Education (Schools) Bill

HL Deb 17 July 1997 vol 581 cc1090-102

3.57 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [Transitional arrangements for existing assisted places]:

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 1:

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 Baroness said: My Lords, I have put forward this amendment because it concerns a broken promise. As was said in Committee and at an earlier stage, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers believe that a promise was made on behalf of the party now in government that children should be allowed to remain in their preparatory schools until the age of 13.

Noble Lords opposite argued that it is better for a child to move from primary to secondary school at the age of 11 years. The Minister spoke of the advantages of moving to secondary school at that age as most of the children within the maintained sector move at 11. But surely in the end it is the parents who should make that final decision.

The noble Baroness also spoke of the powers of discretion which the Secretary of State has with regard to 11 to 13 year-olds. I do not doubt her sincerity when she assured the House that these powers would be used sympathetically. However, we on this side of the House maintain that it is for parents to make that decision and not the Secretary of State. We feel that we would be failing in our duty as a revising Chamber if we did not put forward this amendment.

A promise was made, and a promise is now to be broken. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the letter which was sent to the chairman of the Association of Preparatory Schools, referred to at Second Reading and again in Committee last week. It stated: If a child has a place at school which runs to 13, then that place is to be honoured"— a clear indication by the then Opposition spokesman on education, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle. On 15th May 1997 Mrs. Gillan, the Member for Chesham and Amersham, asked the Secretary of State in another place whether he would confirm, that only a few weeks before the general election he allowed the new assisted places to go ahead from 1 September". In his reply the Secretary of State said: The hon. Lady is correct. During the general election campaign, I said that children who have been allocated places will be permitted to take them up. We shall legislate within weeks to ensure that schools do not abuse the licence that was given to them to look after the interests of children by agreeing to places for 1998 or 1999 onwards. 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, 15/5/97; cols. 182–3.] If that is not a promise, I do not know what a promise is.

This is a moral issue to which I do not feel the Government have given the full attention it deserves. I hope that the Government, having had time to consider the arguments, will alter their original decision. I do not feel that the moral issue has been addressed properly. A promise was made, and that promise should not be broken. I beg to move the amendment.

4 p.m.

Lord Tope

My Lords, this amendment is, word for word, the amendment that I moved a week ago today in Committee. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in supporting me on this issue, said: there is scarcely a cigarette paper's difference between the noble Lord and myself".—[Official Report, 10/7/97; col. 784.] The noble Lord is far better qualified that I am to know the dimensions of a cigarette paper. It may well be that on this particular point our views have converged. However, I feel it necessary to start by saying that, to the extent that they have converged on this particular point, they do so from almost completely opposite directions.

We have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme. We have opposed its extension; indeed, the very recent extension of the scheme which in effect is the subject of this amendment I myself opposed vigorously earlier this year. Almost the last words I spoke in this House before the general election were spoken in very reluctant acceptance of the clause that gave effect to it on the basis that commitments had already been given and we accepted that they had to be honoured.

However, at that time I asked how those commitments could have been given apparently a month before discussion on the Bill that would make provision for such commitments to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has complained several times that he has not received answers to his questions. Neither then, nor since, have I received an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, or any of his colleagues to that particular point.

In Committee I set out the background to this issue fairly fully and set out my views. I do not intend to take the time of the House today in going over the same ground. It would not greatly profit us. I understand, and I think I accept, that the Minister does not wish to see a blanket provision of this nature on the face of the Bill. She has given her reasons—one being fear of possible abuse. I wonder whether in replying she might say rather more about what she has in mind in terms of that abuse. Although it was not the intention, the impression could have been given at Committee stage of a suggestion that all preparatory schools in this position will seek to exploit their position, perhaps against the best interests of the pupils and perhaps without even advising parents of what might be a better option.

As I said then, I accept that in most cases it will be a better option for children transferring to the state sector to do so at age 11 where that is the normal transfer age. However, I stressed last week, and the noble Baroness has just done so again today, that that decision belongs with the parents concerned and not with the Government.

What I sought last week, and seek again, is that what I termed the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured—in other words, the Government when exercising their discretion should start with what might be called the presumption of innocence, the presumption in favour of those pupils and parents who find themselves in the position to which the Kilfoyle letter referred. That is what we seek today. The Minister moved some way towards that position last week. If she is able to take a few more steps towards that today, I shall certainly listen with interest. I have absolutely no wish to extend either the life or the operation of this scheme one day longer than is necessary.

Earl Russell

My Lords, if I may paraphrase Nell Gwyn, I am a Liberal Democrat cigarette paper. It is a well-known principle that changes in educational policy, good or bad, are brought in with respect to commitments to existing students. That is a good and important principle. It is very rarely broken. I recall it being broken once, by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her first week in office. The noble Baroness was persuaded to think better of it. For the first time, and possibly for the last, I urge the Government to follow the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I start by addressing the participation of preparatory schools in the assisted places scheme before turning to address the detail of the amendment before us.

As I explained in Committee, the admission of free-standing preparatory schools into the assisted places scheme formed part of the previous Government's expansion policy. The first phase of the expansion led to the creation of nearly 5,000 new entry places in senior schools, some in integral junior departments for children below the age of 11 with effect from September 1996. But it was only under the second phase of the expansion that preparatory schools were invited to bid to join the scheme.

Some 70 free-standing preparatory schools in England were notified as recently as February 1997 that they would be admitted to the scheme from September 1997. There are already a dozen preparatory schools in Scotland in the scheme, but there are none in Wales. In total, there could be some 400 pupils in preparatory schools which take pupils up to the age of 13 in the scheme from September 1997. I hope that that clarifies the position so far as the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are concerned.

There are at present no pupils yet admitted to nine-to-13 preparatory schools in England and Wales under the scheme. So we are talking about very recent developments, all of which have taken place in the knowledge that the Labour Party's clear policy was firmly established on the phasing out of the scheme.

As I made clear in Committee, when a child in a preparatory school has been given a clear promise that he or she can keep the place through to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government had given such an undertaking, we shall honour that commitment. In Committee, I set out why this commitment is being met through the use of the discretionary power rather than an express provision in the Bill. However, I appreciate that this remains a matter of concern to some noble Lords opposite. Therefore I want to go a little further to address those concerns so that noble Lords opposite will, I hope, feel able to accept that there is nothing between us in substance.

When introducing his amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, sought an assurance that the presumption would be that pupils in preparatory schools would be able to continue with their assisted place through to age 13 if their parents wished them to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also expressed the view that the decision should ultimately rest with parents; and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just repeated that view. Both those points are helpful to me in dealing with the concerns raised. I hope that I shall now be able to provide the assurances sought.

The noble Lord, Lord Henley, cited a number of examples of children who had received assurances that they would be able to keep their place. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, queried whether a commitment given in the light of the letter from Peter Kilfoyle would meet the conditions for the exercise of the discretion. The presumption will be that any parent who has accepted an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter will have that place honoured. I can confirm that in such circumstances the commitment will be honoured through the use of the discretionary power.

Noble Lords opposite seem to believe that all preparatory schools will have made offers of places through to the age of 13 on the understanding that these would be honoured. If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion so that those pupils will be able to keep their places through to the age of 13. Our policy will be to accede to applications for discretion in circumstances such as those, although, of course, we shall still have to examine the facts of each case.

Perhaps I may give the undertaking that noble Lords opposite have sought that there will be a presumption that support will be extended in the circumstances I have just described. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parents want the child to continue through to age 13, then we shall provide support through to age 13.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will accept that I am giving him the assurance which he sought in Committee that the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter is being honoured through the use of the discretionary power. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will also accept that.

My difficulty is that I do not share the certainty of noble Lords opposite over the way that commitments have been given. I believe there may well be cases where parents were not given a clear commitment. I know it to be the case that some schools did not make firm offers of assisted places until after the Bill was published. In those cases, schools should only have made offers through to the age of 11. Others may not have made a clear promise of the duration of the place. That is why we want an arrangement where individual cases can be checked.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, pressed me in Committee and has done so again today on the meaning of "open to abuse". We are in agreement that the right age for children to transfer to state secondary schools is 11. That is the sensible solution for parents and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would also accept that that must be right in the vast majority of cases.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly stressed that parents will have a view about whether transfer at a different age would be better, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am sure that the vast majority of schools will act honourably and seek to do the right thing by the pupils in their charge. But I am afraid that we cannot rule out the possibility that a school—perhaps giving prominence to its own interests—may not ensure that parents consider all the available options. I am not saying that I in any way believe that they would coerce parents; rather that they might not ensure that parents were in a position to take a balanced view about the opportunities available in the state sector and what might be in the child's best interests long term.

For those reasons, we continue to take the view that the use of the discretionary power which allows the details of individual cases to be checked is the right way forward. I hope that in the light of the further assurances that I have given noble Lords opposite—

Lord Tope

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. However, before she sits down I wish to thank her for the statement, which has been extremely helpful. Obviously it is for the movers of the amendment to decide what they do next. But I believe that the assurances that the Minister has given satisfy me and I would not wish to press the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the assurances. I hope that, in the light of the further assurances I have given, noble Lords who put the amendment today will accept that our plans address the concerns that they have raised, while also providing a necessary check to ensure that the additional public resources are made available only to honour commitments properly given. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, she mentioned children in schools in Scotland on the assisted places scheme. I am sure that she appreciates that the normal time for children to move to secondary education in Scotland is not 11-plus but 12-plus, so that those children will all be involved. The amendment would apply to them all, it seems to me. Does the Minister therefore feel that the discretion would have to be exercised in Scotland for all those pupils when there is no possibility of any other leaving age for them?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I made absolutely clear at the Committee stage that we would exercise the discretion in relation to all those children where the age of transfer from primary to secondary school was higher than the age of 11. If it is the age of 12, of course, we shall exercise our discretion in relation to all those pupils.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, before the Minister sits down—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, we are at Report stage and only the mover of the amendment has the right to speak after the Minister.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Baroness's words. I do not wish in any way to suggest that I do not believe that she would honour the commitment she makes. She is an honourable person and I am sure that she would. I also heard and understood what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that he wanted to withdraw his support for the amendment. However, I go back to my original comment: a promise was given and I think that it should be honoured. I do not feel that it has been honoured in the way that it should be. The use is still discretionary, however much and however widely it is looked at. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. A promise was made and a promise is now to be broken. I beg leave to ask the opinion of the House.

4.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addison, V.	James of Holland Park, B.
Ailsa, M.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Aldington, L.	Kelvedon, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Kenyon, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Kingsland, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Kitchener, E.
Ashbourne, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Astor of Hever, L.	Leigh, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Long, V.
Biddulph, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Blaker, L.	Lyell, L.
Blatch, B.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Boardman, L.	McConnell, L.
Bowness, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Bridges, L.	Malmesbury, E.
Broadbridge, L.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Burnham, L. [Teller.]	Milverton, L.
Butterworth, L.	Monson, L.
Byford, B.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Cadman, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Caldecote, V.	Mountevans, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mountgarret, V.
Carnock, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Moynihan, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Munster, E.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Newall, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Northesk, E.
Colwyn, L.	Norton, L.
Courtown, E. [Teller.]	O'Cathain, B.
Craigmyle, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Cranborne, V.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Cumberlege, B.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Pender, L.
Davidson, V.	Perry of Walton, L.
De Freyne, L.	Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L
Denbigh E	Prior, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Pym, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Downshire, M.	Rawlings, B.
Drogheda, E.	Renton, L.
Dundee, E.	Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Romney, E.
Ellenborough, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Elles, B.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Sandwich, E.
Flather, B.	Sharples, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Gainford, L.	Strafford, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Strange, B.
Geddes, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Terrington, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Teviot, L.
Hampden, V.	Thurlow, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Trumpington, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.	Vivian, L.
Hemphill, L.	Weatherill, L.
Holderness, L.	Westbury, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Wilcox, B.
Ilchester, E.	Windlesham, L.
	Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Berkeley, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Blackstone, B.
Annan, L.	Blease, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Bruce of Donington, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Judd, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Lestor of Eccles, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Lockwood, B.
Chandos, V.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Clancarty, E.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	McCarthy, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Mallalieu, B.
David, B.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Mishcon, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Molloy, L.
Desai, L.	Monkswell, L.
Dixon, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Donoughue, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Nicol, B.
Dubs, L.	Parry, L.
Eatwell, L.	Paul, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Peston, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Phillips of Ellesmere, L.
Gallacher, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Gilbert, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Graham of Edmonton L	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hanworth, V.	Serota, B.
Hardie, L.	Sewel, L.
Haskel, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hayman, B.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Headfort, M.	Stallard, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Howell, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B
Howie of Troon, L	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hoyle, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hughes, L.	Walton of Detchant, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord	Whaddon, L.
Chancellor]	Whitty, L. [Teller.]
Jay of Paddington, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
	Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.26 p.m.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("; or () in the case of a school which normally provides both primary and secondary education and which has a single school number assigned to it and one participation agreement, on completion of his secondary education at that school.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not dwell too much on the detail of the amendment, which was discussed quite considerably in Committee. It concerns schools that make no distinction between their junior and senior sections. They are one school. The staff serve in both schools; the children play in the same school team, belong to the same orchestra and the same choirs and eat in the same dining hall.

In schools of that kind, which are enlarged—the independent day schools of England, mainly the former direct grant schools—the only pupils who would leave that school at age 11 would, under the present Bill, be in the assisted places. Pupils holding assisted places would have to leave at age 11. They would be the only children leaving that school.

Let me point out that, by 1997, there will be only 179 pupils in the category considered by this amendment. The cost to the state of keeping those pupils and not disrupting their education would be around £500,000, diminishing considerably year by year. The cost to the state of those pupils would be approximately the cost of refurbishing the Lord Chancellor's apartments; in other words, a minor cost in the bill of the state.

I accept totally what the noble Baroness said very convincingly at Second Reading. I agree with her that the Government have a different philosophy of education from that which we hold on these Benches. I accept the commitment put in the manifesto and that the Government have every right to implement their philosophy and get rid of assisted places. I do not object to that. In a democratic society, we accept the results of an election.

The purpose of the amendment is this. It is not the fault of those children who entered all-purpose schools that they have been caught in an ideological battlefield. The battlefield is of our making, not theirs. I repeat, Amendment No. 2 does not affect the Government's desire to fulfil their manifesto commitment. The kind of money that will be spent on those children is not large enough to stop the Government from fulfilling their desire to reduce class sizes. The amendment merely asks the Government to show concern for a small number of pupils—179 in 1997 and reducing rapidly over the next few years. That would cost £500,000 at the most and, in the end, one would be using one's power of paying a lump sum because the administrative costs would be more than the cost of supporting those children.

If the Government are not prepared to give ground on this, they will cause considerable disruption to those children. They will drive them out of the schools which their parents chose; they will drive them out as an isolated minority; surely there is room for compromise in that situation. I beg to move.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Hamilton of Dalzell

My Lords, when the Minister replies, will he tell me what one does if one has an assisted place at a school, in a category indicated by my noble friend Lord Pilkington, which is of a religious complexion? Where does one obtain a similar religious education if one cannot continue all the way through the programme?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, explained that he is seeking to extend the entitlement of primary age assisted place holders at schools that provide both primary and secondary education. The noble Lord's intention is to give all such primary aged assisted place holders the right to hold their places until they complete their education—presumably until the age of 18.

Perhaps I may first set out why we will resist the amendment in principle before moving on to say how it falls technically short of its aims. We are honouring our commitment to those on the scheme. The vast majority of places are at secondary school. By phasing out the scheme over seven years, secondary age assisted pupils will be able to complete their secondary education through to A-levels.

In practice, the amendment would mean an extension of the assisted places scheme far beyond what is reasonable. Providing primary aged pupils with an assisted place, some as young as five, through to age 18 would mean running the scheme for another 13 years. We never said that we would support primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. The noble Lord is wrong also about his numbers. The amendment would cover around 3,000 pupils in England, Wales and Scotland and the total cost of such provision would be £100 million to fund the education of those 3,000 or so assisted place holders through to age 18.

We have made a commitment to the 3,000 or so primary aged assisted place holders to fund their education through to age 11. That will cost in the region of £30 million. That is a generous and appropriate commitment in the circumstances. We estimate that the effect of the amendment could cost an additional £70 million, which is the difference between the two figures I quoted.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, my figure of 179 was pupils under 11 for 1997. Did the noble Lord's figure relate to that? I said that there would be only 179 children in the scheme after 1997 and all of them under 11. My figure of 3,000 relates to a different statistic.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, my figure relates to the entrants who came in in 1997 and our estimation is that there are 3,000 primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. Perhaps I may go on to explain why the noble Lord's amendment does not cover all-through schools. However, I want to make the educational point first.

It is not unreasonable to expect primary aged pupils to transfer schools at the age of 11. As we have said, over 500,000 pupils change schools at that age every year, with due allowance to the position in Scotland to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred and to those places in England and Wales which have middle schools.

Why should assisted place pupils be treated differently? We have faith in the state sector and its ability to provide for able pupils. We promised not to disrupt those pupils' education in the long term. Joining their contemporaries at the age of 11 is the best point for those pupils to enter the maintained sector. Pupils come and go from the independent sector for a number of reasons and there is rather more movement in and out of the sector than the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested at Committee stage. I can see no justification for maintaining an assisted place after the point where it is possible to transfer to the state sector and at such considerable cost to the taxpayer.

I turn to the detail of the amendment. I do not believe that it would completely achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, intends. First, it would have the effect of differentiating between those schools that have one participation agreement and one school number, and those that have one participation agreement that covers more than one school. For example, excluded from the amendment would be Malvern College which has one participation agreement that covers the college and its three feeder preparatory schools, but each school is registered with the department under a separate number. Epsom College has one participation agreement that covers both the college and four feeder preparatory schools, all with separate establishment numbers. I could name others.

The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has spoken previously about St. Paul's School and Norwich School. As I am sure he is aware, they come within the scope of the amendment because each has a single participation agreement and a single establishment number. But schools like the others I cited would not be covered. The amendment discriminates against those schools with one participation agreement and more than one establishment number. It would randomly exclude certain schools and I do not believe that the noble Lord intended that.

Secondly, preparatory schools that take pupils to age 13 provide both primary and secondary education. They have one participation agreement and one establishment number. It would not be possible for an assisted place pupil at a preparatory school to complete his secondary education at a preparatory school that only provides education to age 13. The wording of the amendment relates to completing education. The amendment would therefore create an entitlement that could not be fulfilled.

Perhaps I can come back to the issue of numbers since I possibly introduced a degree of confusion into the matter myself. The 3,000 pupils whom I mentioned are all those in this scheme under the age of 11 in all-through schools who would be able to continue until age 18 if the amendment were agreed to. That is the significant figure with which we should be concerned and that is the cost with which we should be concerned. Therefore, both for reasons of principle and because of the defects of the amendment and the unfairness it would introduce, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Lord Hamilton of Dalzell

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not hear him answer my question in relation to people who chose to see their education through to age 18 in a religious establishment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. There are a wide variety of religious schools in the state sector and I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be possible for those who leave the assisted places scheme and return to the state sector to obtain religious education.

Lord Hamilton of Dalzell

My Lords, perhaps I can enlighten the Minister. Claremont Fan Court School is a Christian Science school which sees pupils through from eight to 18. Perhaps he can tell me where that exists in the state sector.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, if it does have assisted places then I agree that there could be a problem. In that case I am quite sure that the Secretary of State would use his discretionary powers under the Bill most sympathetically.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, I begin with the technicalities which of course are the problem of the Government. If they want to accept the principle of the amendment the Bill could easily be amended on Third Reading.

As to the point raised, Malvern does not fall within my category. The schools are separate. I was thinking definitely of schools which are on the same site, the traditional day schools. The amendment is designed to include them. Malvern has preparatory schools which are geographically separate from the school. I feel content that the amendment would still cover most of the schools with which I am concerned.

We could argue about the figures, but I will not burden the House now. We can perhaps exchange letters. The fact is that the numbers will be very limited as they will decrease throughout. I still feel that it is wrong to move only a small group of children from school at the age of 11 when they have been fully participating in the school. At Malvern they are actually physically away from the school which is not the same position as exists at St. Paul's, Whitgift or Norwich. Compassion is being betrayed in the Bill in the interests of ideology. I feel that the Government could give way without serious burden on their finances. I cannot accept the Government's assurance and I shall therefore ask the opinion of the House.

4.42 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Davidson, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Dean of Harptree, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Attlee, E.	Drogheda, E.
Bowness, L.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Gainford, L.
Brentford, V.	Greenway, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller.]	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Butterfield, L.	Harris of Peckham, L.
Byford, B.	Holderness, L.
Cadman, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Kingsland, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Lauderdale, E.
Carnock, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller.]
Chelmsford, V.	Milverton, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.	Sandwich, E.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.	Selborne, E.
Pym, L.	Swinfen, L.
Renton, L.	Tenby, V.
Romney, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L
Runcie, L.	Thurlow, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Trumpington, B.
	Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Jeger, B.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Judd, L.
Annan, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Lockwood, B.
Berkeley, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Blackstone, B.	McCarthy, L.
Blease, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	McNally, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Carter. L. [Teller.]	Mishcon, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Molloy, L.
Chandos, V.	Monkswell, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Nicol, B.
Dahrendorf, L.	Parry, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Peston, L.
David, B.	Phillips of Ellesmere, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Desai, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Dixon, L.	Richard. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Donoughue, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Russell, E.
Dubs, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Eatwell, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Serota, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Sewel, L.
Gallacher, L.	Shepherd, L.
Geraint, L.	Simon of Highbury, L.
Gilbert, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Strafford, E.
Grey, E.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Hanworth, V.	Taverne, L.
Hardie, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Haskel, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Tope, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Howell, L.	Walton of Detchant, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Whaddon, L.
Hoyle, L.	Whitty, L. [Teller.]
Hughes, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Chancellor.]	Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.