HL Deb 10 July 1997 vol 581 cc801-14

(" . 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.