific improvements to be made or that additional time in even considering this Bill would allow us to bring it to a further degree of perfection. So far, the Opposition have failed singularly to convince me that that is so.
Thirdly, it is impossible to argue that the implementation of this scheme as it is at present put forward will force good schools to close or to suffer cruel and unnatural financial punishment. As I see it, the key statistic is that the average of assisted places for participating schools is about 14 per cent. Many APS schools claim that they are over-subscribed in any event. The APS was started to assist the intellectually able children of poor parents and not to subsidise independent schools. Those schools which are now claiming hardship, if they are—and I believe that some do—may be likened to the seven foolish virgins at the marriage ceremony recorded in the Gospels who failed to get oil for their lamps in advance. When the bridegroom came they were locked out. To them I can only say: it is too late now; the bridegroom came on 1st May.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: With this group of amendments, noble Lords opposite seek to delay the effect of the Bill's provisions. I have listened carefully
738
to the arguments put forward about the savings or lack of savings, as is claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and other Members of the Committee on the Opposition Benches. I am afraid that I cannot see any reason to delay the start of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme because of the questions which are raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, raised a number of questions about Scotland, some of which were about the White Paper on schools which was published earlier this week. It would make more sense for questions about the White Paper in Scotland to be answered when we reach Clause 5, which is the clause which relates to Scotland, rather than to discuss that matter with these amendments which are concerned with delaying the Bill.
However, I can explain one rather more specific point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and which relates more directly to the assisted places scheme. As my right honourable friend made clear in another place earlier this week, the savings from the assisted places scheme in England, Wales and Scotland will be pooled. Funding will then be distributed in support of our commitment to reduce class sizes. Therefore, our commitment applies equally to children in infant classes across the United Kingdom. Funding will be available to meet our pledge in Scotland in a similar way to which it is to be met in England. I hope that that is helpful and explains the position.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: While the noble Baroness is on that point, is she telling us that what the Minister was reported to have said will not mean a reduction in class sizes in that way? Is that not the case?
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that I entirely follow the noble Baroness's question. Perhaps I can make it clear that savings from the assisted places scheme in Scotland will not deliver enough to reduce class sizes. We have already made that clear. However, we intend to pool the savings that are made in England and Wales so that those savings can be distributed in order to fulfil our pledge on class sizes across England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that that is now clear.
I turn now to the question of savings which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. That seems to be his favourite subject. He quoted the previous Government's estimate of a differential between the cost of an assisted place and a maintained sector place at £12,200. But the cost differential for 1997–98 will show a significant increase in the differential. Provisionally we expect the differential to be 40 per cent. I regret that the noble Lord is working from out-of-date information.
I am very grateful for the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Peston on this matter.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Can the Minister explain the differential between the cost of the assisted places scheme per person and the sixth form college cost?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot give a precise figure on the differential between an assisted places scheme in a sixth form and an assisted places scheme in a maintained school, which is the relevant comparison. It would not be relevant to compare the overall cost of an assisted places scheme with the cost of a place in the sixth form: that would be a ludicrous comparison, if I may say so.
The average cost of an assisted places scheme place in 1997–98 will be £4,100 per annum. That is 47 per cent. more than the standard spending assessment in the state sector. There is clearly a very substantial difference between the costs and therefore there must be savings, and very considerable savings, to be made from abolishing the scheme.
I remind Members of the Committee opposite that the former government spent over £1 billion on the scheme. We believe that spending is much better directed at educating young children and improving their education by reducing class sizes in state schools. As we have stated, we are concerned to help the many rather than to concentrate this money on a very small number of pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the issue of class sizes and numbers of teachers. As the White Paper published earlier this week explained, there will be a programme of consultations with local education authorities and schools on how best to meet their commitment to reduce infant class sizes over time, including the precise mechanisms for channelling and distributing the funds released by phasing out the assisted places scheme. The necessary legislation will be brought before noble Lords in due course, as I made clear on another occasion.
The precise numbers and costs of the teachers and of the other provisions required to enable reduction of class sizes will depend on the outcome of the consultations with the local education authorities and schools. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, was correct in stating that at this stage we cannot be 100 per cent. precise about the details of the costs that will be involved in fulfilling this pledge. However, I can confirm—and I stand by the figures which I set out in the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—that approximately £100 million of savings will be available by the year 2000 and £100 million per annum thereafter. That figure of £100 million a year is equivalent to 4,000 teacher years. That is a lot of teacher years which will help us fulfil the very important pledge that we made to the electorate. We are completely confident that these sums will be adequate to reach the class size target by the end of this Parliament.
We have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme, year after year after year, ever since its inception in 1981. We made clear then that when in office we would move quickly to end the subsidies it provides to schools. Deferring implementation for three years, as entailed by the amendments, is completely unnecessary and would delay the delivery of that pledge. Moreover, we are honouring the September 1997 intake, and therefore schools will have an extra year in which to plan for life without a subsidised entry. Clearly, many
740
schools have been, very sensibly, preparing for the loss of the assisted places scheme for some time. If they had not done so, frankly they would have been very foolish because we have signalled on many occasions our intention in that regard.
I do not always believe what I read in the newspapers, but press reports tell us that those schools have plans to run schemes of their own and to fill the remaining places with fee paying pupils. We look forward to discovering whether the press reports are accurate.
The Bill demonstrates our priorities as set out in our manifesto. To delay this pledge would affect the fulfilment of our promise and prevent us from keeping our word with the electorate. We do not intend to break our word with the electorate.
The party opposite left us with a legacy of 440,000 pupils in overcrowded infant classes. Frankly, that is not a good legacy. Recent data show that that figure will soon reach 480,000. At that rate, delaying the provisions by three years would mean over 600,000 pupils in classes of over 30. It is simply unacceptable for that figure to rise. That is why we are acting now.
Therefore I give no apology for moving swiftly. We would be criticised if we were to delay the implementation of our pledge. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated that he would not press these amendments, for which I am very grateful. I have spelt out the reasons why his argument about lack of savings does not stand up. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments in regard to the matters I raised concerning Scotland. I sympathise with her for having to deal with Scotland. I am pleased to see the Scottish Minister in his place, but he was not present when I spoke, and no doubt the noble Baroness will pass on the points I made.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, because he is the Scottish Office Minister dealing with devolution, and, I imagine, is fully occupied outside this House dealing with all the disagreements and troubles in the preparation of a White Paper about which the media keep us informed.
The noble Baroness stated that we could discuss the Scottish points when we reach Clause 5, including the White Paper, and I am perfectly happy about that. However, my point is that there is no Scottish White Paper, and the Scottish Office Minister made it clear that there would not be one. The press conference he gave was not a substitute for a White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made an interesting statement about his attendance at a head teachers' conference. He said that the subject of assisted places had not arisen. I was invited as a guest to the United Kingdom headmasters' conference in 1976, 1977 and 1978, and to the United Kingdom preparatory headmasters' conference which used to take place every four years. The question of assisted places schemes, north and south of the Border, was one of the major subjects discussed. I was chairman of the Scottish

741
Council of Independent Schools and we were busy preparing an assisted places scheme for Scotland which was accepted and included in the Scottish Bill.
That was the experience then. Once the assisted places schemes were operating head teachers seemed to be fairly happy with them. Therefore I can understand that the matter would not have been discussed at later conferences. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that the conferences in the 1970s had different interests and concerns. I look forward to hearing more when we discuss Clause 5 which deals with Scotland. Amendment No. 22 is nearly the same as the amendment we are discussing now. In this Chamber the groupings are normally drawn up by agreement. It makes sense that a matter which is to apply to Scotland, England and Wales should be discussed in the same debate.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I appreciate that the noble Baroness has probably prepared excellent replies to Clause 5. However, the problems with the airlines at the moment mean that I may have to leave before we reach that clause and therefore I am probably speaking a little more about Scotland at this stage than I should.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that schools have known about this matter for a long time. I refer him to a Scottish school. Before that school had to become independent it had 25 per cent. local authority places and 75 per cent. fee paying places. That school, in a rural area not far from where I live, has managed to survive. I know the school well. Practically all its pupils are local. Out of a roll of 530, it has 173 assisted places. The school expects to lose at least 100 pupils whose parents will not be able to pay the full fees when the scheme is phased out. That school is under threat. Its quality will alter. Places will have to be found in the local secondary school. The distances involved in that area mean there is no other alternative. That process will cost money. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that some of the figures which had been mentioned were complete nonsense and that because local authority costs were so much lower than those of the assisted places savings were bound to be made.
Lord Peston: I interrupt the noble Baroness because she does not seem to understand what I said. Her noble friend said that abolishing the scheme would save no money. I simply pointed out to him that I found that slightly difficult to comprehend. Indeed, that clashes with what the noble Baroness herself has just said about the damage that abolishing the scheme would cause to certain schools. If no money is involved here what is anyone complaining about? The scheme will save the amount of money that my right honourable friend and my noble friend the Minister have said it will save. That is the point I was making.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I mention other figures to the noble Lord. I live near the city of Dundee. At the private, fee paying Dundee High School the average cost for a day pupil is £4,300 a year. The average cost
742
for a pupil in the state system across Scotland is £2,700. Therefore, the cost per pupil in the Dundee High School is £1,600 higher. However, that figure includes all the capital expenditure. The average figure for Scotland of £2,700 does not include capital expenditure. Capital expenditure is a large element in the funding of education in the state system.
In the city of Dundee in the past year or two, £8 million has been spent on an extension to one school and £6 million on an extension to another. Capital expenditure is of that order in the state system. That is not the case with all state schools all the time but there is a great deal of money tied up in capital expenditure. That must be allowed for in the fees charged in the private sector. One cannot calculate the capital element in the public sector. Therefore, the noble Lord's comparison is not a proper one.
Lord Henley: I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to respond to some of those points. I remind her that it is Committee stage and therefore she is entirely at liberty to respond should she so wish. I wish to make a few remarks before this debate comes to an end. I did not find the response of the noble Baroness satisfactory. However, there was at least one thing on which I could agree with both the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Morris; namely, when they said this had been a longstanding policy of the party opposite—which is now the Government—and that they had stuck to this policy for some 18 years. I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. What other policies have they managed to stick to for 18 years? I suspect they will be few indeed. Therefore, we must at least congratulate them on that fact. Here is some continuity and stability in the party opposite.
The noble Baroness complained that I had something of an obsession with the savings in this Bill. The noble Baroness and her noble friends have only themselves to blame for that obsession. For some quite extraordinary reason that I simply do not understand—it is the weirdest bit of drafting I have ever come across—they have linked one part of the Bill on the abolition of assisted places with some other good that they wish to achieve. It is a good that I think we can all generally support. They have linked the two in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum but then have not mentioned that in the Bill. The Bill is purely about the abolition of the assisted places scheme. It is perfectly legitimate for the Opposition—if there is more than one opposition party, and sometimes I have considerable doubts when I listen to the comments from the party opposite which after all at the time of the election was telling us there was not even a cigarette paper's difference between the policies that we were espousing and the policies of the party opposite, and now we seem to be hearing—
Lord Tope: I could not possibly let that pass; namely, that at any time I or any other member of our education team claimed that there was not a cigarette paper's difference between us. I think I recall the noble Lord, Lord Morris, making a comment to that effect, but that is up to him and his party.
Lord Henley: I hope I may correct the noble Lord. I think it was the leader of his party who during the election used that very expression about there not being a cigarette paper's difference between the Conservative Party's policies and those of the Labour party. Now we seem to find that new Labour and new Liberals are all in bed together. The noble Lord should ask the leader of his party whether he was misleading the electorate at the time he implied that our policies were the same as those of the party opposite.
That said, the question of savings is an important one. I do not think that the noble Baroness has adequately addressed those points. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the assisted places scheme costs money. However, one must also accept that if this scheme is to be wound up—I appreciate that we are talking about a relatively small number of pupils in relation to education as a whole—a number of extra pupils will have to attend other schools and there will be some extra cost because of the way that schools are funded on a per pupil basis. That point was not addressed by the noble Baroness.
Nor did she address the point that the difference in costs between maintained sector pupils and assisted places pupils is not as great as all that because one has to take into account capital costs. I could have gone on and talked about LEA overheads. Of the vast amount of money that we make available to schools, how much gets through to the schools themselves? We all know that that is a difficult calculation and it varies from LEA to LEA. However, one could make a strong case that much more of it should go directly to the schools. In the case of the assisted places scheme, every single penny goes to that scheme.
I have to say that I do not think that the points we have put forward have been adequately addressed. I will have to consider very carefully between now and the next stage exactly what kind of amendments I should table. I appreciate that this is a rather complicated matter and that is why I had to put down amendments that sought to delay the Bill, something which, as I have made clear to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to pursue at this stage because within the Bill itself there is very little about where the money is going. We only find that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
Lord Dormand of Easington: This is the second time in his wind-up that the noble Lord has mentioned about the Bill not including what the money is for. He has just contradicted himself. I should like to help to clarify the situation by saying that as I understand it the Bill does not mention this matter. In that respect I think he is correct but, in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which, as he knows, is an essential part of the Bill, there are these words:
"The Bill's provisions will lead to savings which will be spent on reducing infant class sizes in the maintained sector".
Surely he will agree that it could not be plainer than that.
Lord Henley: That is the very point that I am trying to make. I was trying to offer advice to the Government as to how to draft Bills. I find it quite extraordinary that they have put this purpose into the Explanatory and
744
Financial Memorandum, and, as they have done so, I and my noble friends think it is a legitimate matter to pursue and it is one which we shall continue to pursue. My advice to them is that when drafting the Bill, they should have left that bit out. They can make the point in Second Reading speeches, but to put it in seems quite extraordinary. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is nodding, so perhaps I have agreement on that minor drafting point.
Lord Peston: No, I was not agreeing with that. I was agreeing that it seemed to be perfectly legitimate for the noble Lord to raise these questions, as I believe very strongly that virtually anything—even the hijacking of the whole debate by the Scots in the end—is legitimate. So I really hope that the noble Lord does not say that I disagree with his raising these matters, because that is not so.
Lord Henley: I have to say that my noble friend hijacked it for the Scots because half the amendments in this particular group relate to Clause 5 and to Scotland. I think it was a perfectly legitimate act (and I hope the noble Lord accepts that it was a perfectly legitimate act) to raise those two particularly difficult Scottish points.
As I said, I do not think that we have received satisfactory answers. I will have to consider very carefully what kind of amendments we do put down at a later stage because I can assure the noble Baroness that this whole question of the savings and how great they will be is not one that will go away. As I gave an assurance earlier, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Bosnia: Indicted War Criminals
4.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"At about 0800 this morning, British troops serving with the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia took action to detain two individuals against whom the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia—the ICTY—had served sealed indictments.
"One was Simo Drljaca, the former police chief of the municipality of Prijedor; a town near Banja Luka in Bosnia Herzegovina. The other was Milan Kovacevic, director of the Prijedor hospital.

745
"The two individuals had been indicted by ICTY for complicity in genocide, for acts against the Bosnian Moslem and Croat people, in the municipality of Prijedor, between 29th April 1992 and 31st December 1992. Drljaca was in 1992 the Deputy Minister of the Interior of Republica Srpska; thereafter the Chief of Police in Prijedor. Kovacevic was formerly President of the Executive Board of the municipality of Prijedor.
"The first indictee, Drljaca was challenged by SFOR personnel. He immediately drew a pistol and shot, and wounded, one of our soldiers. The other soldiers then returned fire in self-defence. Drljaca was fatally wounded. Two other people who were with Drljaca were detained. They have been transferred to The Hague. Three handguns were recovered at the scene.
"Drljaca and the wounded soldier were transferred by helicopter to Tuzla military hospital. The British soldier was wounded in the leg, but is not seriously injured.
"Milan Kovacevic was detained at the hospital and has now been arrested by the ICTY and transferred to The Hague.
"These detentions took place in accordance with the stabilisation force's mandate from the North Atlantic Council, as the NATO Secretary-General Solana has made clear. The action had the specific authority of the Secretary-General, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and the North Atlantic Council. SFOR troops have instructions to detain indictees if they come across them in the course of their normal duties, and providing the tactical situation permits. The SFOR mandate has not changed. The injury to our soldier, and the death of Drljaca, illustrates the grave risks involved in such operations and the courage and selflessness of those who serve us.
"I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating and commending the courage and professionalism of the British forces involved. I am very proud of their performance, which was up to the highest military standards.
"The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they believe all of those indicted for war crimes should face trial at the International Tribunal at the Hague. I strongly held that view personally when I was an Opposition spokesman, and I repeated my personal commitment—and that of this Government—at the press conference I held in Sarajevo in May.
"With the Chief of the Defence Staff I went to Pale on the same visit and told the Bosnian Serb member of the Bosnia Herzegovina Presidency, President Krajisnik, of our serious interest in indicted war criminals and we formed the clear impression that the Republika Srpska authorities intended to do little to discharge their solemn obligations.
"They were not then, and have not since been, left in any doubt about the resolve of Britain and our allies to bring to justice those accused of such terrible acts. We will take action as and when it is practical
746
and sensible to do so. Thousands of British troops have now served in Bosnia in United Nations and NATO-led operations. They have served to bring peace and stability to a small country whose people have suffered unimaginable horrors. Our troops, like those who acted this morning, serve with skill, professionalism and with a genuine commitment to restore a semblance of normality and unity to Bosnia Herzegovina.
"We owe them, and their families, a huge debt and today is a good day to make that very clear".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.48 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, from these Benches may I express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement on this serious development in Bosnia. I suspect that many of us will have experienced a certain sense of frustration in recent months that indicted war criminals were at large and living freely in Bosnia Herzegovina and that there was apparently little that our security forces could do about this proactively unless, as the Statement says, they came across the indictees during the course of their normal duties. Apart from the injury to the British soldier, this is indeed a welcome turn of events.
Does the Minister accept that British service personnel are working under very difficult conditions in Bosnia and today's action highlights this fact? We should like to join him in wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded man.
Will the Minister also note that our troops have the support and the thanks of all sides of the House for the duties they perform to uphold the peace in the former Yugoslavia and to enforce the Dayton peace agreement. We certainly join with the Minister in congratulating our troops on what they have accomplished. These developments focus our minds on the ever-approaching deadline for SFOR's departure and the scant time that there is left to achieve all that needs to be achieved if a durable peace is to be secured in that troubled region. In the absence of a durable settlement in Bosnia, does not this incident underline the need to extend the existing deadline for SFOR? What can the Minister tell us about the discussions within NATO on that subject? When does he expect a decision to be taken?
I turn to the section of the Statement which refers to SFOR's mandate. Will the Minister accept the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for the SFOR mandate to detain and transfer to the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia those people who have been indicted for war crimes? The Minister has said that the SFOR mandate has not been changed. However, will he tell the House whether there has been a change in the way in which the mandate has been implemented?
We are pleased to note from the Statement that Kovacevic was arrested. The Statement is a little unclear as to who detained him, but it is good to note that he is in custody. Can the Minister say what pressure is being applied to the authorities locally to apprehend war criminals as they are expected to do under the Dayton

747
Agreement? It is a little dismaying to hear from the Statement that the authorities are not taking those obligations as seriously as they should.
At the risk of bombarding the Minister with questions, not all of which, I realise, he will have time to answer, can he tell the House how many other indictments are outstanding at present? Ever present in our minds, of course, must be the safety of British troops. It seems to me that there is a distinct danger from these detentions that local people will view our troops in a new and perhaps slightly less benign light from this point on. What steps will the Government take to ensure against possible retaliation against British forces in the area?
Finally, I believe that there is a general lesson to be drawn from these incidents. As the Statement acknowledges, no one should imagine that peacekeeping is easy or risk free. I hope that the Minister will agree that this incident underlines the dangers of peacekeeping and the necessity of having well trained, well equipped and highly motivated professional troops to carry out those duties.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. There are many questions that it is not appropriate to put in a delicate operation of this kind at present. We wish to assure the noble Lord that we support the action. We acknowledge the acute difficulties under which British troops operate in fulfilling the mandate; and we fully support the principle that all war criminals should be apprehended in the course of returning this divided area to a full civil society.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, peacekeeping is a difficult process. It is deeply regrettable that British soldiers should suffer casualties even if, frankly, it appears on this occasion a minor casualty. But we have gone into Bosnia to attempt to resolve the conflict and to restore and rebuild a peaceful society in that area. This is a long-term process. We, on these Benches, supported the sending of a substantial British force at an early stage. We support equally the maintenance of that force until we are confident that the situation has again become stabilised. We accept that the apprehension of other war criminals must continue to be part of SFOR's mandate.
We welcome the British contribution to SFOR. We hope that its mandate will not be ended prematurely. I wish the Minister to know that there are many questions we would like to pose but we shall refrain from so doing.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord for their discretion in the questions that they have put to me this afternoon. It is a great reassurance to Defence Ministers to have the expressions of support from both parties on the other side of the House. I will see that they are conveyed not only to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but that they are also conveyed to the commander of British Forces in Bosnia.
748
They are operating in quite appallingly difficult conditions. I know that they will be grateful for the support and thanks of everyone in this House.
The noble Earl asked me when a decision would be taken as to whether it would be necessary to extend the existing deadline for the SFOR presence in Bosnia. The answer I have to give him is that I am afraid it is too early to say. At present we are concentrating on what we need to do in the immediate future.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me whether or not the mandate was being changed in the way in which it was being implemented. I have no knowledge of any change in the way in which the mandate is being implemented.
As regards pressure on the authorities out there, we try to make it as unrelenting as possible. But, frankly, their performance, to put it mildly, has been disappointing—and one could use much stronger language than that. Those authorities voluntarily accepted their responsibilities under the Dayton agreements and they have been seriously negligent in fulfilling them, or even in attempting to fulfil them.
In answer to the question regarding the number of indictments, my information is that up to now 75 have been issued. I am quite sure that the noble Earl is right that there is a possibility that the local populations may develop a less benign attitude, to use his phrase, towards British troops in the immediate future, and there is also a possibility of retaliation on our forces out there. I can assure him that the British commanders on the ground are well aware of that possibility and will of course be taking the necessary precautions. He is absolutely right that peacekeeping is an extremely dangerous matter unless one has well trained troops and very good equipment; and I am glad to say that thanks to the efforts of the previous Government and of this Government that is the position in which our forces find themselves in Bosnia.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we need to try to apprehend all the war criminals because I do not think that we shall bring peace and stability to that wretched part of the world until we have succeeded in doing so.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a short question for clarification, but only if the noble Lord finds it convenient to answer. The power to arrest, to detain, indicted war criminals if one comes across them could have two meanings. Is it the power to do so if by chance one comes across them; or is it the power to seek them out to try and find them and then, coming across them, to arrest them? I am indebted to the noble Lord's statement that they must all be arrested and brought to trial. The question is marginally relevant to that consideration.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand the position, it is the

749
responsibility of the forces that are holding the warrants to arrest people when they come across them in the course of their normal duties.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that all those of us who support the Government would wish to put on record our wholehearted endorsement of what the Secretary of State said on our behalf. We have nothing but the utmost admiration for the calibre and professionalism of our servicemen in this extremely difficult and sensitive area.
In the light of that situation, does my noble friend accept that the Government and indeed the services will have all possible support and good will in any action they find necessary to ensure that those responsible for the most appalling crimes against humanity should be brought to justice? Of course we understand that the local authorities have theoretically accepted responsibility but are doing precious little. In that situation, if it becomes necessary for us to become proactive, there will be good will from these Benches.
Perhaps I may also ask my noble friend to accept that, at a time when we are making human rights central to our foreign policy and when we are engaged in strengthening and extending NATO, the credibility of both those policies is related to the effectiveness with which we pursue our objective within Bosnia.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, not for the first time, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I believe it will be helpful to him if I emphasise once again that this was a NATO operation and to that extent NATO deserves the credit for it. Earlier today in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence detailed some of the appalling atrocities which took place in the areas for which these men held responsibility. I will neither shock the sensibilities of this House nor detain it by repeating them, but they are to be seen in the record of the proceedings of the other place.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is true that one of the problems is that Karadzic, for instance, one of the chief criminals, is to be found not in our sector but in, I believe, the French sector? Does that cause problems? Presumably it is the country in whose sector these people are that would be expected by NATO to make the arrest. Is that one of the difficulties?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question, for the simple reason that I do not know exactly where the gentleman concerned is, and nor am I privy to the contents of warrants that may have been issued other than those in the hands of our forces.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am afraid I was not here when the Minister opened the Statement, but did he not say that the local authorities were bound by the Dayton agreement? They were not represented at Dayton. Surely they were represented by Mr. Milosevic, which is another story altogether?
750
Are we being even-handed in this matter as between Serbs, Moslems and Croats? The Croat leader, Mr. Tudjman, was at Dayton. There have been many suspicions that the Americans have been heavily biased in favour of the Moslems.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have to repeat what I said in my previous answer. I am not privy to the contents of the other warrants that have been issued. All I know about are the warrants that have been in the hands of Her Majesty's Forces. Obviously there are people who have been engaged in extremely unpleasant activities on behalf of each of the ethnic groups to be found in that part of the world. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the noble Earl.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first, can my noble friend confirm or deny a report in the Evening Standard today that a person not guilty of any war crime was killed during that operation? It is important that we have that information.
Secondly, can I go further than the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on the question of how far this writ will run? Is it not a fact that there are indicted war criminals in Croatia, in Moslem Bosnia and in Greater Serbia itself? It is important that we know whether it is the policy of NATO to go into all these areas, including Serbia, to arrest indicted war criminals.
Further, may I ask the Minister what a "blind" indictment is, which we heard about on the one o'clock news? A blind indictment, as I understand it, is an indictment that nobody, including the person indicted, knows anything about.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think he is referring to a "sealed" indictment. A sealed indictment is precisely as he describes it: it does not name publicly the person to whom it is attached. Its purpose is very simple: it is not to give them warning that someone is going to try to arrest them. As I understand it, a very small number of such indictments have been issued at the moment.
As far as my noble friend's other comments are concerned, he is absolutely right. There are people in Greater Serbia, as well as in parts of Bosnia, whom we should all like to see standing trial for these matters in front of the International Court of Justice as soon as possible.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the Minister a little further. He said that the Bosnian authorities were bound by the Dayton agreement. But they were not represented at Dayton. Surely it was Milosevic, the Prime Minister of Serbia, who was at Dayton, not Karadzic.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right; but I was also trying to make the point that the local authorities have a clear responsibility for trying to assist the forces of law and order in arresting war criminals or suspected war criminals. I regret to say that they have been very delinquent in their responsibilities in these matters. On his past visits to the area my right

751
honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has done his best to influence them and so far, to his regret and ours, has failed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this matter but I am concerned about the sealed indictment. Can the Minister explain it a little further? If it is a sealed indictment, the person indicted does not know anything about it and therefore does not know that when someone comes to arrest him he should give himself up or even give himself up before someone comes to arrest him. It may be that I am being a little naive but I do not understand what this term "sealed indictment" means. If the Minister could explain it, I should be most obliged.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, if I understand it correctly, obviously the person named in the sealed indictment knows when it is handed to him that he is named in it. On the other hand, we do not publish these things in the newspapers so that he and his cronies know in advance that he is likely to be arrested.
I regret that I did not answer an earlier point made by my noble friend. I have no knowledge of anyone else having been killed in this operation.

Education (Schools) Bill
5.7 p.m.
House again in Committee.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I have delayed speaking until this stage in the Bill because my objection to the Bill goes wider than merely the monetary considerations which were discussed largely at the earlier stage.
History will relate that the first act of an incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was to introduce on 17th May a very short education Bill, the purpose of which was to restore to local authorities and local people the right to choose the type of secondary education in their areas by removing the compulsion placed upon them to reorganise all secondary schools on comprehensive lines.
The first major Bill, brought in almost immediately after the Summer Recess and debated on 5th November 1979, included among its aims that of expanding parental choice and of setting up the assisted places scheme. While we are debating a clause of a Bill, the intention of which is to abolish that scheme, it is right to remind Members briefly of the purpose for which that Bill was intended.
The purpose of the Bill was to reduce the damage that had been done by the destruction of the direct grant grammar schools; two-thirds of which had gone into the independent sector. It also sought to ensure that the high quality academic education that those schools had provided—particularly in the industrial inner city areas—to children of ability, irrespective of the means
752
of their parents, should continue to be available to those children whose parents would be unable to pay the bill. In moving that Second Reading, I said,
"We believe that the education opportunity provided by those and similar schools should be open to children of ability whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees that they charge. It is with that intention that we bring in this part of this Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/79; col. 41.]
I say at once to the Committee that I was proud to be able to introduce that Bill as I have been proud to be able to introduce the first of the education Bills. I was and remain proud of the assisted places scheme. I cannot claim to have been the total author of that scheme. I noticed a moment ago my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley move through the Chamber, who could claim more of that privilege than I can. However, I can certainly claim to have been the Minister responsible for introducing it.
Therefore, I find it both ironic and sad that almost the first act of an incoming Labour Government, 18 years later, is to remove that opportunity from those children so that in future those schools will yet again become available only to those fortunate enough to have parents who are able to pay the fees. What is more, though I accept that the intention of the Labour Party to remove the assisted places scheme has been clear from the outset, it is largely contrary to the spirit of what was said in the manifesto. In its manifesto on education the Labour Party said,
"Labour will never force the abolition of good schools whether in the private or state sector … We wish to build bridges wherever we can across education divides. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system".
In introducing the assisted places scheme on 5th November 1979 I said to the other place on this very matter:
"The scheme is intended not to divide the two areas but to bring them closer together. It is intended not to be contradictory to the State schools but to be complementary to them. It will lead to a greater and better social mix within those schools".—[Col. 43.]
I repeat, I find it sad and ironic that the first act carried out by the new Labour Administration effectively is to abolish the one scheme that aimed to reduce that divide in a way in which the Labour Party claimed to believe. They abolish it not only to the damage of the pupils who have benefited from the scheme over recent years, but also to the damage of the schools themselves.
I said that it has been known from the outset that the Labour Party was committed to the abolition of the scheme. I congratulate New Labour in one respect; that is, that it has made one substantial difference to that which was proposed by old Labour, however much the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may regret it. Its original commitment made at the time by Mr. Neil Kinnock in another place was to put an immediate end to the scheme so that all financial assistance should be immediately withdrawn and those children being educated in those schools would have their education disrupted and be required to go elsewhere. At least that degree of callousness does not now appear in the Bill.

753
Nevertheless, the Bill remains no more than a sop to the left wing of the Labour Party with its inbuilt dislike of any form of independent education. The fact is that 80,000 people have benefited under the assisted places scheme; the fact is that there are now 37,000 people taking part in those schools. One is told by the critics that the scheme has not benefited those that it set out to benefit. I do not accept that. Of those receiving assisted places, 42 per cent. have their fees wholly paid. That means that the income of their family is less than £9,843 a year; 80 per cent. of the families benefiting from the assisted places scheme come from families with less than the national average household income of £18,000. Indeed, the annual average income of all the assisted places families is in the region of £10,500.
I believe particularly that in those areas with which I was concerned—they are ones the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, would know well, though she is not at present in the Chamber; Blackburn, Bolton, Stockport, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester—the direct-grant schools which had been abolished by a previous government and saved by the assisted places scheme (as schools they will survive) will no longer be able to give the opportunity to those children because of the effect of what is—I agree with my noble friend Lord Henley—a mean and nasty Bill.
For what purpose is that being done? It cannot be suggested for one moment that it is being done for educational purposes. No one is suggesting that those who are in those schools are not benefiting from education of the highest standard. It is being done to save money. I do not want to become involved—I would not dare—with the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Skidelsky, on the issues of economics. Of course there will be some money saved. But to suggest, as the Labour Party has, that we take the gross cost of the assisted places scheme and propound that as the money that is going to be saved as though there were no counteracting charges, is bogus and dishonest.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Peston, jumps to his feet, I remind him of what his manifesto said on the matter:
"We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to 30 or under".
How is that to be done?
"By phasing out the assisted places scheme, the cost of which is set to rise to £180 million per year".
Anybody reading that would be entitled to think that, first, £180 million was the cost at the time that was written; secondly, that the savings would be the total gross cost of the scheme; and, thirdly, that the savings would be adequate to reduce all class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to under 30.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way, if I may interrupt him. I am not criticising him as a Secretary of State; he held that position admirably. I should like to ask him a question, assuming that it does not fall within the Official Secrets Act. When he was Secretary of State and pushing for this scheme, did he go to the Treasury and say, "You must let me have this scheme because it is completely costless. It costs no money whatever because anything I am spending on the
754
scheme is immediately offset by exactly the amount that I will save in other schools". I do not believe that he said that and, if he did, I doubt very much that the Treasury would wear it. That is the only point that I was making earlier.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I accept that I said totally the reverse. I said, and can probably find it if I look, that it was being provided by additional money provided by the Treasury for that purpose. It was not being done at the cost of other expenditure. Of course there is some saving, but to suggest, as the manifesto does, that the gross cost of the scheme is the same as the savings that will be made is nonsense. The only fair system to follow is to assess the difference between the cost of education per child under the assisted places scheme and the cost of educating the same child in the state system. To suggest that merely because there are 80,000 spare places one can somehow accommodate all the children without any additional expenditure is economic nonsense. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle and I agree with that.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I have not given her notice of it and if she says that she cannot answer, I will appreciate that. It occurred to me, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to ask what arrangements have been made for the future financing of Chetham School, Manchester? At the moment the whole of its finance comes through the assisted places scheme. It is a music school of the highest calibre. What is happening to the equivalent school formerly in London, which is also being funded out of the scheme? What provision has been made for them? Do they come before the reduction in the size of the classes of four, five and six year-olds? Or is Chetham School in danger of having its whole future killed off?
There is nothing wrong—indeed I think it admirable—about the Government aiming to reduce the size of classes for five to seven year-olds to under 30. It is an excellent aim and should be encouraged. But surely the Government should have the honesty, like the Liberal Democrat Party, to say that more money should be provided for education rather than to suggest, bogusly, that it can be counteracted by savings under this Bill.
As I said, I believe that this is a nasty, mean clause and that it will reduce educational opportunities. It is particularly unfortunate for those who have been pupils at the great grammar schools of the northern industrial cities of this country. I do not understand—frankly, I never have understood—why members of the Labour Party, many of whom come from that part of the world and who have benefited from the education provided by those schools, should now wish to deny the same opportunity to others, It is hypocritical and wrong.
I agree with Mrs. Shephard, who said in another place:
"The House today is being asked to agree the destruction of the centuries-old tradition of some of our must illustrious schools to provide for a full cross-section of pupils. It is being asked to agree to the destruction of choice and of the freedom to choose a different route for many thousands of children from less well-off families".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/97; col. 32.]

755
I have looked through the report of last week's debate which I was unable to attend. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I was particularly taken by her speech. I appreciate that although we may have agreed on matters of penal reform in the past, clearly I have been removed from what she described as the vanishing list of enlightened Tories. I could not have agreed less with every word that she said on this subject. I reject wholeheartedly her description of the assisted places scheme as unprincipled. I object to the argument that it merely gave help to the few at the expense of the many. I believe that it gave opportunities to many, which they otherwise would not have had. It gave particular opportunity to those from whom opportunity had been taken away. I believe that the intended abolition of the scheme, which this clause sets out to do, will come to be looked on as a stain on the present Labour Government.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. My noble friend quoted from the Labour Party manifesto at the last election. I wish to quote from a more recent document, the Excellence in Schools White Paper, published at the beginning of this week. The noble Baroness will recognise the paragraph at page 72:
"The best independent schools can offer children extensive facilities in sport, music and the other arts; specialist teaching in subjects such as the less common foreign languages; nationally important provision for certain types of special educational needs; and a variety of patterns of boarding provision. The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole educational system".
That was a statement of policy made by the Government. Clause 1 removes a duty from the Secretary of State to provide assisted places. Bearing in mind what is said in that paragraph and the evidence we have had of the success of the scheme and what it has done for a number of individual pupils—I shall not return to the research that my noble friend Lady Young mentioned, which came from the LSE and showed how much better children were doing as a result of the assisted places scheme than they might otherwise have done—and bearing in mind that it is just possible that the Government may change their mind, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past on a great many matters despite the fact that they have stuck to this view for 18 years, will they consider, having removed the duty, substituting a power? We shall be discussing later an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in which he seeks some kind of annual review of the scheme and the effects of its abolition.
My skills at drafting are relatively limited, despite what I said earlier about offering advice on deleting part of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I am advised that drafting the appropriate number of amendments to the 1996 Act, which is what one has to do to substitute the duty with a power, would be quite tricky, but no doubt it can be done and it might be borne in mind for later stages of the Bill.
756
I ask the noble Baroness to address the question as to whether we might consider replacing the duty that we are seeking to abolish in Clause 1 with a power of the Secretary of State to run such a scheme if and when the party opposite changes its mind.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, made a very fine Second Reading speech. Under most circumstances I would take exception to that because the place for such speeches is at Second Reading, but not in the case of the noble Lord. After all, he holds a special position in relation to the Bill because he was the author of the original legislation for the assisted places scheme which we are now proposing to phase out. I believe that the Committee will forgive him for his passionate intervention and the way in which he made it. That is not to say that we agree with his arguments. We certainly do not agree with the very strong words such as "mean" and "hypocritical" which he applied to the Bill and to those who support it. I shall return to his point when I have considered the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill and the issue of what part the clause plays in the construction of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, recognised, those who support the Bill have always had deep-rooted objections to the principles on which the assisted places scheme was founded. The noble Lord disagrees with that, but that is a matter of fact and we cannot do anything about it. However, whatever the disagreements may be in principle, it is the disagreement about the practice which is now before the Committee. That is what we have to consider. The scheme has not met its objective. It has failed on a number of counts. It has not increased parental choice because it has sent children to schools which practise selection. Nearly one-third of the pupils on the scheme came from the independent sector anyway, so we have to ask whether those pupils need the help that is provided by the scheme. One in five pupils come from families with incomes above the national average. That means that the well off are often being subsidised by those poorer than themselves. As only 46 per cent. of pupils come from working class backgrounds, the scheme hardly represents a ladder of opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, gave figures relating to the proportion of pupils who have their fees fully paid as if they were the poorest families. I must advise the noble Lord that in a significant number of cases they are not the poorest families but are separated parents, particularly mothers whose husbands' income is not taken into account for the purpose of the calculation.
Above all, the costs of the scheme are not justified. The average cost of an assisted secondary school place is £4,100 for the year 1997–98, which is 47 per cent. more than the standard spending assessment for pupils in the state sector. I am but one of many to have expressed concern about the way in which the SSA is calculated, but it is there and it is the best estimate that we have of the cost of education per pupil in the state sector.

757
Furthermore, the assisted places scheme fails to add value in educational terms. I do not want to return to the question which arose on Second Reading when some noble Lords used the unfortunate phrase "dust heap" to describe the state sector in which pupils would be placed instead of the independent sector. Nevertheless, there is no statistical evidence of value added in terms of results achieved at A-level.
Lord Henley: My noble friend Lady Young cited the evidence produced in the LSE report—I do not know whether the Minister has read it although the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, claims to have done so—which showed clearly that pupils in the assisted places scheme were doing better then they would otherwise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is plenty of evidence in the other direction. I acknowledge straightaway that I have not read the LSE evidence, but there is plenty of other evidence showing not only that such schools do not perform better but, much more importantly, that small class sizes for those aged five, six and seven make a substantial difference to educational out-turn. We should concentrate our minds on that when looking at added value.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may intervene again. We accept that smaller class sizes are a desirable aim, but the evidence of the advantages of smaller class sizes is the evidence from LSE which shows that smaller class sizes are, indeed, better, but only when there are significant reductions and when the class size falls to below 20 pupils, not when there is mere tinkering around the 30-pupil mark.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not the evidence that I have. The 1995 Ofsted report on class size said that small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education. Once pupils have achieved competency in basic learning, particularly in literacy, they are more able to learn effectively in larger classes. That is why we have concentrated on the early years. I would willingly enter into a debate or correspondence with the noble Lord on the effects of the assisted places scheme, but the evidence that I have is that there is no statistical difference in A-level out-turns between pupils in the assisted places scheme and those who remain in state schools.
The noble Lord referred earlier to the LSE research. I am now informed that that does not provide convincing evidence of the success of the scheme. Although wider studies showed an overall benefit of two A-level grades from an assisted place, the main part of the study—the matched pairs analysis—showed that in only one of the three indicators used did the difference in results reach statistical significance.
The previous government spent over £1 billion on the assisted places scheme. We believe that that money could have been better spent on educating young children. The money released by phasing out the assisted places scheme will, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone, said, be sufficient—at £100 million by the year 2000 and a further £100 million a year thereafter.
758
That will enable us to meet our pledge to reduce class sizes for infant pupils. As my noble friend said, £100 million a year is equivalent to 4,000 teacher hours. Redirecting such resources to the early years of a child's education will reap large benefits in the long term. We believe that the most crucial years are at the ages of five, six and seven. That is where the foundation for future learning is laid.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred to the objectives of the original scheme in 1979 and said that it was triggered by what he described as the "destruction" of direct grant grammar schools which were forced into the independent sector. The noble Lord then quoted a Labour Party document which stated that we will never force the abolition of good schools. That is correct. We will never force the abolition of good schools. Indeed, the noble Lord confirmed that later in his speech when he said that such schools will survive. We can confirm that our evidence is that they will survive because, overall, only 7 per cent. of pupils in the independent sector have an assisted place. Even in participating schools, the average is only 14 per cent. It is therefore most unlikely that any such schools will fall by the wayside.
The noble Lord referred to Chetham School in Manchester. That school is a special case. as the noble Lord will recognise, because it is a specialist music school. There are other specialist music schools, such as the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Purcell School. We recognise that there is a need for specialist provision which is not available in the maintained sector. The scheme that provides that, the music and ballet scheme, will continue and we shall continue to maintain it. I hope that that will set at rest the noble Lord's fears—
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I asked about Chetham School because I was heavily involved with it at the time with regard to the provisions which the previous government had provided for the Yehudi Menuhin and the Purcell schools but had not provided for Chetham School. At that stage, Chetham School was being financed by means of the assisted places scheme. All places in the school were open to such funding. If the noble Lord is saying that it will now come under another fund, I am glad to hear it, but I am concerned to hear that it has a secure future. I am sure that the noble Lord is similarly concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The specific assurance that I am giving is that the music and ballet scheme will continue. That is the most important assurance that I can give. If there are particular problems relating to Chetham School in Manchester which I do not know about, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord about them.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am grateful for that assurance. I asked out of ignorance of the present situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On a number of occasions the noble Lord quoted Labour Party statements about partnership and about seeking to

759
reduce the divide between the public and the private sectors in education. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, recognised, the White Paper is particularly concerned with partnership. The White Paper will set in motion consultation with local education authorities and individual schools to see how the partnership can be made effective where it can only be made effective on a local basis. Partnership is not encouraged by a national assisted places scheme but by local education authorities dealing with the independent schools in their areas and seeking to make better overall provision for those pupils.
I believe that fundamentally this is a wrecking amendment. This was a manifesto pledge. To seek to take out Clause 1 of the Bill would destroy that pledge. We gave the electorate five key pledges, of which this was the first to show that this was the top priority. I ask whether it is acceptable to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill when it is such an essential part of the legislation.
Lord Henley: To spare the noble Lord's righteous indignation at this stage, I assure the Committee that I have no intention of pressing this amendment. It was merely a device to raise certain subjects. Perhaps I should have made that clear earlier. I am not in the business of tabling wrecking amendments. I recognised at Second Reading that this was a manifesto commitment. However, that does not prevent us from asking questions relating to our legitimate concerns about the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I occupied the noble Lord's position on the Opposition Front Bench for nearly 14 years. I took it to be my responsibility not to table amendments that I did not mean simply for the sake of hearing an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Sometimes one tables probing amendments for further information but no one can say that this is a probing amendment. This is an excuse for not examining the Bill closely enough and dealing with issues that deserve to be dealt with.
Lord Henley: If the noble Lord would like the odd little example I could refer him to the previous Education Bill, now an Act, with which I was concerned before the election. I recall that certain amendments were tabled by the party opposite, who were then in opposition, which suggested that certain clauses should not stand part, despite the fact that noble Lords opposite supported those particular clauses. This is a perfectly legitimate device to engage in discussion on certain generalities. I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding his agreement.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that it was wrong to table a clause stand part amendment. That is a perfectly legitimate device, but normally it is tabled to extract
760
information or a commitment from the Government. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Henley, nor the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has done that.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: As the noble Lord has expressed a desire to be probed, can I ask him about one of the statistics to which he referred relating to the kind of background from which children in assisted places come? He referred to working class backgrounds. Can he inform the Committee how working class backgrounds are defined for the purposes of these statistics?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a very common equivalence between socio-economic groups C2, D and E and working class. It is very commonly used. C2 is regarded as skilled working class. I shall be tempted into making market research explanations before long. I am grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for at last making a probing point.
We have made it clear that Clause 1 is essential to the Bill. I have not been given any questions to answer. I hope that the Committee will agree that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put one other probing point. The noble Lord was an experienced local government man in years gone by. He explained that the money saved on the assisted places scheme would go to local authorities to reduce class sizes. Can the noble Lord inform the Committee how the Government intend to ensure that the money goes to the cause intended? Will it be ring-fenced? If so, does the noble Lord, as a local government man, approve of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that my noble friend Lady Blackstone had already made that clear both today and in the Statement that she made about the Excellence in Schools White Paper. We do not need primary legislation for some of the purposes, but in so far as we do require primary legislation that will be introduced following the consultation process with schools and local education authorities that is promised in the White Paper.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That was not what I wanted to know. Is the money that is to be given to local authorities for this purpose to be ring-fenced so that it must be spent on that and not on something else? If so, does he approve of that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a perfectly valid question. It is for that reason that there will be consultation. At the end of the consultation we shall reach a decision. If and when legislation is necessary it will be introduced. I understand perfectly well the point

761
that the noble Baroness makes about the ring-fencing of this particular expenditure, but she anticipates the results of consultation which I suggest it is unwise to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is not to be a White Paper in Scotland. How will consultation take place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no reason why there should not be consultation in Scotland as well as in Wales.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

REPORT ON EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF ASSISTED PLACES SCHEMES
(" . Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter for a period of not less than seven years, the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the effect of the abolition of the assisted places schemes.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. The effect of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament on the effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme annually throughout the period during which it is intended to phase it out; in other words, for a period not less than seven years.
We have debated at considerable length the uncertainties as to the effects of the scheme. I said earlier that I suspected that one side was playing down the savings and the other side was exaggerating the costs. Nevertheless, there must be uncertainty. Until it takes place one cannot know the savings, the costs of reducing class sizes or the speed at which the abolition is achieving that. It is very important that the effects of abolition are closely monitored, that Parliament has that information in the necessary detail and, if appropriate, has the ability to debate it. It is for that reason that we call for an annual report to Parliament on the subject.
I anticipate, perhaps wrongly, that when the Minister replies she will say that that information will be included in the department's annual report. If so, I hope that she will say a little more about the extent and nature of the information in the department's annual report. In anticipation of that, excellent though that annual report always has been, and I am sure will continue to be, I do not believe that that is adequate for something as important as this. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will agree with me. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will recall that we debated the question of a report to Parliament versus an inclusion in the department's annual report previously in connection with the Education (Student Loans) Bill. I recall the memorable moment when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, offered the noble Lord, Lord Morris, a copy of the then current annual report which the latter said he would keep by his bedside, treasure and read thoroughly. I make no comment on how well rested he looks today. I am sure that he has done that as he said he would. However, not all of your Lordships, still less all members of the public, will be taking the department's annual report to their bedsides or studying it with such loving care and attention to detail.
I suggest that that is not enough. The department's annual report contains an enormous range of information. One has no means of knowing whether the information that it will contain on this important subject will be adequate or in a form that is useful and enables one to monitor the progress that is being made. I urge that a subject as important to all of us, albeit for different reasons, as the phasing out of the scheme, in particular the reduction of class sizes, warrants its own annual review and report to Parliament, not merely a paragraph or even a section in a department's annual report which must of necessity cover a wide range of subjects.
I believe that this is a very reasonable amendment. I am sure that it will be accepted in a spirit of support and in the hope that the intentions of the Bill are fulfilled. I move it in that spirit. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able either to accept the amendment or at least to go some way to assure noble Lords how she will otherwise meet the intentions behind the amendment.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may offer a degree of tacit support to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for the amendment. I am not sure whether I still have my copy of the annual report from my days in the department, but perhaps I could put forward a request to the noble Baroness for her to send me a copy, should they still exist, and possibly a copy of the new one whensoever it is produced. Indeed, I am sure that she will have it in mind to send me a copy.
I was quite amused to see that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, had tabled the amendment. I remember him saying on Second Reading that one of his personal reasons for welcoming the Bill was no longer having to go through the annual debate on the regulations related to the assisted places scheme. I wonder whether withdrawal symptoms, or something of that nature, have caught up with the noble Lord and that, therefore, he feels it necessary to continue having an annual debate on the scheme as it winds down so that he can wean himself off it as slowly as possible.
Having said that, I believe that there are arguments for including certain matters in the annual report and no doubt the noble Baroness will tell us whether that is the case. On the other hand, as the noble Lord said, there are also perfectly good arguments for a proper individual report on the winding down of the scheme. If there were to be such a report, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself would certainly like to ensure that the usual channels made some time available to debate it in due course.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: A few weeks before the late glorious general election, in a debate on that ill-fated Education Bill in this Chamber, I was able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that between the education policies of his party and mine there was only one pennyworth of difference. Alas, the gap has widened fractionally since then, though it would still not amount to tuppence halfpenny. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the impulse behind the

763
amendment, upon mature reflection and careful thought I feel unable to support it as fully as I would otherwise have liked to do.
First, the requirement for a mandatory annual report on the face of the Bill to both Houses of Parliament and for it to be there discussed at length seems to me to be taking a drop forge hammer to crack a walnut. It is not a very big Bill; indeed, it is not an awfully complicated one. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to the principle of Occam's Razor, with which he is no doubt well acquainted, now expressed in the pithy Latin phrase, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitas. For those Members of the Committee who were not brought up to the purple, that could roughly be translated as, "categories should not be multiplied unnecessarily".
Such an annual report could only provide information about the numbers still in the scheme, the movement towards reducing class sizes in the maintained sector, a review of whether or not the savings which were to be achieved were actually being achieved and any new or unforeseen factors which had entered the equation since the previous annual report. All that, and anything new which the noble Lord might wish to know, could be achieved by the simple, normal parliamentary means. For example, a Starred Question to raise the issues, a Written Question to elicit the facts and the figures or an Unstarred Question to allow a deeper and more leisurely look at the progress of change.
In my view the amendment is not a necessary safeguard in this particular case. In the event, if we are to have such an annual report for seven years after the initial year, by the end of the seventh year—which would, if I may say so, be well into the Labour Party's second term in government—I feel sure that there would be virtually nothing to say. Therefore, while seven years is a fine Pharaonic figure, there is very little to justify that extent in this case. So while I approve of the need for vigilant monitoring of the progress of this scheme, I think that perhaps an amendment for this Bill is too big and blunt an instrument to deploy. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like briefly to say that I find myself sympathetic to the Government on the issue if, as I imagine, they are going to reject the amendment. I do so on the very simple ground that I believe very strongly that the channels of communication are already sufficiently clogged up with a mass of paperwork for us not to add to it, except when there is a very clear need to do so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My brief contribution is related to what the noble Lord has just said. When we sat on the opposite side of the Chamber, I remember very well the valuable contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made to our discussions. However, in the many education Bills which emanated from the last government, it seemed to me that the noble Lord nearly always tabled an amendment stipulating that we should have an annual report to cover one aspect or another. I see the noble Lord shakes his head, so perhaps I am wrong; but I believe that happened from time to time.
764
Practically speaking, we now have a revolutionary Government in Parliament which means, after the long dark 18 years of Tory government, that we really need to change many things. However, we shall not be able to do so if we have annual reports to cover all sorts of issues because we would spend all our time producing such reports, debating them and having them produced. It seems to me that there is a certain point at which annual reports are not necessary.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his very careful explanation of his reason for wanting an annual report on the effect of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I very much agree with the spirit of much of what he said and accept the motives that lie behind it. However, in his opening speech on Second Reading, I recall the noble Lord saying:
"One of the pleasures for me in welcoming the Bill is that I shall not, year after year, have to come to this Chamber and think of new ways of explaining why we oppose the assisted places scheme".—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1478.]
I very much share those sentiments as, I suspect, does the noble Lord, Lord Henley. This Chamber has spent too much of its time in recent years discussing the scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I clearly share the view that it would be a more fruitful use of our time to consider matters which affect the majority of schoolchildren in this country.
There is so little between the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself on the matter that I hope I shall be able to give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the information that the Government intend to make available, so that we shall not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I should like also to reinforce the sentiments expressed by my noble friend, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I can promise the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we will be fully accountable to Parliament and to the electorate for the delivery of our pledge to reduce class sizes.
I give the noble Lord a clear undertaking now that we shall set out each year in our report on the department's expenditure plans specific information on the following points. First, the continuing cost of operating the scheme during the period in which it is being phased out; secondly, the money that has been released each year as a consequence of the fact that no new places are awarded from 1998–99 onwards; and, thirdly, how that money has been deployed to reduce class sizes. If there is any further information that the noble Lord wants to see included, I shall give any request that he makes very careful consideration.
The noble Lord anticipated what I would say about the department's annual report. We take the view that the department's annual report is the most appropriate means for publishing such information. Indeed, it brings together in one place expenditure information with a very detailed commentary, and the Government's policy objectives. Therefore it provides both strategic and detailed financial information. I shall take up the request of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and provide him with a copy so that he can keep it by his bed. I do not believe

765
that many members of the public would have the departmental report or a report on the assisted places scheme as their normal bedside reading.
I repeat that reducing class sizes is one of our key pledges. In our expenditure report we shall want to set out clearly how we are doing that, because we believe in proper accountability. We shall also set out how we intend to deploy the available resources. We will provide detailed information so that Parliament and the electorate can see that we have kept our promises. In keeping with normal practice, the report will be presented to Parliament and therefore open to scrutiny. I shall be only too happy to take questions from any Member of this place about the report.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his intervention. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will accept that the level of information that I have undertaken to give in the departmental report will make separate reporting arrangements and the provision of yet more paper unnecessary and redundant.
Through our policies recently outlined in the White Paper, we shall be able to ensure that the state sector is equipped to provide a first rate education for all our children, including the most able and talented. Our aim is to develop the state system so that it rivals the best that the independent sector has to offer. We shall be investing our energies and available resources to that end.
In one respect only will the scheme's abolition have any effect on our education system. The money saved will be used for the benefit of the 480,000 children in overcrowded infant classes. Through a programme of action involving local authorities and schools we are committed to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament every five, six and seven year-old will be in a class of 30 or less. We shall provide the information about the progress we are making in achieving that aim in the departmental annual report.
6 p.m.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for what I think was his qualified support for the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for quoting what I said on Second Reading, because the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was concerned about my withdrawal symptoms—that I needed to be weaned off it over a seven-year period. As the Minister quoted, I did not say that I opposed an annual debate; I said that I did not want to have to come here year after year to say why I was against the assisted places scheme.
While I accept that it might be inevitable, if we were to be having an annual debate, that some other noble Lords might feel the need to do that, if I were taking part I should like to think that I should be congratulating the Government, year by year, over a seven-year period if necessary, on how well they were achieving the implementation of the Bill and in reducing class sizes.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who said that the Bill was a small one. That is strictly true. I hope that he did not mean that
766
the Bill's effects, particularly the desired intention of reducing infant class sizes, was in itself a small measure. I regard that as an important measure. Therefore it is important that we monitor how much progress we are making towards achieving that objective.
This is a bizarre little debate. I stand where I have always stood. I do not believe that I have requested annual reports very often. I can recall only one occasion. I cannot remember whether it was my amendment which was being supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morns, and others, or whether it was the other way round. I am clear that I am standing where I am standing now. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was standing over there, taking an opposite view to the one that he takes now, and, most particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did not at the time trouble to spell out how else we might have obtained the information and what other parliamentary devices might be available to us to drag out of government the information we were then seeking.
I am grateful to the Minister for a constructive and positive reply. I shall take her up on her offer to consider further any other matters which we think might be considered in the annual report. I shall ponder further on the matter, and carefully read what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Transitional arrangements for existing assisted pupils]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 24, after ("school") insert ("and their siblings").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. The Government do not fully appreciate the great disappointment being expressed by families affected by the Bill. It reminds me of an earlier disappointment some 20 years ago when the then Labour Government abolished direct grant schools. At that time a family I now know well was faced with the dilemma that faces many families today. Their son had just won a place to go to Loughborough Grammar School when the system was abolished. The father was a gardener; his wife a nurse. In addition to the eldest boy they had two other children. They decided to make sacrifices to pay to put their eldest boy through that school.
The son worked hard and succeeded academically and on the sports field. He went on to become head boy. Through cadet work, the RAF offered him a scholarship. He went on to university. That is a true success story. As one can imagine, his parents felt enormous pride. Why am I mentioning this? Just because only a month ago the father said to me that his one regret was that they were unable to do the same for their other children.
Today we are dealing with those same hopes and aspirations. There will be parents who are faced with telling their children, "No you can't go to that school. Yes, I know your brother and sister are there. No, it is not your fault. It is the Government who have decided

767
that you cannot go". What does that mean to a young child? I have a suspicion that the message will not be understood and that the child will be left feeling inadequate, perhaps in some small way blaming the parents for the let-down.
I have received a letter from a mother who has three children, all of whom are currently benefiting from an excellent education under the assisted places scheme. Her son and eldest daughter are in the senior school, and so will have their places honoured. However, the youngest daughter, who is seven, took her place only in September 1996 in the junior department of that same school. She is happy there. When she started she believed that she was going to the senior school to join her sister and brother. Her mother said that it would be tragic if her place were withdrawn at 11 and she is made to leave all her friends to start in a school in an entirely different area.
The mother wrote to Labour Party head office and asked whether her daughter's place would be honoured until she finished her A-levels, bearing in mind that this is an 11 to 14 school. An assurance was given on 14th May 1997 by Liz Arnold that that would be so. That mother wrote also to her MP, and through him received a letter from Stephen Byers who explained that their approach was to treat all assisted places holders even-handedly. She therefore asks whether her younger daughter might be given schooling for seven years on the assisted places scheme, which would take her through to the age of 14. The mother, who is retraining, hopes by then to be able to pay for her daughter's last three years at senior school. I wonder whether that might be considered. This is only one example.
In another place when the Bill was debated on 5th June 1997 Mrs. Gillan, the Member for Chesham and Amersham, referred to the plight of four other families known to her, all asking the Government to reconsider the position on siblings. I know of three further families. I ask the Minister if she will let us know the number of families affected by the sibling issue and, if there are comparatively few, will the Government reconsider the position about accepting my amendment?
All of us remember our school years and, being one of four children, I looked to my elder sister to keep an eye on me when I first joined the same school. For 96 per cent. of the population brothers and sisters attend the same school. It gives an additional sense of confidence and a bonding is established between the children. Family life and stability are crucial, and never more so than now when so many families are breaking up. What a pity it is that this Government are determined to add to those pressures and deny children the opportunity to take their place at the school of their choice alongside their brothers and sisters.
I move to touch on two other matters where the Government might consider using its flexibility. I refer to those families who qualify for assisted places due to social need. I understand that representations have been made from charitable foundations who rely on this scheme. What will the position be for brothers and sisters in these circumstances? The same question
768
applies to children who attend religions-based schools. Are their circumstances to be viewed individually? Will there be any flexibility in approach?
In addition, would the Government consider delaying the scheme which would significantly reduce the number of siblings who would not follow on? At the Second Reading in this House my noble friend Lady Perry, who is not in her seat today, spoke of the children who will lose out because of the abolition of this scheme. How doubly hard it will be for families who have some children who will be allowed to complete their schooling while others will be denied that opportunity.
I find the Bill unacceptable, and the Government's attitude towards these children incomprehensible. The Secretary of State said in another place, when asked about the sibling connection, and I quote from the debate on the Queen's Speech,
"The hallmark of this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion".".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/1997; col. 183.]
It seems to me that for some children dogma is coming first. Siblings are not to have their interests considered fairly and their schooling needs are being ignored. Parents do not wish to have their children at separate schools, especially when those schools have different holiday arrangements. For many working families, particularly lone parent families, this will add to their problems.
Will the Minister give further consideration to the sibling problem, use her discretion and allow these children to complete their education at the school of their choice? I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The effect of Amendment No. 4 could clearly be to prolong the phasing out period from seven years to much longer. If I have understood it correctly, in theory a place would have to be made available in four years' time for a child currently aged one year whose sibling was aged 17 and moving next year into the final year of the secondary APS place, with that place for the younger child then continuing until that younger child had finished its primary education—a further six years. If I am right about that, it goes far beyond the assurances which have been given to parents. I would resist it as undermining the whole intention of the Bill.
At a deeper level, I would question the validity of the whole sibling sequence practice in our education system. For brothers and sisters to attend the same school may often be nice, it may be desirable, it may be quite helpful, it may be convenient for the family or the lone parent, but it is surely not vital, not essential, not some kind of inalienable human right.
This matter was discussed at great length in the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. I became absorbed by the passions and assumptions in that debate and I read it with no small surprise. We have already heard about the first presentation in the Committee stage

769
of this particular amendment by the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who deplored the situation and said that the Bill will deprive brothers and sisters of the opportunity to attend the same school. She gave examples, several of them, with names of people who would be bitterly affected—bitterly affected—by the Bill. One of those was a 10 year-old who had had a difficult time at her state primary school. She had taken up an assisted place and had become extremely happy, but would be forced to make the traumatic, painful return to the state sector because she could not go on.
Similarly, another case was reported of a son on an assisted place who was doing extremely well and a daughter, aged 10, who had set her heart on attending the sister school to the one that her brother was in, but whose hopes would be utterly dashed by this particular plan.
A little later on another Member of that Committee—I must not quote him directly—said words to the effect that it was a fundamental principle of our education system that siblings are able to be educated together—I repeat, a fundamental principle. I believe that this is absolute nonsense.
I can, however, quote the direct words of the Minister replying to this, who mentioned again the cases cited by the Member for Chesham and Amersham. The Minister said,
"Is that the worst thing that is likely to happen to those children?"
She was referring to the fact that they might have to forgo the ability to go into another school.
"The honourable Lady thinks that it is such a terrible thing that they will be educated in the maintained sector. I have more faith in the state education system than Opposition Members. "—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/97; col. 664.]
She went on to say at col. 666 that the Conservative Party had said in its manifesto that,
"it favoured selection and giving schools the right to select on aptitude or academic ability. It is that system and those criteria more than any other that have split brother from sister, brother from brother and sister from sister. Conservative Members cannot claim that that is the best way to allocate places at secondary school, and then claim that siblings should be given precedence."
I cannot for the life of me see why this scheme should apply to siblings at all. It was designed to allow academically brilliant children of poor parents to rise out of the mediocrity of the state system and be educated at superior independent schools fit for their talents. Two hundred years of scientific research have failed to prove that intellectual or artistic ability is transmitted or inherited sideways among the children of a family. The gifted and successful children of Johann Sebastian Bach have been endlessly studied but no one has asserted that because Karl Philipp Emanuel Bach was a gifted composer, then his brother, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach ought to be educated to be the same thing.
We all know dozens of families in which there is one brilliant and gifted child who has brothers and sisters who are perfectly average in ability. Why should a child of average or below average ability have the right to an assisted place at the taxpayers' expense simply because a clever big brother or big sister has one? Even within the flawed logic of the APS itself, there is no sense in this proposal. I hope that my noble friend will stand firm
770
and have absolutely no truck with it. It is like that silly system at Oxbridge where some young person can demand automatic admission to a college to read for a degree in sub-atomic nuclear physics on the sole ground that he is founder's kin, descended from the person who created the college. This amendment is as silly as that.
Baroness David: I should like to say a word as someone very involved with admissions and appeals systems when I was on Cambridgeshire education committee. Siblings did not have an automatic right to go to their brothers' or sisters' schools. We tried hard, if there was a good case, to allow it but it was not necessary and direct grant schools most certainly did not accept siblings automatically. They had each to go through the very tough entrance examination. So it was not automatic at all, and I do not see why this scheme should be different.
Lord Tope: I am a little relieved to find myself back in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, in much of what he said and certainly in relation to the concern he expressed about the effect of this amendment, were it to be passed, in extending the life of the assisted places scheme. It would be extended not just beyond the seven years which is currently envisaged. There could be considerable gaps in age between siblings who would be eligible should the amendment be passed.
I have much sympathy with the noble Lord's comment about what is best for the siblings. In my experience of a local education authority, as often as not the consideration about where the sibling goes to school is not so much about what is good for the sibling but what is most convenient for the parent. There may be good reasons sometimes for siblings to go to the same school, but not automatically so. I believe the real intention of the amendment is to prolong the life of the assisted places scheme and on that ground alone there is good reason to oppose it.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. In the present scheme, is priority given in any way to siblings when awarding assisted places? I should be surprised if that were the case. If it is not the case, and has not been during the 18 years that the Conservative government operated the scheme, I fail to see why they should be trying to impose such a requirement while the scheme is being phased out. If it is the case, the Conservatives answer their own question and destroy their own amendment. On this occasion at least, I am with the Government and would not support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think I am right in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to the Opposition Dispatch Box when dealing with legislation. If so, I do that with great sincerity. She made a speech which was effective because of the examples that she gave. It was less effective in the logic, and I shall come to that in a few moments.

771
The noble Baroness referred specifically to correspondence from a parent about the possibility of her daughter keeping her place at Loughborough Grammar School until the age of 14.
Baroness Byford: My first example was of someone affected by the closure of a direct grant school. The other example related to someone in Hampshire. They are two separate matters. I believe that the same lady wrote also to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to have misunderstood the Baroness but I believe that the answer is the same in either case. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has discretion. I can confirm that we shall consider the exercise of discretion in such a case.
I am afraid that the logic of the argument is less sound because the presumption behind the amendment is that it is essential, or at any rate very desirable, that siblings should be educated in the same school. That has never been a principle on which any education authority has operated nor is it the principle on which the assisted places scheme has operated. Indeed, the only way to be sure that siblings will be educated in the same school is by adopting the system of local comprehensive schools.
I had three sons who went to the same local comprehensive school in Haringey. I was very glad that they did because I am fairly sure that two of them would have passed the 11-plus and would have gone, in former days, to a grammar school while the third, lovely though he is, might not have passed and would have been sent to a secondary modern school. I believe they have all benefited from the fact they went to the same school. But that cannot be achieved by a selective system which in other circumstances is the aim of the Conservative Party.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Tope, by saying that the previous government made no attempt to give siblings any priority under the assisted places scheme.
The Conservatives have always defended the virtues of selection. They want to see it extended to 50 per cent. in grant-maintained schools. Therefore, it seems puzzling and to conflict with the belief now expressed that siblings should be in the same school. But it is selection by academic ability which separates brother from sister, sister from sister and sister from brother. It is not the phasing out of the assisted places scheme.
Assisted places schools select pupils by ability, so siblings do not automatically gain a place. If a child fails the entrance examination, he would not join his sibling at the school. That has always been the case. If we accept the amendment, we should be placing a requirement on the scheme as it is phased out which goes far further than the scheme has ever gone. Where would it stop? That is a massive extension to an existing scheme which we are committed to phasing out. My noble friend Lord Morris gave an example of a one year-old and a 17 year-old. Some Members of the Committee may say that that is an extreme and unusual
772
case. But if one takes as an example a family with two children aged 11 and nine, the elder child has an assisted place at a secondary school. Under the amendment, the younger would be entitled automatically to an assisted place and the scheme then extends beyond the seven-year time frame.
I must make it clear that the seven-year time frame for phasing out was a manifesto commitment. We have always stuck to that and we were elected on that basis. Therefore, in the example that I have given, there could be more children coming along and they would be entitled to an assisted place at the age of 11. The scheme could extend for 20 years or more.
I am afraid that it is not an issue of principle or even of compassion that has been presented. It is just a tactic to delay phasing out the scheme. It would hamper our work on class sizes and would tie up money for a longer period of time in subsidies to private schools.
Children have different talents and different needs. In the case of my own family, it was desirable that they should all go to the same school. In many families, that is not the case. Some children benefit from being in different schools. There are already instances of assisted place holders being educated in different schools from their siblings by choice.
We have demonstrated already that there will be places in the state sector for children who would otherwise have an assisted place. It can be seen from the White Paper that we intend to ensure that the state sector is equipped to provide a first-rate education for all children, including the most able. It is unnecessary and it would be undesirable to extend the scheme beyond the existing scheme at a time when it is being phased out. I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Lord for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. Indeed, it is the first occasion. Because of that, I may have unwittingly misled him. I had not intended to convey that it is the right of siblings to follow automatically in an assisted place. It should only be if the child passes the necessary examination. Therefore, I do not seek to change the ground rules.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not accusing the noble Baroness of misleading me. I was describing what is in the amendment, and it is the amendment I am criticising.
Baroness Byford: There is an error in the amendment, in which case I apologise to noble Lords. However, the fact remains that there are many families which make the choice. I would be grateful if the Minister will respond to queries that I have raised. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should be glad to respond to the noble Baroness on an individual basis.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the noble Lord deal with a point that has puzzled me since it was raised

773
by the noble Lord, Lord Tope? The present system began in 1981 and has been running for 17 years. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, responded by stating that the sibling principle has not operated. Noble Lords are entitled to know why it was not operated for such a long period and why now, in 1997, it is said that it is a good thing and ought to be implemented in the Bill. Why was the principle not implemented before?
Lord Henley: The noble Lord has missed the point that my noble friend made. It might be that the amendment is defective. We were not trying to give an automatic right to any sibling to go on; but, because the scheme is in existence, we want to allow the sibling the right to go on in due course. In future that sibling will not have that opportunity unless an amendment of this kind is included in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has pointed out that the amendment does not do that and gives priority to siblings. That is not what we are trying to achieve. We apologise for getting that wrong. We are trying to ensure that those siblings have that opportunity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyy: I only reply for the sake of form because the noble Lord is correct: I was addressing my remarks to the amendment as it is on the Marshalled List. I can do no more than that.
Lord Henley: That is exactly the answer I would have given on many occasions. It is quite right that one should only address the amendment on the Marshalled List. We shall present an alternative amendment at Report stage. We shall take advice from those better able than myself in relation to drafting the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line I. leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees for pointing out that if we pass Amendment No. 5 we would not be able to call some of the later amendments. I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 5, although my noble friend may have other ideas about his amendments. I suspect that my amendment is defective, but that is another matter.
The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the situation of a number of children all through schools. I do not want to speak at any length on this matter because my noble friend Lord Peyton can do it far better. However, if I may, I should like to quote from a letter sent by the headmaster of Norwich School, which is celebrating, I notice, its 450th anniversary this year to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. In that letter the headmaster makes one simple point:
"The Bill makes clear that the assistance offered will come to an end for those children at the end of their 10-plus year. I would wish to underline that the pupils have been admitted to a 'single school': our lower school is not a prep school. The educational process is
774
continuous from the moment of arrival right through until A-level. The pupils who entered the assisted places scheme at that point looked forward to their continuing throughout their time at the school. There may be a different case to be discussed where such places are held in free-standing prep schools, but our lower school is part of a whole."
We will come to the free-standing prep schools in due course when we discuss the amendment that will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the amendment that we call, in simple terms, "the broken promise".
These are important issues for such schools and for that reason I hope that we can address this amendment or, if not this amendment, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: During the debate I have been interested to note the support Ministers have enjoyed from the Benches behind them. I make this prophecy in a tentative manner: that as time goes on, while Ministers will be very glad to have their supporters sitting behind them, they would infinitely prefer them to sit in silence. That is for the future. At the moment I have no doubt that their relations are friendly and very pleasant. Noble Lords opposite are full of their manifesto but manifestos do not necessarily carry with them cures for defects in Bills.
I believe that it is a serious matter to interrupt the process of a child's education. The purpose of my amendments is to prolong, until after secondary education is complete, the enjoyment of an assisted place by any child.
I should like to exchange a number of thoughts with the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I find it very difficult to accept as valid the coupling of the abolition of the assisted places scheme with the reduction of class numbers. It is so unreal as to verge upon the bogus. I say that for two reasons: first, the amount of money to be saved is extremely uncertain; secondly, I do not know when one starts to spend the savings. Will they be accrued before they are spent on reducing class sizes or is it hoped that they will accrue in the amount hoped for?
There is uncertainty when the amounts will be available and what they represent. According to Mr. Byers, £100 million will be "freed up" by the year 2000. That figure is the raft upon which the noble Baroness has so far floated her arguments. She appears to be very confident about them. I wonder whether there is a danger of her playing the role of the White Queen in believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Maybe she has placed too much reliance upon this figure dreamed up by Mr. Byers. There does not appear to be any unanimity among Ministers on how much will be saved or when. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put forward a figure of between £20 million and £50 million being available by 1998–2000.
Mention has been made of the fact that the Institute of Public Finance saw no possibility of any savings before 1998–99, and even then a mere £13 million. The Institute of Fiscal Studies, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, at Second Reading, said that in year three the savings would amount, not to £100 million—

775
as predicted by the noble Baroness and others—but to £38 million. I wonder about that. I was rather surprised that the advisers of the noble Baroness had not seen fit to call her attention to that rather different forecast made by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as opposed to those upon which she and presumably her department were relying. Now that she has had time to reflect upon this, has she reached any conclusions or is she still certain that her figure is right and that of the institute is wrong? We on these Benches feel that there is real doubt about the merits of this measure. We have a nasty feeling that it may be a case of old Labour pulling strings offstage and insisting that the public and private sectors are separate and never the twain should meet. That is a pity at a time when one ought to be looking for bridges and not for gaps.
I quote with approval the sentence in the new White Paper on education which states at paragraph 35 on page 72,
"The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system".
I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies, he will treat that point seriously and explain why the guidance which is now available in the White Paper has not been followed in practice in the Bill. There seems to us to be a clear conflict between the two.
I make a brief reference to what one can only call the Kilfoyle pledge. It was quoted at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who said that Mr. Kilfoyle had said clearly,
"If a child has a place at a school which runs to 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13".—[ Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1480.]
On the other hand the noble Baroness has said that the Government are honouring commitments that were made when they were in opposition and they never said that children in integral junior departments would keep their places through to the age of 13 or 18. I seek enlightenment here. Did the then Opposition spokesman say those words on 1st April? If he did, why are they not now being honoured; why are they being ignored? I may have the facts wrong and if that is so I welcome a correction; otherwise, we are owed some explanation.
I wish to make one further point as regards the wide discretion that is given to the Secretary of State in Clause 2(2)(b) which states,
"the Secretary of State, where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to that pupil, determines that he should continue to hold that place for a further period during which he receives secondary education, at the end of that period".
That is a wide discretion. I have made my next point frequently, including when I sat on the other side of the Chamber. When Parliament agrees to a discretion, Ministers ought to explain far more clearly than they have the basis upon which that discretion will be exercised. I suspect that it will be not much more than the following. If a particular case attracts a great deal of attention and clamour it is likely that Ministers, to save themselves embarrassment, will hurry to exercise the discretion now conferred upon them. That will be one
776
more proof—if proof were needed—of the truth of that old adage that the axle that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease.
Before I conclude I wish to echo the comments of two people. At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Young asked why the Government should withdraw what she described as a ladder of opportunity. My next quotation comes from a recent article in the Daily Telegraph written by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich which states that the Bill,
"will again drive a wedge between the private and public sector of education. The intake of children to independent schools will become limited to an ever-narrower economic spectrum".
Those are the concerns which I feel. I hope the noble Lord accepts that I do not put them forward in any narrow party spirit. I hope the noble Lord will be fair enough to recall that when I sat on the other side of the Chamber I was not always a mute supporter of my colleagues on the Front Bench. Today I believe I have behaved with great restraint in that I have been agreeable and more polite to Ministers of whose Bill I greatly disapprove and about which I have some deep anxieties than I would have been to my own side had they put forward a measure which had equally aroused my distaste.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I shall take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and be as brief as possible, so as not to take up the Committee's time. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was an extremely effective Government Back-Bencher; I have no intention of being so effective as a new Government Back-Bencher.
Amendment No. 5—I believe it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—seeks to remove subsection (2) and subsection (2)(b) which would remove the Secretary of State's discretion. I am surprised. Perhaps it was just a device to debate this issue in general, but I would have thought that they would be pleased that that discretion was on the face of the Bill, and it seems to me that in general Amendment No. 8 (which we will come to in due course) achieves the type of thing that this current group of amendments seeks to achieve and does it somewhat more elegantly.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, rehearsed a number of arguments which went wide of the amendments themselves. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for him to do but I should like to confine my comments to the specific purpose of these similar amendments—that is, an extension of the assisted places scheme either to all through school or up to the age of 13 or 14. I should like to make this simple point to my noble friend. If parents are going to be moving their children into the state sector, is it not likely that they would want to move them at the same time as their peer group; namely, at the age of 11 for most children? That is the case for the majority of children in this country. There are exceptions to that but I cannot help harbouring the suspicion that this idea of extending it to 13 or 14 is just to get a couple more years of free assisted places with those parents harbouring the hope that somehow they will be able to raise the money to continue in the

777
independent sector once the assisted places scheme runs out. In the light of that last point, I urge my noble friend to reject these amendments.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may speak a little on this from my own professional experience. I want to approach the Government for compassion. I want to underline the particular problem of those schools which have a junior school which is an integral part of the whole school. Such schools are common among the London day schools and I am underlining the point made by the headmaster of Norwich School.
These are schools with a junior and a senior section but there is no barrier between them. The staff are interchangeable. The children sing in a choir which is a choir of the whole school. The children play in an orchestra which is an orchestra of the whole school. The children eat in dining halls which are the dining halls of the whole school. In answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken, it is not the same as any other school in the system.
When these children were admitted at eight, nine or 10, they received a letter from the headmaster which assumed that they would exist in that school until they left at 18. A letter was written by the headmaster under the old scheme. There is no examination when they move at 11; they just move up class by class. These children will as a result have their whole education interrupted because these schools have syllabuses which are integrated and which see the child going on through the whole school. As I said in the Second Reading debate, the children will have begun French two or three years before; they will have begun Latin; and it is assumed that they will go on doing this right through the school. At a personal level, they will be the only ones leaving that school. Let us say there are five or six assisted places children in that year. They will see the rest of their year going on but they will be thrown out.
This is not a clever ruse to keep the system going on. I appreciate the difficulties the Government face. We are talking I suppose of about 1,700 children (and the number will inevitably get less) but I do ask the Government to consider the personal situation of these children particularly—and I underline the situation again—as they will be the only ones leaving the school in that year. This is very painful to young children of 11. I am not producing a sob story for the sake of it. I ask the Government to give some thought to it. I say again this is not a clever ruse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is one of the peculiarities of this being a self regulating Chamber that, since we regulate ourselves and each other, there is nobody to say that the noble Lord is not speaking to the amendment and that the speech is out of order. There is nobody to say that that is a Second Reading speech and it should not come in at Committee.
When the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made a Second Reading speech (and he will admit that it was a Second Reading speech) on an earlier amendment, I welcomed it because of his special position. It is, after all, his baby that we are phasing out—if you can phase out a baby. I am not sure what the physiological effect of that
778
would be! Because his amendment was very widely drawn, because it would have wrecked the Bill, and because he was objecting in principle to the whole Bill, I hope he will agree that I answered his points individually and seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is in a very different position. He has also made a Second Reading speech, and I think he would admit that he has made a Second Reading speech. But he did not say a word about the amendments which are in his name. He asked me a whole series of questions about the coupling of the assisted places scheme with the reduction in class sizes; when the savings would materialise; what our view was of the Institute of Fiscal Studies' calculations of the savings as compared to our calculations. The noble Lord is entitled to have doubts about the merits of the scheme and he is entitled to express them, although it would have been better if they had been expressed at Second Reading. I am the first to acknowledge that he is an independent, as is the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder against his Government on more than one occasion. These are independent opposition Back-Benchers.
That is not my criticism. My problem with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is that although other noble Lords may range as widely as they wish, I have to reply to the amendments on the order paper and it would be quite wrong for me to go beyond that. Therefore, although I would love to engage with him in a debate on the Institute of Fiscal Studies, I do not think it would be proper for me to do so. I am interested also that, if I may say so, he has not been paying full attention to the earlier parts of the debate; otherwise he would not find himself making the same quotation from this week's White Paper as had been made an hour or so earlier by his noble friend Lord Henley.
If I may return to the amendments on the Marshalled List, I think it would be helpful if I reminded the Committee, because of the talk about further extension of the phasing out of the scheme, of recent developments in its operation. Until September 1996 the assisted places scheme provided support for only secondary age pupils. Most entry places—about 5,000—were available at age 11, but children could join a scheme at other ages, particularly at 13 or 16. In the academic year 1995 to 1996 there were 34,000 pupils in Great Britain on the scheme, and 38,000 places available.
In 1995 the then Government launched a massive expansion programme. They committed themselves to doubling the size of the scheme and that meant that there were nearly 5,000 new entry places—that is, places for new entrants in senior schools. Some of these schools had integral junior departments—and I am going to come back to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. For the first time assisted places below 11 were created: about 100 places for children as young as five, and 800 places for children below age 11.
This itself would not have been enough to double the size of the scheme, so they went on a further bidding round targeting preparatory schools and including schools which provided only primary education. They

779
announced the second phase of this expansion in February 1997, which involved over 1,000 more entry places, most of which were in preparatory schools. This was in what were known to be the dying days of the last Government. So in September of this year there will be nearly 550 schools in the scheme offering in total nearly 50,000 places of which 15,000 are places for new entrants. We do not yet know how many of those will be primary school aged children but it could be as many as 3,500.
Those commitments which were made in the last days of the last Government will be adhered to. The scheme continues in September 1997. But we had to take a careful and balanced view of the extent of the support that those pupils should continue to receive. We made it clear in Opposition that we would honour commitments. We made clear also our intention to phase out the scheme over a period of seven years. Because the vast majority of places were available at 11 and above, that meant that they could continue to complete their secondary education through to A-levels.
Providing for primary school children to keep their places through to age 18, including children as young as five, would have meant running the scheme for another 13 years instead of the seven years to which we were committed. I do not think that anyone could genuinely take on a commitment to fund children as young as five for another 13 years, in particular because of the views we have expressed, at Second Reading and when considering earlier amendments, about the merits of the scheme.
Therefore, we decided that support should be available until primary school aged pupils could transfer to the maintained sector at a point which would not disrupt their education in the long term. We do not accept that providing for children to change schools at age 11 is unreasonable. That is what happens to nearly everyone else in the country. Half a million children change schools between primary and secondary stages. Nor do I accept that the schools that they will go to at age 11 will be inferior. There are many excellent state schools and they can cater for the more able.
Our approach is to give primary aged pupils as of right support under the scheme until age 11. We take the view that that is the sensible age to transfer to the maintained sector. Indeed, it is in their interests to transfer when most of their contemporaries are entering secondary school.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, appears to query the discretionary power given to the Secretary of State to allow primary aged pupils to continue to hold their places. Usually the Opposition would seek to extend such discretionary powers. I am somewhat surprised that he criticises. However, he is perfectly justified to ask under what circumstances such discretionary powers can be used. I can give the noble Lord three cases which will not necessarily be exhaustive but will give him a flavour of what can be done.
First, there are those who live in areas where there are middle schools, where the age of transfer is 13. They are less than 10 per cent. of the total, but it would seem
780
reasonable to use a discretion under those circumstances to allow the transfer to be at the same age as other pupils in the same area.
Secondly, there is the question of those who come into secondary education before the age of 11. There are some who come in at age 10; and if they genuinely enter into secondary education it would be sensible to use the discretion in their favour.
Thirdly, there is the situation where a clear promise has been given that the child should continue. I rather think that that covers the case which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, raises of the school with an integrated junior and senior school. The noble Lord gave what seemed to be a somewhat idealistic description of what happens in those integrated schools. I believe that he would acknowledge that even in those schools where they share all these facilities, a large number of pupils usually change school at the age of 11; they enter or leave the school at age 11. Therefore, the seamless robe which he describes is somewhat of an exaggeration. It is most unlikely that the only pupils who would change would be those who have been deprived of their assisted place, as he suggests.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord moves on—it is an important point—is he giving an assurance that those pupils in the schools to which my noble friend Lord Pilkington referred will be covered by the discretion that the Secretary of State has? The noble Lord speaks from the Dispatch Box. He speaks for the Government. I think that he should consider carefully what he says in answer. We want to know whether that discretion will be absolute for those pupils in all-in-one schools.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not said that. I gave the third example of a case where discretionary power might be used—and clearly a discretionary power is not prejudged by anything that I say at the Dispatch Box—where a clear promise has been given to an individual child. But that does not apply to the generality of integrated junior and senior schools.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I speak from my experience of life; it is where I worked. Very few pupils leave at 11. I acknowledge that new people come in. But in the seamless integrated schools like Norwich—the letter from the headmaster of the school was quoted—very few people leave. The pupils are part of the school and continue.
I was not being idealistic. These are facts. I would hope that the letters from the headmasters have also accepted those pupils to 18. Whether the Secretary of State acknowledges that, I do not know, but at some point the Government will have to make a statement on this. I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord always has the right to intervene and to continue. It is Committee stage of the Bill.
All I can do, as I have done, is to give the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, an indication of three examples of cases where discretionary powers might be used in the

781
interests of the child. That does not mean in the cases of integrated junior and senior schools that the discretionary power would be used for that purpose. I do not expect that answer to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. However, the matter can be continued at a later stage.
Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. An important point has been raised. It is helpful that he has set out the three discretions available. If I understood the third correctly, it is where a clear promise has been given to the parent. It is difficult for the parent to understand—I do not fully understand it myself—quite what is meant by that. In these all-through schools, parents' understanding results from a letter from the headmaster or headmistress (as the case might be). But clearly that is not what the Minister has in mind. So will the noble Lord say what he has in mind; and how might parents raise their case so that ultimately the Secretary of State could exercise his discretion in favour of the child staying on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot go further than I have done. It is not the intention that discretionary powers should be used for integrated senior and junior schools. The question of a clear promise can indeed be debated further, and there is a further amendment on which that issue can be discussed. If not, further amendments can be tabled on which the issue can be debated. But I cannot go further than I have done, and I certainly do not wish to give a false impression that the Secretary of State is likely to use his discretionary powers in the examples given by noble Lords opposite.
I turn now to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I shall seek to do so briefly. He did not refer to them in his speech. The amendments would not have the effect which he intends.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believe I said that the interruption of a child's education was a serious matter. The amendments were designed to remedy or to help, if not altogether to cure it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If my memory is wrong, I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not catch him saying more than that in a speech of over 10 minutes.
The Bill provides for pupils receiving secondary education at the start of the 1997–98 school year to hold their assisted places until they complete their education at their current school, usually aged 18. The effect of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would not be to change these provisions; they simply have the effect of expressly providing for secondary pupils to retain their places. But removing the reference to primary education—which is what the amendments do—while still making explicit provision for children in secondary education might place in doubt the position of primary-aged assisted place holders.
The amendments also raise the issue of the position of a child of secondary age in a school which only provides education through to age 13. It would not be possible
782
for the child's secondary education to be completed at the school and the amendments would therefore create an entitlement which could not be fulfilled.
I readily acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, made it clear that his intention was to prolong the "entitlement"—that was the word he used—to give all primary-aged assisted place holders the right to hold their places to age 18. Both I and my noble friend Lady Blackstone have made clear why that cannot be agreed to. It would mean an extension of the assisted places scheme far beyond any contract which exists or could exist and could make it continue for 13 years rather than the seven years at present provided for. On the basis of the merits of the case alone, even if one takes the noble Lord's amendments to mean what he intends them to mean—which I fear they do not—I cannot recommend that the Committee should agree to them.
Lord Henley: I imagine that we shall come back to this subject at a later stage. I do not think that the noble Lord's response was satisfactory, particularly in dealing with the question of the individuals mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pilkington, those at the all-in-one schools, those who would not have the opportunity of continuing until they were 18.
As the noble Lord reminded us, we shall have an opportunity to debate on a later amendment—and I believe that it is important that we debate it at an early hour—the very clear broken promise of the party opposite in relation to 11 to 13 year-olds.
In relation to the 11 to 18 year-olds and the amendments that we have been discussing, we do not consider the noble Lord's response to be satisfactory. For that reason I give an assurance to the noble Lord before I withdraw my Amendment No. 5—what my noble friend wishes to do with his amendments is a matter for him—that these are matters on which we shall feel it necessary to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert?—
("() in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or").
The noble Lord said: I should again make it clear that I am as keen as the Government to see the end of the assisted places scheme and that I have absolutely no wish to extend its life unnecessarily. However, I believe that commitments which have been given must be honoured. Indeed, the Government have said that they will honour commitments that have been given. Perhaps the key to this matter is the question of whether a commitment has been given.
The circumstances are probably well known to Members of the Committee. They are fully set out in the Lords Library Note 97/006, pages 19 to 23. I shall not detain Members by quoting at length. The matter

783
hinges around the correspondence which took place between the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, at that time an Opposition spokesman on education.
The Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools was concerned, since most preparatory schools take children up to the age of 13, to clarify the position of those children should a Labour government be elected and implement its manifesto pledge to abolish the assisted places scheme. On the second attempt to seek clarification of the Labour Party's position, the association received a reply from Mr. Kilfoyle in which he said:
"If a child has a place at a school which runs to 13 then that place will he honoured through to 13".
As far as I know, there were no "ifs" and "buts", qualifications or reservations. The statement seems clear and unequivocal. The purpose of my amendment is to give effect to it in respect of pupils at preparatory schools where the normal ending age is 13.
It is perhaps a matter of interpretation as to whether a commitment could be given to that effect. At Prime Minister's Question Time on 11th June, the day after the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place, the Prime Minster said:
"In respect of those children who have been given a promise or an understanding that they will go through to the age of 13, that, as was indicated by the letter [the letter from Mr. Kilfoyle] must be honoured".—[Official Report, Commons 11/6/97; col. 1136.]
One would have hoped that that would be sufficient and that perhaps at Second Reading or Committee stage the Government would give effect to it. I and other noble Lords raised the matter on Second Reading. I accept that the Minister was trying to be helpful in her reply, and I am grateful to her for that. She said that,
"making blanket provision on the face of the Bill for places to continue to 13 is unnecessary. I regret to say that it would also be open to abuse".
She went on to say:
"We intend instead to use the discretionary power which will enable the circumstances of each case to be checked. Each case will be considered carefully on its merits".—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col.1535]
That was not the general undertaking that parents could reasonably have thought they had had in what I will call the Kilfoyle letter that the places of children in schools which go through to 13 would be honoured but rather an intention that each case would be considered on its individual merits. The purpose of the amendment is to try to tease out exactly what is meant.
The Minister objects to having a blanket provision in the Bill—and presumably regards the amendment as a blanket provision—because it is open to abuse. I am not sure what abuse she has in mind. It may be that she does not feel it appropriate to tell us tonight, but it would be useful to have some indication to help us to frame a more appropriate amendment.
If the Minister is not able to accept the amendment, I hope that she will be able to give at least some assurance that the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter will be honoured and that where parents have children in schools where the normal ending age is 13 those
784
children will continue to have their assisted places until the age of 13. In other words, the presumption will be that pupils in such schools are able to continue with their assisted places through to age 13 if their parents wish them to do so.
I share the view expressed on the Government Benches that, generally speaking, the best age for transfer will be 11. Because of my belief in the state education system, I hope that most of those children will transfer to state provision at age 11 or even earlier. I understand that only 2,000 pupils in total would be affected. I hope that in the event the number will be significantly smaller than that.
I believe that, rightly or wrongly, a commitment was given in the Kilfoyle letter. Those parents who know about it—and I have no idea what publicity the association gave to it—would reasonably be entitled to believe that they had been given an assurance. In those circumstances, that assurance ought to be met, and the purpose of the amendment is to give effect to it. If the Minister is not able to accept the amendment, I hope that she will be able to give some indication of the way in which the discretion which the Government feel they need to retain will be exercised.
In the passage I quoted earlier from the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness said,
"In due course, we shall let the schools know in detail how that discretion will be exercised".—[Col. 1535.]
It will be of considerable reassurance tonight if the Minister is able to give some indication of how that discretion will be exercised in respect of parents who, whether knowingly or not knowingly, believe or could reasonably have believed that they received that assurance through the Kilfoyle letter.
It is an important principle and one that the Government should honour. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in his amendment. This is one item of policy where there is scarcely a cigarette paper's difference between the noble Lord and myself. Perhaps I can say how much I welcome back the Liberal Party to the realms of real opposition rather than the rather blatant support that we have seen on other occasions for the party in Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, this is a clear case of a broken promise; a promise made by Mr. Peter Kilfoyle when education spokesman before the election; a promise that I am sure was spread widely throughout the country and that people accepted as a matter of faith. It is on that and virtually that alone that our case rests. There is no answer that the Government can give other than that they must at this stage come clean and honour the pledge given by the education spokesman before the election.
Should anyone fear that that pledge did not receive sufficient coverage at the time and that many people were not aware of it when they decided how they would vote, I can assure the Committee that I received a number of letters, and I imagine that is true of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others, from individuals who,

785
having exactly those concerns and having children who they felt might or might not be able to stay on to 11, contacted local officials of the Labour party. Again, they received similar assurances. For example, I received a letter from Mrs. Fauvet from Liphook in Hampshire. She contacted the local Labour party head office and was given exactly that assurance. No doubt she was relying on the words of Mr. Peter Kilfoyle. I received a letter from Swansea making exactly the same point; that is, that a promise had been made by the party to spare his son from upheaval when the scheme was abandoned. Where is that promise now?
I wish to make only one final point in relation to Scotland which the noble Baroness should address. Scotland is not covered by the amendment, but we may have to come back to it when we deal with Clause 5 later on. In Scotland, where assisted places will also be affected by the consequent changes, there is a current threat of primary seven pupils not being allowed to continue through to senior school in 1997 at the age of transfer, which is 12, despite letters of confirmation that they could from the Scottish Office which were dated both 1990 and 1997. I hope that the noble Baroness can address that specific point and say that the Scottish primary seven pupils will be allowed to continue in line with the letters that they received from the Scottish Office dating back to 1990 and 1997.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tabled the amendment dealing with clearly broken promises of the party opposite. I do not know what the noble Lord intends to do with his amendment following what we hear from the noble Baroness when she responds. I dare say that she will assist us and tell us a little more about the discretionary power that is now being offered as some sort of sop to buy off the broken promise. I welcome hearing more about the discretionary power. But it will take a little more than that to satisfy us on these Benches.
Obviously, I leave the matter of the amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as to what he does with it. It is his amendment. But if we do not receive satisfactory answers tonight, it is something to which we shall certainly return at a later stage and we will return with strength.
Baroness Blackstone: I listened most carefully to the points made by Members from the other Benches of this Chamber as to why we should make explicit provision for pupils with assisted places at preparatory schools which go on to the age of 13.
Perhaps, first, I may make a more general point. I am grateful that the Liberal Democrat Members of this Chamber look at issues on their merit and do not behave in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, wants them to behave; that is, that they should oppose for the sake of it.
Lord Henley: Perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. We are Her Majesty's Government's Official Opposition. One of the duties of the Official Opposition is to test the arguments of the party in government. That
786
is what we do and what we shall continue to do. That is why I welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Tope, of the Liberal Party back to the realms of real opposition.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course it is appropriate for the Official Opposition to test matters in the way the noble Lord, Lord Henley, described. But he issued what I felt was an inappropriate jibe in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in relation to the fact that, from time to time, looking at issues on their merit, he finds he is able to support the Government. When I was on the Opposition Benches there were many occasions where I was able to support the Government; I did so and said so explicitly. I hope that there may be some occasions when Her Majesty's Opposition, as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is able to do likewise.
I have to say that I would much rather not be in the position of disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I have the utmost respect for his views, and on the vast majority of issues concerning the assisted places scheme we see eye to eye. But it seems that, whereas we believe the overriding consideration should be what is the most appropriate age for primary-aged assisted pupils to transfer to the maintained sector, he places greater weight on the type of independent school the assisted pupil attends. I still believe that there is much that we can agree on and am hopeful that the noble Lord will take some reassurance from how we intend to use the discretionary power, which I believe will meet most of his concerns.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, shares our view that age 11 is the most sensible age for children to transfer to the maintained sector. Providing for the 400 or so pupils in separate preparatory schools to retain their places until age 13 would mean that they would miss the normal age of transfer in their locality. After age 13 they will not be able to take up an assisted place in a senior school. Such places will no longer be available.
Therefore they will be transferring to state secondary schools two years after most pupils in the state system started at those schools (assuming they cannot remain in the independent sector after they cease to be entitled to assisted places). That would mean that children would be transferring after most of their contemporaries had entered secondary school. That cannot be desirable from the point of view of individual pupils.
State school admission arrangements are geared to the local age of transfer and a pupil seeking to enter a state secondary school after the normal age may not obtain a place in his first choice school. That is another reason we favour transferring at age 11. Children would be joining classmates who had already formed friendships. Assimilation into the maintained sector is therefore likely to be more difficult after the normal age of transfer. I hope the noble Lord will accept that we are quite genuine in wanting to do the right thing for those pupils.
But I accept that there may be cases where it would be appropriate for a child to transfer later than at the age of 11. To provide for circumstances where a transfer at the age of 11 would not be in the best interests of a

787
particular child, the Secretary of State will have a discretionary power, as I believe Members of the Committee are aware, to allow primary age pupils to continue to hold their places for a period where they receive secondary education.
We promise to use this power flexibly and in a way that is sympathetic to the needs of individual pupils. I can assure the Committee that support under the scheme will be extended where there is a good reason to do so. We have already indicated three particular instances where we are predisposed to exercise discretion and I should like to set them out again so that we can all be clear about them.
First, to cater for a later local age of transfer to secondary school. Providing for a child resident in a part of the country where a three-tier system of education operated to transfer at the age of 11 would clearly be inappropriate. Here it would be appropriate to extend support under the scheme until the pupil could transfer to a senior school in the state system at the same point as his contemporaries were transferring from middle schools—in other words, at the age of 12 or 13.
Secondly, there are a small number of schools in the scheme—I believe only about 12—that have a specific allocation of entry places at the age of 10. Some of the schools have such an entry because they operate in areas served by a middle school system. Others provide for an accelerated entry into secondary education. Although the pupils are technically of primary school age, they are provided with secondary education in what is essentially a secondary school. Presumably because they have got ahead of their contemporaries they are transferring early. Dulwich College operates such a system. We have indicated that we intend to exercise discretion in such cases so that pupils can retain their places through to completion of their secondary education—in other words to the age of 18.
Finally, some children in preparatory schools, which are schools with an age range of seven or eight years of age to 13, may have been given a clear promise that they can keep their places through to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government had given such an undertaking. In such circumstances, we shall honour that commitment.
But I have to tell the Committee, so that there is no doubt, that we take the view that it would be wrong to continue to subsidise private education at the taxpayer's expense where no such promise or understanding had been given. Making a blanket provision on the face of the Bill for all places to continue to the age of 13 years would mean going further than required to fulfil commitments made.
In situations such as these, where individual cases need to be assessed and a decision reached on the circumstances pertaining to the particular case, a discretionary power is in our view more appropriate. Through the use of such a power it will be possible to check each case to ensure that there is a good reason for support to be continued and thereby to safeguard the public purse. After all, the level of funding provided to
788
assisted pupils is significant. We have to bear in mind the interests of the taxpayer before providing for additional support as of right.
Much has been made during this debate about the letter from Peter Kilfoyle; but I believe that there is no real difference between the provisions in the Bill when taken together with how we intend to use the discretionary power and the letter. The letter states,
"much will obviously depend on the school to which a child has been admitted".
Members of the Committee who are familiar with the pattern of provision in the independent sector will know that there is a variety of age ranges in existence. We framed the Bill so that we can take account of these and the individual circumstances of the particular child. The discretionary power is the only way to cater properly for the diversity of provision in the sector.
Our manifesto set out clearly our intention on class sizes and the assisted places scheme. It is the manifesto that counts and it did not make any commitment about the extent of continuing support that would be available. Members of the Committee opposite are reading a little too much into Peter Kilfoyle's letter. It does not represent the kind of commitment that they are alleging. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will accept that the Bill's provisions on the discretionary power are both sensible and pragmatic. They will allow us to check on the individual circumstances of each case and reach a view of what is best in the light of the particular circumstances. An automatic right enshrined in the Bill would not provide that safeguard. It could lead to support being available for a period for which no commitment had been given or when it would be in the long-term interests of the child to transfer to the state sector at the age of 11 years.
We believe that there is no strong justification for providing for certain pupils to keep their places up to the age of 13 years. After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I suspect that the main reason they want support extended through to the age of 13 is so that the scheme can provide a bridge until alternative sources of funding are available.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: The main reason why we want it extended is simply because an assurance was given by Mr. Peter Kilfoyle. It is no good the noble Baroness saying that it is the manifesto that counts. Obviously it does; but that does not mean that spokesmen for the party can then go around saying whatever they want. We expect a spokesman to say what is party policy. We were told by Peter Kilfoyle, and we were given a promise, that the pupils could stay on. That point has not been addressed by the noble Baroness and I believe that it should.
Baroness Blackstone: I have just addressed the issue. The noble Lord may not agree with my interpretation of what Mr. Kilfoyle said in his letter. I am very sorry if he disagrees with it; but I have addressed the issue. The phasing out of the scheme must not take any longer than it has to. By putting provisions in the Bill to extend

789
support as of right, the overall time frame and the cost of phasing out the scheme will be increased. We said that it will provide for the scheme to be wound up in seven years. That is a generous time frame in view of our very long-standing objections to the scheme and the scheme's very doubtful merits. Any prolonging of the phasing out of the scheme would affect delivery on our commitment to reduce infant class sizes by the end of this Parliament. I have to reiterate that we have a commitment to the electorate that we want to honour. I sincerely hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Tope, sufficient assurance that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the Minister sits down, may I say that we have listened with great care to a lengthy explanation. But her speech can be simply summarised in these words: "Yes, I agree that during the course of the election campaign the Shadow Minister for schools, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, gave a specific pledge. Yes, I agree we are breaking it now for the reasons that I have given".
Baroness Blackstone: No. I quoted earlier from Mr. Kilfoyle's letter where he said
"much will obviously depend on the school to which the child has been admitted."
I believe that Members of the Committee opposite are reading too much into this pledge, or promise as they describe it. We are extremely concerned that the right thing is done by children in preparatory schools. We believe that the right thing for these children is to transfer into state secondary schools at the time when all other children are transferring to them. If they are to stay in preparatory schools until the age of 13, there will be a problem if the parents wish to have a full choice of which secondary school to send their child. There will be a problem for the child in trying to catch up with the state school curriculum and to be fully integrated into it. There will be a problem for the child in terms of forming friendships since all the other children in the state secondary school will have entered it.
Lord Henley: But—
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. The noble Lord must allow me to try to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and to finish what I am saying. When making such a change to educational legislation, it is important to take into consideration the interests of the children. In deciding that this is the right way to operate the scheme and in fulfilling what we clearly said in our manifesto, we are trying to take into account the needs of children. I repeat that it seems to me that if noble Lords opposite think that all children should be able to stay in prep school until the age of 13 they must then have in mind a wish to provide a bridge into private, independent secondary schools; otherwise they would be more willing to concede that it makes much more sense for those children to transfer at the same time as those who are transferring, in the state system.
Baroness Young: I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply. I am sure that she will read carefully
790
in Hansard what she said, as we all will. I am bound to say that I was very surprised by the arguments that she adduced because I did not feel that they in any way answered the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. As the noble Baroness rightly said, parents mind very much about the education of their children. The fact is that if you are a parent and you receive a letter like that from Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, who at that time was the shadow Minister for schools, you will write to try to find out the Government's view. The parents then received a letter back and assumed that it was correct. A normal parent would draw the assumption that the child could automatically have remained at that school until the age of 13. However, they now find that that may not be the case. Of course, the parents might decide in any event that they would prefer their child to leave that school at the age of 11, but that is not the point. All the reasons which the noble Baroness gave are perfectly good reasons. Most children do transfer at the age of 11 and if they do not they may indeed have difficulty in making friends and may not be with their age group, but that is irrelevant to the issue at point.
It is a very serious charge to say that the Government have genuinely misled many parents. We now find a completely different situation. Although the noble Baroness has given an enormous number of circumstances, the situation is not the same as she described on Second Reading, although I concede that she would not then have had the time to say all that. On Second Reading she seemed to suggest that extending the scheme, as Mr. Peter Kilfoyle suggested that it could be extended, would be open to abuse. That certainly was not in his letter and I think that it is a terrible reflection on the parents and the school.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is going to do, but this is a very serious matter to which I am sure that he will return at a later stage. Indeed, we should all return to it. It is most regrettable that parents have been completely misled. Furthermore—I am surprised to have to say this—I do not think that the noble Baroness has been helpful to the Committee in dealing with the issue.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, feels like that. I have been doing my utmost to be as helpful as I possibly can. I have tried to set out the position clearly and at some length. I could not develop this in the Second Reading debate although I spent quite some time during my wind-up speech doing the best that I could to answer all the questions that had been put. Perhaps I may repeat what I have already said. We shall use our discretion as sympathetically as we can where children in preparatory schools—in other words, schools with an age range from seven, eight and nine up to 13—may have been given a clear promise that they can keep their place up to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government gave such an undertaking. We shall honour that commitment. What more can I say? I ask Members of the Committee and especially noble Lords opposite to accept what I am saying.
Perhaps I may pick up on the point about abuse. At Second Reading I was referring to schools which are simply using this as a bridge into independent secondary schools—in other words, providing another two years of

791
private schooling at the taxpayers' expense for those who will then go on to pay for their child's independent secondary schooling.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to have an opportunity to intervene in the debate that I started. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for her robust defence of me against jibes from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I have been flattered tonight—not for the first time and probably not for the last time—by the contest between the Government and the Opposition to woo the support of the Liberal Democrats. I simply confirm that whichever side we support will be the right side.
I am grateful to the Minister for what I accept was a careful and considered response. I accept—even if other noble Lords do not—that the Minister was trying to be genuinely helpful. However, I am worried by some aspects of her comments. As I said in my opening remarks, I have much sympathy with the view that the right age for children to transfer to the state secondary scheme is 11, which is the normal age. Children who transfer at a later age when others have transferred earlier may well encounter difficulties. However, where I part company from the Minister is that I think that that is a decision for the parents, not for the Government. I hope that when considering matters such as at what age their child should transfer and to what parents will take all factors into account. Ultimately, however, it should be the parent's decision, not the Government's. This is perhaps a point of principle and difference between ourselves and the Government.
Much has been made of Peter Kilfoyle's letter. It should be pointed out that it was not a letter from an anxious Labour candidate—well, perhaps it was, but not in that context—who was trying to reassure and to woo a constituent who was not sure whether to vote for him; it was a letter written to the chairman of a concerned association, the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, by the Labour Party's official education spokesman during the general election campaign. Presumably, the letter was written with the knowledge, and on the authority, of his party and represented his party's view. That is why we make much of the letter. There is a need to meet that commitment. It may be that, in the way of things, the Opposition make more of it than they should, but, in the way of things, the Government are making rather less of it than they should.
I should like to read in Hansard what the Minister said and to consider the matter carefully. Much of what the noble Baroness said tonight has been said previously, but some points are additional and are new. I should like the opportunity to consider them carefully before deciding how to proceed. In the light of that, it appears appropriate for me tonight to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1997
7.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2.7 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st September 1997.
I welcome the opportunity this debate has given me to reinforce the message put forward in another place on the 18th June and in your Lordships' House on the 26th June. The death toll from asbestos-related diseases is very disturbing. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is determined to do all that is within its powers to minimise the risks posed by this dangerous substance. Over 70 per cent. of compensation claims paid out under this scheme are for people suffering from mesothelioma, a form of asbestos-related lung cancer which is almost invariably fatal within 18 months. People suffering from industrial diseases have the right to sue the employer or employers where exposure took place. But the dust-related diseases covered by this Act take a long time to develop. They may not be diagnosed until 20 to 40 years or more after exposure to the dust. By the time the disease is diagnosed the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist. Sufferers and their dependants can therefore experience considerable difficulty in obtaining compensation.
Although the circumstances leading to the need for this Act are so distressing I take great pride in the fact that it was the last Labour Government which enacted this legislation in 1979 to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. Then, as now, we showed our commitment to those who have suffered as a result of poor standards of health and safety at work.
The Act provides for lump sum payments to be made to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants where there is no realistic chance of success through the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement which must be satisfied before a payment can be made: first, that there is no relevant employer who can be sued;

793
secondly, that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and, thirdly, that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded. Payments under the Act are additional to any industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded. The department does all that it can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic way. Rules have to be made and kept, but the department recognises that each case is an individual tragedy and is as generous as the legislation allows.
The previous Government gave an undertaking to Parliament to review regularly the amounts payable and to maintain their value. This Government fully endorse that commitment and these regulations aim to fulfil it. But we are not content simply to compensate those who have suffered in the past. We aim to put public health in the forefront of public priorities and take positive action to improve the nation's well-being. Sadly, this will not help those exposed to asbestos many years ago, but we can start to help future generations.
Asbestos is one of the most serious occupational health problems that face this country. The Government have asked the Health and Safety Commission for urgent advice about placing a ban on the manufacture and importation of asbestos. It has also asked it for advice on the practicalities of surveying and marking buildings so that the problems associated with existing asbestos already in situ are also considered. All of this is a start which we hope will eventually make the provisions of this Act redundant.
I feel sure all noble Lords will recognise that no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for their suffering and loss. These regulations do, however, allow us to ensure that the compensation provided for in the 1979 Act maintains its value. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th June be approved. 4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear description of these regulations. I should like to inform her—I hope that this is passed on to her noble friend Lady Blackstone—that we support these regulations. Joking aside, this is a very serious problem. I express my sympathy, as did the noble Baroness, to all families who have been touched by these diseases. As I understand the noble Baroness, these problems take some time to develop. Are estimates available as to any increase in the number of cases now arising and the number that is likely to arise in future? The Minister also referred to research that has been carried out. I am glad to hear about that and also the action that the Government have taken. Can she also confirm that this rise is in line with the retail prices index? We support these regulations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend for the detail that she has provided in presenting these draft regulations to the House. The noble Earl who has just spoken asked whether the rise was in line with inflation. If that is not the case I should also like to ask about that. I hope that
794
at some time it will be possible to consider awarding a rise that is greater than inflation. My noble friend will be aware that for a long time I represented a mining constituency. Indeed, I have lived in a mining constituency all of my life. I believe that I have had first hand experience of pneumoconiosis among miners. Even now it is commonplace to see miners walking up the street and pausing on two or three occasions simply to get back their breath. My noble friend commented on the nature of this disease which is absolutely dreadful and must be seen to be appreciated. She also mentioned the effect on families. I hope that that is a matter which will be taken into consideration.
I should say—or perhaps I should not say—that I have tabled a Question next week relating to the mineworkers' pension fund. I recognise that both this Government and the former Government have carried out to the letter what has been put forward under the fund. However, it may be that a Labour Government will be more sympathetic in terms of the money that is to be given to miners under that fund, which I understand amounts to £1.5 billion. Arising out of that, the Government have increased the pensions by 20 per cent. I believe that that decision is a very laudable one. I simply mention that if the increase is 20 per cent. and 2.7 per cent. has been mentioned here, then it seems to me that there is a discrepancy. Perhaps the Government could have been a little more generous as regards this proposal tonight. I understand that that is the normal procedure and it is one that has been followed for some time. I see that my noble friend agrees with that.
Both the House and the community must realise the very high price that miners and their families have paid given the nature of their work, not to mention the many deaths that have occurred in that most disagreeable of occupations. I come from a mining family, but as a Member of Parliament I have been down a pit on many occasions. On every occasion I was glad to get out of that hole. It is the worst job in the world, but miners are very loyal to the industry, to the Labour Party and to Labour Governments. I hope that the present Government will take that into consideration.
Having said that, I am glad to support this Motion.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of both the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and my noble friend Lord Dormand for these draft regulations.
Perhaps I may deal first with the scale of these increases. They are in line with the retail prices index. Since the inception of the scheme in 1980 the rates of payment have been kept in line with the RPI. The proposed uprating of 2.7 per cent., which is the correct figure, should ensure that this is maintained during this year. I understand the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Dormand for an even more generous uprating. We have mirrored the upratings in social security benefits generally. While I am willing to look at the representations that he has made it is wrong of me to hold out any hope other than the commitment that I give this evening that the Government will continue to maintain the value of the benefit and keep it in line with inflation.

795
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about the extent of the problem and the predictions that have been made. Perhaps I may tell him that 202 claims were made in 1993–94 at a cost of £2.25 million. That rose in 1996–97 to 453 claims being paid at a cost of nearly £5.5 million. Those are disturbing figures and, even more worrying, is the fact that research has indicated that deaths from mesothelioma will increase until the year 2010 and possibly until the year 2020. The Health and Safety Commission has produced statistics on estimates in its annual report and I shall certainly send the noble Earl a copy of that document.
As I said earlier, we are determined not only to do what we can for sufferers today, but also to ensure that future generations will not be plagued by this dreadful disease. What we are doing now is to concentrate on those suffering today and we are trying to ensure that we can all agree on the importance of the draft regulations to update the amounts paid. Perhaps I may also confirm that the department gives every assistance to those who apply for payments under the Act and that it will continue to administer it as sympathetically as the legislation allows. For example, during the past year, 29 cases were reopened for review. I have to tell the House that all those cases ended in payment being made to the claimants.
However, as my noble friend Lord Dormand pointed out, no amount of money can compensate for the sheer misery and suffering that such diseases inflict on sufferers and their families. As previous governments have recognised, the amounts provided do give some assistance, especially because they are in addition to the social security benefits payable, for those affected by the disease who cannot get compensation through the courts. As I said, this Government will continue to review the amount of the payments to keep them in line with the increase in inflation. We are determined to ensure that risks to health are properly addressed so that future generations do not have to suffer in this way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997
8.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these draft regulations are technical. The provision of traditional Green Form advice and assistance is governed by Part III of the Legal Aid Act 1988. This lays down financial conditions for clients and limits the amount of work that solicitors can do. Part II of the Act gives the Legal Aid Board a general power to make contracts. It is Section 4(2) of the Act which gives the board power,
"to enter into any contract".
796
That power applies to contracting for legal aid services, as well as other forms of contracts. The board can use it to make contracts for services that are either subject to the conditions in Part III or independent of them. The board is about to embark upon pilot projects contracting for legal aid advice and assistance with solicitors' firms and a range of advice agencies, including some that employ solicitors. For these pilots, the board wants to be flexible and to experiment with different contractual arrangements. Some of these would not be possible if the conditions and limits in Part III applied. For example, as I have mentioned, Part III limits the amount of advice which solicitors may give to clients. The board wishes this limit to be lifted for the pilot. The idea is to enable fixed-price contracts under which providers can devote the time that is thought necessary for each case, subject to the resources available. That will enable the advice that people receive to be better tailored to their needs.
The purpose of the regulations, then, is to make it clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the pilot contracts are outside Part III. That will ensure that the Legal Aid Board has the flexibility that it needs.
Perhaps I may now explain what these regulations will mean in practice. They have nothing to do with legal aid as usually understood; that is, the legal aid which people receive to help pay for court proceedings. What they are about is the way that people receive basic help with their problems—what has traditionally been called legal advice and assistance. This is an area that has received less attention and, particularly in relation to social welfare law, has been rather neglected. But this Government believe strongly in its importance for giving people the help that they need with legal problems at an early stage. Early help can lead to early settlement.
Under the existing legal aid scheme, any lawyer can give people legal advice and assistance, under what is known as the Green Form scheme. Once the solicitor has done the work, a bill is sent to the Legal Aid Board, which then pays it. There are, however, financial conditions and other limitations which restrict who can receive advice and assistance and what type and amount of work the board will pay for.
The Green Form is a service for the poor—that is, broadly for those at income support levels. Those who are left with more than £77 a week from their earnings, after deducting certain allowances, do not qualify. Generally, the maximum amount of help that they can receive is three hours for matrimonial cases, or two hours for all other classes of work without restriction. In broad terms, that equates to around £90 in value. In all categories the provider can go beyond the two or three-hour time limit, either by permission of the Legal Aid Board or, where a firm is under contract to the board to provide quality-assured services—a legal aid franchisee—it can authorise the extension itself, using powers devolved from the board. An example might be a housing case where a solicitor identifies a housing matter that he or she believes might be resolved through negotiation. Last year there were 1.6 million Green Form acts of assistance—a high volume of advice provision at a low unit cost.

797
An experiment has been tried in which the Legal Aid Board has contracted in advance with some voluntary non-solicitor advice agencies, such as citizens advice bureaux and advice centres, to provide advice and assistance. These are new types of provider who are not currently part of the legal aid scheme, but who we believe can offer a new and useful range of services. The work they carry out under the contracts is in the areas of social welfare law, immigration, and employment—these being the areas in which they hold themselves out as competent. If their competence were extended into other areas, so also the ambit of these contracts could be extended. Social welfare includes advice on debt problems, housing, and benefits. But agencies cannot, at present, offer services under their contracts in family or criminal work. This, however, merely reflects the competence that they currently demonstrate.
In the experiment, advice agencies receive approximately £36,000 per annum from the legal aid fund for each full-time advice worker they employ on legal aid work. Legal aid funding is available only for services provided for people who are at the income levels that I have already described. The sum agencies receive is based on a negotiated formula and buys 1,100 hours of "direct" caseworker time spent working on cases, which equates to 25 hours a week. These arrangements give an hourly rate about £9 or £10 lower than that paid to solicitors.
The initial contract for the agencies is for one year. Then, if they meet the franchise standard, they qualify after that year for an additional three-year franchise contract. The requirement that each agency involved in the pilot meets the standards of the board's franchising scheme means that their service is quality assured. There are additional standards placed upon those who supervise work. The agencies' contracts include strict monitoring provisions to ensure that these quality standards are maintained.
That experiment fitted in with an intention eventually to provide all legal aid and legal advice and assistance through contracts with solicitors and other providers. Those contracts would fix in advance how much work the service providers would do, and how much they would be paid for it. That broad contractual approach to all legal aid and advice and assistance allows for contracts at fixed and agreed prices. Better planning and control of legal aid costs result. That contractual approach is now being considered as part of the review of civil justice and legal aid that I have asked Sir Peter Middleton to conduct.
One of Sir Peter's main objectives is how to achieve better control over legal aid expenditure. This Government are committed to staying within existing spending ceilings for the next two years. Any extra money for legal aid could thus only be secured at the expense of another area of public spending. The plain fact is that there is no new money for the legal aid scheme—rather it needs to deliver better value for existing money.
I welcome these Legal Aid Board initiatives. They contribute to the goal of improving value for money. I want to ensure that, while Sir Peter Middleton is
798
undertaking his review, we do not lose the momentum built up in piloting contracts for advice and assistance. What the board and I now want to do is conduct further pilots with the voluntary sector and with solicitors.
The new pilots will include solicitors' firms and a greater range and number of advice agencies, including some that employ solicitors (such as law centres). There will then be a wider range of help available. The advice agencies will be able to do the same work as under the initial experiment; solicitors' firms will be able to offer any advice and assistance under the pilot contracts except family and criminal. While the board has not yet settled exactly which agencies and solicitors' offices will be taking part in these new pilots, there has been great interest from providers in both the pilots. For example, the solicitors' pilot was originally intended to include 50 offices but the board received expressions of interest from about 850. The board narrowed this down and is currently engaged in discussions with about 140 offices as to whether they wish to participate.
So as I have said, I am keen to press ahead with these pilots. Doing so means that, were Ito decide, after receiving Sir Peter Middleton's report, that contracting for fixed agreed prices should continue, I will be in a position quickly to make a decision on a national contracting scheme for advice and assistance. I commend this instrument to the House and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th June be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the legal profession will, I am sure, be most indebted to the noble and learned Lord for that clear exposition of what are difficult regulations to follow unless one has the benefit of the explanation that the noble and learned Lord has given.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this measure is a creative, if modest, step in seeking to grapple with what is likely to prove the biggest headache of the noble and learned Lord's term of office: to improve the provision of legal services to the needy without increasing public expenditure.
As I understand it, what is proposed amounts to the legal equivalent of preventive medicine. By making legal advice more user friendly and available in areas in which the underprivileged often fall foul of the law—social welfare, immigration and employment—we shall keep people out of the courts. That will save money on expensive litigation and target those in need more accurately—serving the interests of economy and justice simultaneously.
There are those in the legal profession who see this as the early stage of the slippery slope which can end only in the adoption of something like the public defender system in the US. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has any preconceptions about that system. I do know that he has established a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Middleton which will take a close look at the desirability of expanding the contractual provision of legal aid services. We eagerly await its report. The

799
wider issues can he addressed then. I trust that the House will have an early opportunity to debate the findings of that report.
I note also that the noble and learned Lord has delayed a statement of his intentions regarding the implementation of the Woolf provisions until after Sir Peter has reported. In my humble submission, that must be right. Decisions about the provision of public funds to finance such services cannot be made without looking at the costs of court and interlocutory proceedings to see whether or not some savings can be made there. To do otherwise would be rather like the Chancellor of the Exchequer preparing a taxation policy with no regard to public expenditure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the welcome given to these regulations from the Opposition Benches for the limited effect that they have. I appreciate also the recognition from those Benches of the good reasons why I invited Sir Peter Middleton to conduct his review. He is reviewing for me the Woolf proposals and legal aid together. I have always maintained that reform of legal aid and the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, should go together. They should not be evaluated separately. The reform of legal aid is not, as has been recognised, a distinct issue, hermetically sealed from the reforms of the civil justice system itself.
A major defect in the approach of our predecessors was to address each separately. I therefore welcome what has now been said from the Opposition Benches. That is precisely why Sir Peter is reviewing them both together for me. I expect him to report by the end of September. I hope and plan to make major decisions in October.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting suspended from 8.16 to 8.45 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("or
(c) unless the Secretary of State in exercising his discretion has particular regard for pupils in—

(i) non-tied preparatory schools that finish at age 13; or

(ii) schools situated in local education authorities with middle schools.

and deems otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may start by offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness on the slick way in which she moved the House back into Committee and also the speed with which the noble Baroness, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, pre-empted her words.
Amendment No. 11, which I wish to speak to very briefly, is an alternative to what we were debating earlier. It is obvious that the Government at this stage are not prepared to move on the question of the broken promise. That is why I gave an assurance that I would be prepared to come back to the matter at Report stage. However, I probably will not be here; it may be someone else. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will want to come back to it on Report, as will my noble friends.
The Government should be ashamed of themselves to some extent in terms of the refusal to move on the broken promise. I offer this amendment as an alternative in terms of allowing them to move some small way.
The Bill itself as drafted, as the noble Baroness pointed out on the last amendment, offers a discretion to the Secretary of State to make provision for some of the 11 to 13 year-olds who will be affected by the broken promise. It is a discretion which I do not believe goes far enough. If I may speak for the noble Lord, Lord Tope, remembering what he said on the previous amendment, perhaps I may say that we believe it is wrong because we believe it is a matter properly left to the parents, whatever the rights or wrongs of moving at 11 or 13 years of age. I see perfectly the justness of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that very often it is far more sensible to move at the age of 11 rather than at 13. That is a decision both I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, believe is best made by the parents.
I appreciate that my amendment is probably not as well drafted as it might be. I do not have access to the draftsman that the Government have. No doubt we will try to improve it at a later stage. My amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State himself, when exercising his discretion, should generally give the benefit of the doubt to the particular classes mentioned in the amendment rather than the other way around, which seems to be the case with Clause 2 as it now stands. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say. I have no intention of pressing the amendment at this stage of the Bill but, subject to what she says, I may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 11 and 27 seek to incorporate into the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State pays regard to the particular circumstances of children in non-tied preparatory schools and in areas where middle schools operate.
The amendments are unnecessary. The Bill as originally drafted provides a wide discretionary power. I have made clear that we shall have regard to the circumstances of children in preparatory schools and children in areas served by middle schools. I have given assurances that we shall use the discretionary power sympathetically and in a way that takes account of the particular circumstances of the child concerned.
Making specific provision in the Bill for discretion to be considered in particular circumstances would detract from the unfettered simplicity of the discretionary power and could cast doubt on its scope by specifying

801
particular circumstances where discretion may apply. Examples not mentioned could be viewed as carrying less weight.
We have deliberately provided a wide discretionary power because we want the flexibility to be able to respond appropriately to all those cases that are presented to us. We do not want anything to be ruled out on a technicality when there are good reasons for extending support. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: I gave an assurance to the noble Baroness that I did not intend to press the amendment. I still do not believe that she has addressed the crucial question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. We feel that, in the end, it should be for the parents to make up their minds and not the Secretary of State. The amendment pushes the Secretary of State's discretion further because, obviously, when one is offering discretion to a Secretary of State, one must lay down guidelines as to how that discretion should be exercised. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has gone as far as we would wish but I do not wish to press the matter further this evening. I shall look carefully at what she said. I shall withdraw the amendment, but it may be that we shall need to return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO ASSIST PUPILS
(" . Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing a former participating school in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness will be delighted with this amendment because it is very co-operative and is designed to help the Government. I never know who is going to speak to the amendments. Of Judy and Punch, I believe that this time it is Punch. What I am asking for—I shall develop my case in a few moments—is that a local authority should be allowed to spend the grant which every local authority is given for the education of a secondary school pupil at an independent school.
There have been arguments about the balance, but it is about £1,000 to £1,400. The emphasis of the amendment is that the balance of the fee would be provided either by charitable grants from educational charities, some of which are interested in this matter, or by funds raised by independent schools.
Why should one bother to do that? It is merely to help the Government. The problem is that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of assisted places are mainly held at former direct grant schools. And, of course, as the noble Baroness has indicated and as was pointed out in the debates in the
802
early 1980s, the direct grant schools were unevenly distributed; in other words, they were concentrated in various areas of the country.
In that case, the Government must face the fact that a greater burden will fall on some local authorities rather than others. For example, it was pointed out in the other place that Guildford has 400 assisted places because of the old Royal Grammar School in Guildford and Guildford High School, former direct grant schools. But the local authority says that state secondary schools in Guildford are already over-subscribed. Therefore, the Government will face the problem that places will need to be provided for those children in areas where there is at present over-subscription.
This amendment is not malicious or nasty. It is designed to give local authorities the power, without costing more, to use the independent schools in their area, to raise money and to help the state and relieve the pressure on the whole system. It is a good opportunity to comply with the request at page 72 of the White Paper for co-operation between the independent and maintained sectors because the independent sector would provide money, £1,400 per year. and also for improved parental choice because parents could choose, for example, the Royal Grammar School at Guildford.
I gather from discussions in the other place that there are problems also in Totnes. My own home town of Newcastle has about 1,500 direct grant places. Half the pupils at my old school, Dame Allans, are taken on a direct grant basis. I can assure the Committee, having been a member of that school, that it has no endowment. But those schools could possibly draw from city companies and such establishments. In other words, the amendment meets the noble Baroness's plea made earlier in the debate for co-operation and constructive debate. I hope the Government may pay some attention to it. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: Having been attacked this evening for being too sympathetic to the Government, I now find the Conservative Opposition moving an amendment on the grounds that they are being helpful to the Government. Perhaps it is my turn to get my own back.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Constructive opposition.
Lord Tope: Constructive opposition. Well, there is a novelty. I have much sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment. Indeed, in some respects it reflects Liberal Democrat policy which would have allowed and encouraged local education authorities, where they see fit, to meet the fees in whole or in part. I believe that whoever is to reply to the amendment may say that it is not necessary. My understanding is that the power is already there should local education authorities—and incidentally, Guildford is not one—feel willing and, more important, able, to do that. It will probably be exceptional for local authorities to take the view that it is the best use of their money and also that they will have the money to use in that way. I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment but I do not think it is necessary because the power is already there.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has once again referred to the publication Excellence in Schools. He is right to say that it spells out that one of the ways in which we aim to raise standards in schools is by encouraging local partnership. I was interested to hear his examples of Guildford and Totnes. He is also right in saying that there may be sponsors and trusts willing to fund places at independent schools. He mentioned education charities and the wholly admirable motive of raising money to help the state. All of that was music to my ears, and I have no quarrel with him whatever. In many years of opposition on the Front Bench there was nothing more infuriating than Ministers standing up and saying that an amendment was either unnecessary or undesirable, or both. I have not said that the amendment is undesirable, but I have to say that it is unnecessary.
If a local authority wants to use money that it raises locally to fund a place at an independent school it can do so under the long-standing powers in the present legislation. It does not mean that it will get extra money for that purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly pointed out. There will be no supplement to the standard spending assessment, but if the local authority decides to place a pupil in a school and is willing to pay the full cost of the place, then there is no bar to that situation. Under Section 18 of the Education Act 1996, LEAs already have a wide discretion to make arrangements for the provision of primary and secondary education for pupils at schools not maintained by them or other LEAs.
Section 517 of the 1996 Act requires an LEA to pay in full the fees of pupils provided with places at independent schools under arrangements made by that authority pursuant to Section 18 where there is a shortage of suitable places for those children in the maintained sector in the LEA's area.
Further, when the local education authority is satisfied and decides that a pupil's special educational needs can be appropriately provided for in an independent school and subsequently names that school in the pupil's statement of special education needs, it is under a duty under Section 517 to fully fund that place.
The noble Lord will also find that under the Scholarship and Other Benefits Regulations 1977, local education authorities can already pay the whole or part of the tuition fees, boarding or lodging fees and other expenses related to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school. The regulations require support to be means-tested and local education authorities must be satisfied that the education at the school is suitable for the pupil.
I repeat that it is simply unnecessary to place this power on the face of the Bill and I urge the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Does that long answer mean that a local education authority in Guildford faced with the problems described by my noble friend would have total freedom to work with funds provided by education charities attached to that school or other education charities and fund places in that school in that way?
804
I understood from what he said that there is a restriction on the LEA in that it had to pay the whole of the school fees charged. In that case it would be difficult for it to work with charities or others to make up the total fee. Presumably there is a prohibition on the LEA paying part of the fee and the pupil's parents paying the rest because that may be described as charging for state education. Can the noble Lord clarify the point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know the formal answer to that and I shall write to the noble Lord. There should be a very easy way around the situation. If an education charity is willing to contribute the money could be paid to the local authority so that it could pay that part of the fees or board or lodging charges required from the independent school. I cannot imagine that it could be a problem but I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Tope: The Minister might not be quite right about that matter but there is no point in speculating tonight. I would be grateful if he could send me a copy of his letter because I am interested to know the official answer. I am sure the Minister is aware that Guildford is in the county of Surrey, which is now a Conservative controlled local education authority. We will be watching with great interest, assuming the powers are there, to see whether or not Surrey council feels that it is a worthwhile use of the very generous grant it receives from central government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like the noble Lord, I wait with bated breath.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am delighted that I have produced a little discussion. I will be interested to read the Minister's reply. I think that there are more complications than meet the eye and the noble Lord may find that the Conservative council will meet these matters. The publicity generated may produce results. It will also test whether the Government believe in the famous page 72 of the White Paper. I know that the noble Baroness is an honourable woman and will certainly do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Regulations for purposes of transitional arrangements.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("to") to ("fees") in line 3 and insert ("direct a school to refrain from making, or postpone or reduce an increase in,").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. These are probing amendments. I have no intention of pushing the amendments to a vote. I look for an assurance from the Government that these measures relating to fees and a lump sum will not be used in a punitive or—dare I say it?—even vindictive way. A general control of fees constitutes a broad power. Theoretically it could mean that the Secretary of State could say, "I do not like these fees at all and I want

805
to reduce them". This amendment follows the previous pattern of the scheme and suggests a control which could prevent unnecessary increases, for example, in the case of a school which decided to be unscrupulous and raise fees too high. Traditionally, under the scheme, schools have been prevented from doing that. Why not adopt the words of the amendment and,
"direct a school to refrain from making, or postpone or reduce an increase"?
I am concerned about lump sums. Like myself, the noble Baroness has been involved in education throughout most of her career. She knows of the problems that can arise with educational finances. If it were ever proposed that a lump sum be negotiated with a school that was involved in the assisted places scheme, it would create considerable difficulties. As the noble Baroness knows, any educational institution that has negotiated with the Government has found it difficult to negotiate lump sums. One would, for instance, have to assess future levels of inflation. Traditionally, governments of my party or of the party of the noble Baroness tend not to assess those accurately. Also, they often take into account general inflation figures, but educational inflation can sometimes be higher. Lump sums do not allow for salary increases. Educational salaries may rise suddenly, then remain dormant for many years and then may rise again.
I am therefore worried about a lump sum arrangement. It is always difficult for educational institutions to negotiate with the Government, as the noble Baroness must have discovered in her educational career. I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to give us an assurance on this matter as regards the educational institutions that over the next few years they will still be involved with this funding. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, wanted to speak to these two amendments together because I believe they concern rather different matters. I shall deal with them in turn. I begin with Amendment No. 14. Unfortunately I understand that this amendment has a minor technical deficiency, but I hope that what follows gives the noble Lord adequate assurances.
Existing statutory provisions (specifically Section 480(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996) give broad discretion to specify in regulations arrangements to determine fees. The Bill provides for the same degree of flexibility. The more specific approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, may rule out arrangements for setting fees which, following consultation with representatives of assisted places schools, we decide are most appropriate. Consultations on these matters are standard practice and they are both welcomed and encouraged by representatives of assisted places schools. We intend that they should continue. I give the noble Lord that assurance.
However, what the noble Lord proposes could lead to the paradoxical situation of the department having to reimburse schools for higher fees than they were charging full fee-payers. Occasionally APS schools reduce their fees. It is not often I am ready to admit that. For example, Yarm School in Stockton-on-Tees reduced its sixth form fees for pupils already in the school: in effect that was a
806
loyalty incentive. And Denstone College Uttoxeter will be reducing its junior fees by nearly 12 per cent. from September 1997—it has obviously made some efficiency savings—and plans to reduce its senior day fees by some 30 per cent. from 1998–99. If the noble Lord's amendment was passed we would be unable to change the APS fees to take account of these reductions.
No government with a proper concern for the stewardship of public funds would leave themselves without adequate flexibility to respond to circumstances of that kind. The party opposite gave itself a broad power to determine fees and we propose to do likewise.
Amendment No. 15 would remove the provision for lump sum payments by the Secretary of State. I believe the noble Lord suggested that it was a probing amendment to seek assurances that there is no untoward intention behind the provision. I can give him every assurance that this regulation-making power was included with the very best of intentions. It is certainly not intended to be used as a way of avoiding future commitments, nor is it intended to be used to make independent schools suffer financially. It is not intended to bring an unnecessarily rapid halt to the assisted places scheme in general. We are in fact, as I have already said on several occasions, committed to phasing out the scheme in a reasonable timeframe. We shall make good use of this power simply to make sensible administrative arrangements as the scheme winds down and eventually closes.
Towards the end of the seven years the number of pupils in the scheme in a particular school may have gone down to such a level that the administrative costs for an individual school outweigh the benefits of the income that it receives from the Government, and we can foresee a time when it would not be good use of staff resources of either the department or the schools to keep an administrative operation going at perhaps rather considerable cost to pay out tiny amounts of grant. In those circumstances, it may be in the interests of both the taxpayer and the school to introduce a lump sum payment. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not impose such a position on a school. We would want to proceed on the basis of agreement, something that will of course be a general feature of this Government's educational policies, and we shall not do anything that is not in the best interests of all those concerned. I hope that this gives the noble Lord the assurances that he wanted and that he will now feel able to withdraw his amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Peace prevails, and I welcome the noble Baroness's very kind words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: In the new spirit of co-operation, and particularly after the strictures from the noble Baroness that I was somewhat too strident in my

807
opposition at an earlier stage, can I give her an assurance that these amendments are purely probing amendments. I have no intention of dividing on them.
Put very briefly, as I understand it, the regulations under Section 3(2)(a) or (b) should be reviewed every two years. The simple question I wish to ask the noble Baroness is why she thinks that two years is the appropriate time and whether an annual review of these matters might not be more appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone:The noble Lord, Lord Henley, may not like it when I suggest to him that I am very puzzled that he should be moving these amendments since they seem to be changing something that his own Government introduced when they were in power. It was the administration of which he was a member that provided for the regulations made under Section 480 of the Education Act 1996 to be reviewed at intervals of not more than every two years. It seemed a very sensible approach then, and I thought that by restating the provision I would avoid any objections from the Members opposite, but I appear to be wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was accusing the Labour Party a little earlier of changing its mind. Perhaps I may say that the Conservative Party seems to be changing its mind on this occasion.
Previously amendments have in practice been made to the regulations on an annual basis essentially to uprate the parental contribution scale. Provided we think it is necessary to uprate the parental contribution scale, we shall do exactly the same; but I see no need to require annual reviews—that is, more frequent reviews than are already provided for in statute. I am told that these arrangements have worked perfectly well and I see no need to change them in the future.
Further, when the scheme begins to fade away, towards the end of this Parliament, it may not be necessary to review the regulations on an annual basis. The Bill allows exactly the same degree of flexibility as existed before we came to power. I have not heard compelling reasons why the same flexibility should not be available to this Government. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Henley: I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that I shall not press the amendments. I was aware that it was our policy in the past. Sadly, we are not now in power. One of the great joys of Opposition is that one can occasionally ask questions of the Government. It is for the Government to answer. That is why I was grateful that the noble Baroness managed to give a reason. I am not sure that I would have done that; I would have stuck to the existing line, "That's what you used to do, so yah-boo, sucks!" I am grateful for the explanation.
As I said, they are purely probing amendments. I wished to know whether the Government are satisfied with what they are doing. The noble Baroness has given me exactly that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4. line 7, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: I put down the amendment originally in order to ask whether this matter should not be dealt with by means of affirmative rather than negative resolution. At that stage—the blame is entirely mine—I had not yet seen the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I have it.
Lord Henley: I now have it. It quite clearly states—it is one of the reasons why the committee was originally set up—that these regulations are more appropriately dealt with by negative rather than affirmative resolution. For that reason, I do not need to press the noble Baroness further to justify why she believes that they should be dealt with by negative rather than affirmative resolution. The principal purpose of setting up that committee was that it should advise us on just that point should the House or Committee question what was appropriate.
I have now formally moved the amendment; I cannot say that I do not move it. However, I intend to withdraw the amendment. Whether the noble Baroness wishes to respond is entirely up to her; I do not expect it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I wish to say a few words on this issue. First, I was one of the original members of the Select Committee on delegated powers when it was set up and I did my stint of two or three years on it. Secondly, if a change to the affirmative procedure were accepted, a similar change would have to be made for Scotland. Clause 5 does not contain an equivalent provision to Clause 3(8) which we are now considering. That is because the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to be amended by Clause 5, already provides for the negative procedure for the relevant regulations.
I agree with my noble friend. The Select Committee has made its report and indicated that the negative procedure is appropriate. Therefore we do not need to make an amendment to the Bill on Clause 5.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, virtually invited the Government to respond in minimal terms. I have great pleasure in doing so. Although it is true that the affirmative resolution procedure existed for the later years of the assisted places schemes, a number of noble Lords have indicated that this was a chore from which they would gladly withdraw—even if, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, there might be certain withdrawal symptoms. It is right to say that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation thought that the negative resolution procedure was appropriate and I hope that the Committee will take the same view.
Lord Henley: All I can say is that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Construction of sections 1 to 3]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Phasing out of assisted places scheme in Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rise to speak to oppose the Motion that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill, having given notice of my intention to do so.
Some time ago I rearranged my travel to Scotland for tonight because I suspected that this would be the last debate in Committee. During the debate I was summoned to the telephone an hour or two ago and informed by British Airways that even my flight on Sunday morning to my home in Inverness was cancelled. I pass that on for what it is worth; they describe it as the knock-on effect of the strike. I am glad to be here.
Towards the end of the debate on the first group of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Peston, described the amendments as having been hijacked by the Scots. I think that I was supposed to be responsible for that. I must point out that four of those amendments were to Clause 5, which deals with Scotland. The grouping followed the normal practice in this House to enable a debate to take place on a common subject and avoid a second, repetitive debate, which would have occupied time at this late hour.
We can now consider Clause 5 as a whole. It covers no less than two pages of the Bill. This will be the last debate at Committee stage, I hope. The clause dealing with Scotland is, of course, drafted in a different style from the rest of the Bill. Members will no doubt recognise—having spent nearly 40 years in the Houses of Parliament, I certainly do—that the Scottish draftsmen incline towards amending and inserting new chunks into existing statutes. That style has been adopted here. In this case the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is the statute.
The assisted places scheme in Scotland is broadly similar to the scheme in England and Wales. One difference is that in Scotland each school has a maximum allocation of money annually whereas in England and Wales there is a maximum number of places. I am glad to say that both north and south of the Border the parental contribution scale is the same.
I feel obliged, with some sadness, to speak on this clause because I was involved in formulating the Scottish scheme from 1976 to 1978 when I was chairman of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools. I pointed out in the debate on Amendments Nos. 1 and 22 the strong reasons for the postponement of these proposals for Scotland. The amendments we were then discussing were to change the years prescribed in the Bill. The reasons I put forward then are also reasons for taking Clause 5 out of the Bill for
810
further consultation and consideration. I do not propose to press the matter, as Members of the Committee will understand. Perhaps another Scottish Bill could be introduced later if the Government adhere to their intentions.
Following the Scottish Office press conference on Monday last—held at the same time as the publication of the White Paper for England and Wales—the media indicated that there would be no equivalent White Paper for Scotland. There was an admission by the Scottish Minister that not enough money could be raised to carry out the commitment to reduce class sizes in Scottish schools, and that raises another point.
Today the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, indicated that the shortfall in Scotland would be made up by pooling the money raised in England and Wales. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, here and I am sorry to keep him so late in the evening. I am sure he will recognise that debating these two pages on Scotland is extremely important. Perhaps he can confirm and tell us a little more about the pooling of the money to be raised both north and south of the Border.
Education in Scotland is not administered by the Department for Education and Employment, but by the Scottish Office, and has been for many years. Administration methods are different. For example, the national curriculum does not apply to Scotland. I am conscious that other matters are different also but I know about the curriculum because I was making preparations for the Scottish curriculum as long as 25 years ago when I was Secretary of State for Scotland. There are other differences such as the fact that the Office for Standards in Education—Ofsted—does not have a writ in Scotland, nor does the Chief Inspector of Schools; Scotland has its own chief inspector. So far as I know, Sir Ron Dearing has never been given any brief for Scotland and the teachers' unions are quite different. The EIS—the Educational Institute of Scotland—as the noble Lord will know, is the main teaching union for Scotland, and the NUT— the National Union of Teachers—does not operate north of the Border.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can clarify, first, whether a White Paper for Scotland equivalent to the one published on Monday, the 7th, for England and Wales, will eventually be issued. That would be contrary to the reports in the press following last Monday's press conference. Secondly, can he confirm that the money raised in England and Wales will be used to help to reduce class sizes in Scotland? Thirdly, can he give an assurance that Scotland in general will not be treated in terms of education as the poor relation or the lame duck?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I can add a word or two in support of my noble friend. He raises some serious Scottish questions and points that need to be answered. I am grateful to the noble Baroness that her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is here to answer those questions.
I speak not as a Scot, as does my noble friend. I may live north of Hadrian's Wall, but I should point out to the Chamber that there are probably around 1 million peoplee

811
living north of the wall but who live firmly in England; I am one of those. Having said that, there are some serious Scottish questions which need to be answered.
My noble friend mentioned the remarks of the noble Lord's honourable friend Mr. Brian Wilson who was reported in the Scotsman as saying that the abolition of assisted places would not necessarily raise enough money to do what they wanted to do in Scotland. That was partially addressed by the noble Baroness on an earlier occasion.
Other questions arise, particularly technical questions. As a non-Scot, I do not fully understand them. There is the subtle problem of the primary seven and primary six children. I see a look of recognition on the face of the noble Lord and I am sure that he is ready to answer that question. We need an answer. I know that my noble friend Lord Campbell requires an answer and we look forward with bated breath to hearing what the noble Lord has to say on this, the last part of the Committee stage of this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): During the course of the passage of this Bill a number of points have been raised in relation to Scotland. It may be convenient if I try to answer all of them at this stage, both those made at Second Reading and earlier today in Committee.
The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the whole legislative framework for education is different in Scotland; that the whole administrative framework is different—indeed, we glory in our distinctiveness.
Perhaps I may now move on to deal with a number of specific points. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is not in her place at the present time—again, she is a victim of the transport problems that we are all suffering from at the moment—who made the point that the "Higher Still" programme was being postponed. She asked us why. The answer to that is quite simple. It is important to get the implementation of that programme right from the very beginning so that our young people can gain maximum benefit from the reforms. It is a major reform of the whole system of school education in Scotland. Teachers and lecturers must therefore be given adequate time to prepare delivery of the new courses from day one. To ensure that that is the case we have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to postpone "Higher Still" by one year. Courses at all four secondary levels will begin in the year 1999–2000, with the advanced programme following one year later. I believe that this extra time is absolutely essential in terms of curriculum planning and it will give schools and colleges more time to plan provision for staff development; individual teachers will have more time to familiarise themselves with course and unit documents, assessment instruments and other support materials and develop their own materials.
It is fair to say from the start that the programme has been built on the idea of participation, partnership and responsiveness to the profession. We intend to further develop this approach in partnership with those who will
812
deliver the programme "Higher Still". We believe and accept that there can be no argument that the "Higher Still" reforms represent the most comprehensive exercise in the involvement and development of the history of Scottish secondary education. That is why we want to make sure that it is right from day one and that is why we believe this postponement is totally justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the question as to why there is to be no White Paper on Scotland. In the context of this Bill I make it clear that the Bill provides for the phasing out of the assisted places scheme in England, Wales and Scotland and, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone explained in the debate on Amendment No. 1, the savings across all the schemes will be pooled and then directed towards reducing class sizes.
The White Paper published earlier this week outlined how taking forward work on class sizes in England will progress. That is the important point. The White Paper addresses the issue of progressing class size reductions in England. Legislation will be included in the autumn education Bill to ensure that we can implement our plans in England and Wales. Of course, the education system in Scotland is fundamentally different: it is run under separate legislation.
We already have in place in Scotland a system for restricting class sizes through teachers' conditions of service. We can therefore make progress on our commitment to reduce class sizes in Scotland without further legislation. The need for a White Paper does not therefore arise, but this Bill is a necessary first step in delivering our aim.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, raised the issue of compulsory appraisal for teachers in Scotland. We believe that all teachers should be appraised. There is no difference on this issue of principle between our colleagues in England, Wales and Scotland. In Scotland we have asked the National Co-ordinating Committee for the staff development of teachers in Scotland to review the guidelines issued by the Scottish Office. We expect local authorities to revise as necessary their schemes in the light of this review. That is the same objective, but it is a slightly different means. As I say, we glory in our distinctiveness and the different routes to the same policy objectives. Education in Scotland is provided under different legislation, so it is not unusual to have different arrangements for similar objectives. In Scotland, the teacher appraisal arrangements will be drawn up in co-operation with local authorities and other suitable bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also raised the issue of the £100 million savings and asked whether that amount included Scotland. I should point out that that £100 million is a round figure, as we have already said, and is based on estimates. Until we have precise information in the autumn, we cannot give more precise figures. With that caveat, I can tell the noble Lord that that £100 million does include Scotland. We shall give more precise details including year-on-year and country-by-country information in respect of departments' annual reports on their expenditure plans. That will become clear and transparent.

813
Finally, I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the interesting Primary 6 and Primary 7 problem, which is basically the cut-off point for entitlement at the end of primary education in Scotland. In Scotland, primary education is defined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 as being,
"school education of a kind which is appropriate in the ordinary case to the requirements of pupils who have not attained the age of 12 years."
In the state sector, primary education consists of seven yearly stages, referred to consistently—surprise, surprise!—as P1 -P7. In the independent sector, many all-through schools complete the primary curriculum at the end of P6. Accordingly, at some Scottish schools participating in the scheme, pupils under 12 are receiving primary education while at others, pupils of the same age are receiving secondary education. That is the nub of the problem to which the noble Lord alludes.
With effect from the 1989–90 school session, when the scheme in Scotland catered only for pupils undertaking secondary education, the previous government expanded the scheme after accepting the views of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools that pupils in P7 and equivalent classes at some participating schools should be treated as eligible for assisted places on grounds that, although the pupils concerned were still below 12 years of age, they were following a secondary curriculum and should be regarded as undertaking secondary education for the purposes of the scheme.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted the council's views that this approach should be the defining criterion for the purposes of determining when entitlement should end for particular pupils at the end of their primary education.
Accordingly, the cut-off point for primary places in Scotland will be the end of the school year immediately preceding the year in which pupils commence the secondary curriculum at individual schools. I know that that is a slightly tortuous formulation, but I think that it can be understood—
Lord Henley: May I—
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may continue for a moment. The noble Lord can then come back to me.
The noble Lord may wish to note that the Scottish Council of Independent Schools considers that our plans for the cut-off point are fair and reasonable and in line with its own suggestions. The Scottish schools participating in the scheme should be able to determine quite clearly when primary education is ended at their schools—no matter whether at P6 or P7. However, it is possible that there could be limited numbers of cases where the circumstances of individual pupils are not entirely clear. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has discretion to allow a pupil to hold an assisted place for a further period where his circumstances make that reasonable, and he could, if he felt it to be appropriate, use his discretion in such a case.
The intended approach does of course mean that pupils in P7 who are undertaking secondary education in the 1997–98 school session will remain eligible for assisted
814
places until the completion of secondary education at their schools. I believe that that resolves the doubt in the noble Lord's mind.
Lord Henley: I am pretty sure that it does resolve the doubt in my mind; but I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is fairly complicated stuff. For the sake of the record, perhaps I should say that I should like the opportunity carefully to read what he has said tomorrow, the day after or whenever I have a chance to do so. It may be that I shall wish to return to it following further discussions with those who advise me. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his attempt at this relatively late hour to explain a complicated matter to a bear of relatively little brain and someone who lives north of Hadrian's Wall but south of the Border.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, whose division within the Scottish Office does not normally include education, as I understand it. However, as the Scottish Office Minister in this House he must answer for everything. I am grateful to him for having replied so fully to the points that have been raised. I was glad to hear his comments on the White Paper. It is now clear that there will not be one for Scotland equivalent to the one for England and Wales. I am also grateful for his explanation of the £100 million throwaway figure when the Bill was first introduced. I shall inform my noble friend Lady Carnegy of the points to which the noble Lord has replied.
Since the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is here I should like to finish by making a Scottish point. The fact that I cannot now fly north means that I shall miss the memorial service at Fort George of the late Field-Marshal Sir James Cassels who was a great friend and colleague of the older brother of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso— the previous Lord Thurso—and the Seaforth Highlanders. I served with both in World War II. I am afraid that the strike has affected our lives this weekend. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his reply. I do not intend to press this matter.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Parliamentary Privilege
A message was brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to review Parliamentary privilege and to make recommendations thereon.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.