Education (Schools) Bill (Hansard, 24 July 1997)

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason stated.
During Report stage we passed an amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill. This would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13 regardless of whether they were given an assurance that they could hold the assisted place until the end of their time at that school.
The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it, Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting this reason may be deemed sufficient". I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
We have made clear that we will use the discretionary power so that where the child was given a clear promise of a place to age 13, on the basis of the letter written by Peter Kilfoyle to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools on 1st April, that place would be honoured. It is clear that that has been the main concern of your Lordships.
But Amendment No. l goes further. It would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13, regardless of whether a promise of a place was made. Of course some preparatory schools will have offered pupils a clear promise of a place to age 13 on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parent wants the child to continue through to age 13, then we will provide support through to age 13. So, if there was the promise of a place to age 13, then we will honour that place.
1575 But making the entitlement automatic would mean extra support at the expense of the taxpayer for a commitment that never existed. It would mean that some cases would receive support when no promise was made. That would not be a proper use of public money. There will be cases where no clear promise of a place through to age 13 was given. We must have a mechanism to identify these. The discretionary power will allow the detail of individual cases to be checked. It means that we can ensure that parents understand that, after age 13, they will not be able to take up an assisted place at a senior school. These points need to be verified. Only through the use of the discretionary power will there be a mechanism for ensuring that support goes only to the deserving.
There are no broken promises. We are honouring our commitments. I ask the House not to insist on its amendment. I beg to move.

§ Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her statement. I am rather sorry that Mr. Kilfoyle did not include all the qualifications in his letter. That is the basis of the Opposition's objection to this particular measure.
I regret very much that the Government have used their majority in the Commons to overturn this amendment. I repeat: the qualifications made were not made in the original letter. That is the basis of my case. A promise was made, a promise without qualifications, and it has now been reduced to a discretion. Mr. Kilfoyle may have been over-generous; he may have been carried away by the conviviality of the prep school gathering. However, he made a promise.
The noble Baroness's command of English is almost certainly better than mine. She knows as well as I do that "discretion" means, "freedom to make decisions one way or the other"; while a promise means, "an agreement to follow a defined line". The Government know that what will happen to these worried parents is that they will have to approach bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Employment. Letters will be exchanged and an enormous burden will be placed upon them merely as a result, so far as I can gather, of the indiscretion of a shadow spokesman of the party now in government, then in Opposition.
I go further. I absolutely trust the noble Baroness's promise. Since she says that she will observe the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter rashly though it was given, as I gather from the qualification that she makes, I fail to understand why the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment since it was their Member, their shadow spokesman, who made this rash promise. This amendment clearly puts on the face of the Bill, without any equivocation, the intent of that letter. The noble Baroness has said on more than on occasion—and I repeat that I respect her assurances—that she will fulfil the spirit of the amendment. I remind the House 1576 or the third time that Mr. Kilfoyle did not put any qualifications on his promise. Why not leave it in the Bill?
I make this comment for the record. For us this is a matter not just of principle but of integrity. It is a sad business when promises are not kept. I do not include the noble Baroness in this, but it is dishonourable. A member of the party then in Opposition and now in Government made a promise on which the Government are now reneging. We all know that "discretion" will mean endless letters and endless distress.
We have made our feelings clear. We shall not oppose the decision of the other place to remove the amendment from the Bill. We shall go to dinner and I shall enjoy my dinner more than noble Lords opposite in that I command the moral high ground. A promise was made and a promise was not kept. My digestion will be better than that of noble Lords opposite, particularly for members of a party who profess to believe in trust. We shall see what happens in the next four years, but this is a bad beginning.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I have no intention of going back over all the arguments again. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite would expect me to do so.
However, I wish to say that there is nothing dishonourable about what we have agreed to do. We made a concession to look, on a discretionary basis, at those cases where people may have been influenced by the Kilfoyle letter and where a genuine promise had been made. We are not in any sense reneging on promises.
The noble Lord used a term relating to the bureaucrats in my department somewhat disparagingly. The officials in my department will operate the system honourably.
Finally, we on this side of the House will enjoy our dinner greatly because we shall have put through a Bill which was in our manifesto—a commitment which we made which we believe will help the many hundreds of thousands of five, six and seven year-old children in state schools who deserve to receive their education in smaller class sizes than the party of the noble Lord opposite was able to achieve when it was in power.
It is in keeping with the role of the non-elected revising and debating Chamber to ask the other place to think again on certain aspects of the Government's proposals. But when the other place disagrees with your Lordships' amendment, particularly when privilege is involved, we do not insist on the matter. Earlier today, Members in another place debated the principle of the amendment in some depth. So, while the reason given relates to the financial aspect of the amendment, I can assure your Lordships that the other place took full account of the principle behind the amendment in reaching the decision to disagree. I commend the Motion to the House.