REPORT ON EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF ASSISTED PLACES SCHEMES

HL Deb 10 July 1997 vol 581 cc761-92

(" . 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 HenleyAmendment 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.