| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6--Assisted places scheme--
'.--Notwithstanding the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 any pupil who was attending a former participating school (within the meaning of that Act) on May 1st 1997 and in respect of whom the fees or charges of the school were being met in whole or in part from public funds under the terms of the assisted places scheme shall be entitled to continue support until the end of their education.'.
New clause 9--Charitable provision--
New clause 10--Partnership provision--
Amendment No. 92, in clause 118, page 87, line 24, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2)'.
Amendment No. 94, in page 87, line 24, after '(2)' insert
Amendment No. 93, in page 87, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 10 on page 88.
Amendment No. 95, in page 87, line 36, after 'pupil', insert 'with Special Educational Needs'.
Amendment No. 96, in page 87, line 37, after 'prescribed', insert
Amendment No. 97, in page 87, line 38, after 'Regulations', insert
Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
Mr. Dorrell:
If Ministers and I agree nothing else about the amendments, I suspect that we will agree that they are the very opposite of technical. The group dealing with partnership schemes concerns a major issue of principle between the Conservative party and the Government and their supporters.
The amendments bring together a number of different aspects of the issue and pose a choice. They bring together, first, the scope of the choice that should be open to parents in making a choice about the school in which their child will be educated; secondly, the scope of the Government's commitments in advance of the general election on the operation of the assisted places scheme and to children who took places on that scheme; and thirdly, the scope of discretion that should be open to a local education authority to offer support to children benefiting from education in an independent school.
Underlying all that is a key question of principle: whether the Government favour, as they say they do, an inclusive vision of education that holds out to every child from whatever background the prospect of a choice between independent and maintained-school education, or whether they intend to continue with the policy, which has motivated their actions since 1 May, of a sharp, indeed enhanced, division between the independent sector and the maintained sector--the further development of a state of affairs that has been described by George Walden as one country, two systems.
George Walden's book, which analyses what is good and bad about Britain's schools system, emphasises the damage that is done to the provision of schools education by the continued deep divide between the independent system, to which, in the Government's vision, a family can aspire only if they can afford to pay the fees, and the maintained system.
The new clauses and amendments seek to challenge the Government's view that the two systems should be kept entirely separate, and offer a variety of ways in which the Government's inclusive rhetoric can be turned into reality for families to whom the Secretary of State is effectively saying in the policies that he has espoused since coming to office, "I, the Secretary of State, am in favour of inclusion, but not in favour of including you in the choice that is available to other families in Britain." We on the Conservative Benches are clear. We are in favour of all
families having choice; we are in favour of variety; and we are in favour of a system of support in education that gives real effect to the Government's rhetoric about inclusiveness.
That is why we have tabled new clause 5, which would require a local authority, when collecting the preferences of parents on the school that they want their children to go to--a process that is rightly foreshadowed in clause 78--to allow parents to express a preference not only for a maintained school, but for an independent school in the area. If a parent expressed a preference for an independent school and the head teacher of that school was prepared to accept the child on the basis of a use of funds that was fair in the context of the rest of the funding of maintained education in that local education authority, the LEA should have the power to support that child's education in that independent school. That is an important principle. I deeply regret the Government's approach to the assisted places scheme, which flew in the opposite direction. The new clause would give real effect to the ambition, which the Secretary of State is fond of quoting, of providing inclusive educational prospects for all children.
The argument used against the assisted places scheme--that it is an unfair allocation of resources--is not open to the Secretary of State in response to the new clause, because the new clause would explicitly empower the LEA to provide support to a child's education following the expression of parental preference if the use of resources was fair in the context of other resource decisions in the area. I have discussed that principle with representatives of independent schools. Not every independent school would offer places on that basis, but there is a good prospect that some would wish to do so. The argument that the Government like to use against the assisted places scheme is not available to them in response to new clause 5. It is a challenge to the Government to make real their rhetoric about inclusiveness.
If the Government do not respond to that challenge, we shall see the true substance of the rhetoric that the Minister for School Standards--who has absented himself from the Chamber--is fond of using about the importance of a partnership between public and private sector. He likes going to assemblies of independent schools and holding out the prospect of improved co-operation between the public and private sector. He has even attached £500,000 to improving that co-operation.
The new clause will flush out the Secretary of State. Does the partnership that he envisages involve simply the crumbs that fall from the table of those who can afford to pay the fees for independent schools, or is he prepared to offer children of parents who cannot afford the fees the real choice that is available under his proposals only to those who can afford the fees?
Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees with Mr. Doug McAvoy, who clearly thinks that only education provided in a maintained school should be supported from taxpayers' funds. I do not understand the logic of that. Suppose that taxpayers' funds are available to provide the best possible education for a child and the parents choose to have that child educated at an independent school, which is prepared to accept the child. Provided that the resource consequences are fair in the context of the decisions of the LEA, on what basis do the Government
reject the principle of new clause 5? That is the first important principle that arises from this group of new clauses and amendments.
The second important principle relates to new clause 6, which deals with the argument whether children who were accepted on to the assisted places scheme before its abolition should be able to look forward to the planned completion of the course of education for which they were accepted.
The House will know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who was the Labour party spokesman on school standards before the election, wrote at that time to many parents making it clear that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school that offered education up to the age of 13 could expect to be able to complete that education.
We failed to persuade the Secretary of State to accept the principle in the Kilfoyle letter and write it into the Act that abolished assisted places, so we now seek to bring him back to the issue. He said at the time, "Trust me; trust our discretion," but then refused, even on the basis of his discretion, to give the firm assurance that any child accepted for an assisted place at a school which in the normal course of events would offer education to the age of 13 would be able to complete his or her education in that school.
That commitment was given repeatedly and officially on behalf of the Labour party before the general election. Now the Secretary of State should at last recognise that it is an election pledge which, as the law stands, the Government have already broken.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 address the effect of clause 118 as it emerged from the Standing Committee. That clause was a late addition to the Bill; I believe that it was added to the Bill at the Committee's last sitting. It was prompted by an attack by Mr. Doug McAvoy of the National Union of Teachers on a scheme being promoted by Surrey county council, which planned to offer an arrangement similar to the one I described when I was talking about new clause 5.
Surrey made it clear that it wanted to offer to children from every background a real choice, including the choice of an independent education. Doug McAvoy opposed the idea because he said that it would take funds away from the maintained sector and allocate them to the independent sector.
Mr. McAvoy seemed unaware that the funds under the Surrey county council scheme would have been used to support the education of Surrey residents, exactly as they would have been if they had been spent in maintained schools. He did not seem to know, either, that the council had made it clear that its scheme, like new clause 5, was designed to offer nothing more than support similar to that available for the education of children within the maintained school system.
The effect of clause 118 as drafted is to give the Secretary of State the power to declare that scheme illegal. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept new clause 5, which would write in the principles of the Surrey scheme and make it a national arrangement. Because I believe in inclusive education, I think that it would be a good scheme to introduce in county council areas in general.
If the Secretary of State is not willing to do that, I hope that he will at least accept amendments Nos. 92 and 93, the effect of which would be to remove the threat to the
Surrey county council scheme. He could do that on the basis that discretion should be left to LEAs. We have heard a great deal about the importance of LEAs in the Government's, and the Secretary of State's, vision. I hope that he will believe his own rhetoric about LEAs, local discretion and local decision-making and allow Surrey county council to follow up its own choice.
This is a key group of amendments. We favour partnership schemes, designed to break down the divisions between the maintained and independent sectors. That is why we tabled new clause 5. As a second choice, we believe that the Government should accept the amendments we have tabled to clause 118 to allow the Surrey county council scheme to go ahead. Most important of all, we believe that the Government should be held to the election pledge made, on behalf of the Labour party, in the Kilfoyle letter.
'.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from re-imbursing either
(a) a primary or secondary non-maintained school; or
(b) a local education authority
in respect of the fees or related charges or expenses of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school (whether inside or outside their area)
(2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure, within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'.
'.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing any primary or secondary non-maintained school (whether inside or outside their area) in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.
(2) The fees of any pupil reimbursed under subsection (1) may be reasonable fees in respect of--
(a) courses of academic study in a specific subject or a range of subjects; or
(b) courses in music, drama, ballet; or
(c) games including football, cricket, tennis, swimming, athletics
attended by such pupil's selected by reference to his or her particular aptitude and ability.
(3) The parents of any pupil benefiting from payments under this section shall be free to choose either at their own expense or with the aid of charitable reimbursement as provided in section (Charitable provision) to maintain such pupil's at such primary or secondary non-maintained schools for the balance of such pupil's education if the parents believe it is the best interests of such pupils to do so having regard to the continuity of his or her study and the consistency of his or her environment.
(4) No local education authority shall be under any obligation to make any payment in respect of any individual pupil under this section and an authority shall be entitled to restrict such payments by reference to household income (or such other measure of parental means that is deemed appropriate) as well as by reference to the ability and aptitude of a pupil.
(5) This section shall not apply to any pupil with special educational needs, as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996.
(6) Assistance under the terms of the section shall be known as Partnership Provision.'.
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs as defined in section 312 of the Education Act 1996'.
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
'in respect of any pupil with Special Educational Needs'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |