HC Deb 14 July 1970 vol 803 cc1460-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

Having sat under your wise guidance for many hours in Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I express my pleasure and my congratulations to you on your being elevated to the Chair of the House? Secondly, may I express gratitude to the Under-Secretary for coming here tonight? I apologise for causing him to be on parliamentary duty for two late evenings in succession—I noted that he was on duty at an even later hour last night.

In a sense, the subject of the Adjournment is somewhat unusual, because I am not pressing the Under-Secretary to announce a decision tonight. I should be delighted if that were possible, but I gather that there are some statutory procedures still to be followed. It may be unusual, but I think it to be right to present the case to a Minister before a decision is taken rather than to complain after the event if the decision is unfavourable, although by raising the matter tonight I do not preclude myself from raising it again if the circumstances warrant.

This is a local issue. It is a proposal to build a new school, provisionally designated the Castle School because it is thought to occupy the site of the ancient Manor Castle in my constituency. I should have thought that this was properly a matter for local decision and I bring it to the Floor of the House of Commons because, under the Section 13 procedure, whereby objections may be made to such proposals, it has been brought to the Minister's attention and, I understand, in a way which invites the Minister to intervene in the whole gamut of considerations—and I accept that in this proposal, as there must always be with the siting of a school, there are pros and cons where priorities are involved.

As I am informed, there are no local objections. None of the people living in the area has objected and nor have any of the parents of children who would be likely to go to the school. This will be an early test case of the doctrine which the new Secretary of State has annunciated in Circular 10/70 issued on 30th June concerning the organisation of secondary education.

Although I am sure that the Minister is fully aware of the background, perhaps I should briefly explain to the House the circumstances of the proposal. The need for a new school in the area arises from the reorganisation of secondary education in Sheffield which took place on comprehensive lines last year. Although locally this is a matter of controversy, as it is in the national context, I believe that it is right, particularly when it is so decided by the people in the area concerned, for secondary education to be organised on comprehensive lines.

This meant the closing of Wybourn Secondary Modern School in my constituency because the premises were wholly required then for the junior and middle school and there was no room for the secondary pupils. It would have been impossible in the premises as they are to give them the kind of secondary education that everyone wanted them to have.

There was strong local opposition to the closing of the school. I should explain that it is in the centre of the oldest council estate in Sheffield, one classified as an educational priority area in a recent report and singled out in Sheffield as the area of greatest need on social and economic grounds. The area of the new school would involve not only this estate, but a 1950 estate called Manor Park and the more recent Hyde Park flat development so that one would get a balanced intake into the school.

I stress the need for the environmental consideration. A secondary school gives a community a focus which is otherwise lacking. Many say that because of the social difficulties which abound in the area—many are in difficult economic circumstances—it would be better if children were forcibly sent to other schools all over the city so that they would have the benefit of mixing with, as it is put, their social and educational betters.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

Is it not a fact that an inspector of the Department of Education recommended that it would be to the advantage of these children to move away and to have the benefit of broader horizons?

Mr. Mulley

I do not know what an inspector of the Ministry of Education may have said, but I have represented these people for 20 years and I form my own view about what is good for them and their children. In doing so I am substantially guided by the parents of the children concerned. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will see that I am coming to the main reason why this school has done such tremendous work for the estate. One of the reasons for concern about the school was the wonderful record of the then headmaster, Mr. Bland, and his staff. In a very difficult area they produced a remarkable response from the children. These achievements were recognised not only on the estate and in the city but were given national coverage in the educational Press as well as being the subject of a special television programme.

Mr. Bland's methods made a great impact in developing a community spirit and atmosphere in a socially deprived area where children were by no means the easiest to teach. It is because of this that people want to have this school in their area. The parents there have produced a petition signed by 1,500 people asking that it should remain there. This can be contrasted with objections which have come from outside the area and in some cases actually from outside the city. I pay my tribute to the parents who have worked for a long time on this project, particularly their leader, Mrs. Rita Jackson. The reason the parents are fighting is partly educational and partly to do with the problem of low incomes. Many of these people work on difficult weekly budgets, and extra fares or special clothing would be difficult to provide for if the children moved to different schools. This would be a severe financial hardship only part of which the local authority would be able to meet.

The kind of problems met with when children from such an estate are sent outside of it was put very movingly to me by a parent just before Chistmas when she said that her child was busily engaged making up little Christmas presents for the old people in the neighbourhood of the school. However, not one of those packages would go to an old person on the Wybourn Estate or anywhere in the area where the child lived. Schools encourage their own children to visit the elderly people but because there is no school in that area, an area which probably needs such voluntary service more than most, the children are encouraged to do such missions of mercy on other estates.

I reluctantly accepted that the secondary school had to close to make the new primary provision, but I feel very strongly that an area of 19,000 people, as this will be by 1981, is large enough to have a secondary school of its own. Although the estate is very old, there are new buildings, and the difficulty which we face in my part of Sheffield is that, perhaps because of playing field requirements, all the recent secondary schools have tended to be in the same area on the periphery of Sheffield. Where there is, as there is in this case, a site which will provide adequate playing fields near new housing development and the centre of the city, I should have thought that there was an overwhelming case for building the school.

Some people believe that the site is too local. I have never understood what they meant. Apart from the economic and financial considerations, if we can minimise the amount of travelling for the children and have a school as a focus for the community, this must be an advantage. While there may be a small surplus of school places in this area, if the school is not built immediately 360 extra places will have to be found by extending another school and, in the longer term, by extending all the other schools which are grouped together in one area. It is nonsense to make large schools larger when there is a suitable site and the possibility of giving the people the school that they want.

The site of Monar Castle is an historic site, with the possibility of providing 25 acres of playing fields. I understand that it is the wish of the local education authority to follow the advice in the circular of the previous Government, which I hope will not be rescinded, to encourage the use of school playing facilities by youth clubs and other organisations where appropriate. This would give a tremendous uplift to the community. The identification of the school with the community was fostered very much by Mr. Bland in his period as headmaster of Wybourn School.

It is regrettable that a number of people approach these questions on a political basis. When I first became involved in receiving representations about the school, there was a Conservative chairman of the local education authority. I went to see him, as I have since seen the Labour chairman who succeeded him. Broadly, the reorganisation of education in the city as a whole was accepted by both parties. When I first raised the matter, the aspect of finance was important. The sum of £200,000—and special sanction was given for this to be deferred—from educational priority area funds which had been designated to the area about which I am concerned would be used to finance the extension of a eschool in another area which does not qualify on educational grounds if this school is not built.

The balance of the amount required—about £130,000, I understand—has been allocated and there is therefore no financial difficulty about going ahead with the scheme. Although, until a final decision is taken on Section 13 objections—that is also a reason why one hopes that this can be done as soon as reasonably possible—detailed design work cannot be done, I think that preliminary design has been considered and that there is not only the possibility of an exciting design, but the great advantage of having a purpose-built comprehensive school.

This proposal initially is to have a school of 600 with a five-form entry, but with the growth of new housing in the area—it is the new housing which attracts people with families or the newly married who later have families—there is no doubt that space would be required for its extension as the school population and the school leaving age require more places to be made available.

If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was correctly reported in the Press, he objected because it was to be a comprehensive school. Oddly enough, I should be a little surprised about that because, as I understood their arguments, some of the Conservative councillors in the city and teachers complained not because it was a comprehensive school, but because it was too small. They would be more satisfied if it were built to take 1,000 or 1,200 pupils.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

The most important issue here is priorities in finance. A certain amount of finance is available for secondary school or comprehensive development and so much is available for primary development. I hope to be able to outline that there is a genuine fear that money may be taken from the primary school building programme for the secondary school building programme. That was the reason for my objection as reported in the Press about two weeks ago.

Mr. Mulley

I was coming to that. The hon. Member may want me to rush through my speech: I assure him that there is plenty of time.

As I thought I had made clear, there is no financial problem about this school, because all the steps that need to be taken—approvals, finance, and so on—have been taken. Only at this stage does the notice appear in the Press inviting residents to object under the Section 13 procedure, and then the only requirement for the scheme to proceed is the Secretary of State's decision on the objections which have been received. They may be from residents who object to the noise of the school in their area, but some people in Sheffield, for reasons best known to themselves, have sought to use the Section 13 procedure—I make no complaint; they are free to do so—to stir up the whole question and invoke the validity of Circular 10/70. It has, perhaps, become out of all proportion to the question of whether there is a case for a school in the area when the allocation of money for educational priorities of this kind should be the main item.

If the school is not built, alternative facilities will be required. One of the first possibilities would be an extension of a school called Beaver Hill. I understand that the teachers there are extremely disappointed, because a substantial extension of their school would mean an increase in their status and prestige, possibly even a financial advantage. One understands their attitude. While, however, teachers' organisations must be consulted on all these matters, parents and children also have a right to be heard.

If it happens to be in the interests of the neighbourhood to have a school although it may upset the professional plans of some of the teachers, that is unfortunate and there are other ways within a local education authority of providing for promotion of teachers without necessarily having to build an expensive extension to their school.

Some of my hon. Friends might criticise a comprehensive school of only 600 pupils, but it is envisaged that it would cover pupils from 12 to 16 only and that sixth form provision should be made elsewhere. I do not believe in the standardised form of comprehensive school. I do not believe that comprehensive schools must be very large and of an exact pattern. I believe that there is room for an experiment for this kind of variation and that the judgment should be left to the local education authority. We will develop new forms of secondary education only by allowing this kind of experiment. As I have already said, there may in future be a need for an extension in the size of the school. But clearly in any sphere where resources are scarce people can always make an alternative bid to use the money. It would be a public scandal if the money specially allocated for E.P.A. areas was used elsewhere. It would be contrary to what was intended. However, a case can always be made.

I do not want to repeat the reprimand that was delivered to the hon. Member for Hallam by the editorial in the Morning Telegraph. It is not the case that Sheffield has a bad record of primary school development. Unfortunately, all over the country there are a number of slum schools that are very much overdue for replacement. It is also a fact, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, that it is only in recent years—I do not wish to make a party political point—that money has been made available to local education authorities to replace slum schools. During the whole period of the previous Conservative Government and for several years of the Labour Government the only money made available for new schools was where there was a redevelopment and a need for more places. The replacing of a school because it was a disgraceful slum school was not possible until money was provided a couple of years ago.

I know that some people in Sheffield—I deplore their motivation—have gone around suggesting that if there was not the Castle scheme people could have this, that, and the other school. People can create a great impression around Sheffield on that kind of argument. They can give away a dozen or more schools on that kind of circular argument.

The St. Catharine's Roman Catholic primary school in Burngreave in my constituency is urgently in need of replacement. I have met the parents and managers and I have been round the school. There is no doubt that it is an absolute disgrace and urgently requires replacement. Nothing can be done by way of improving or repairing it. It is clearly a case of replacement. I understand that this school is rightly at the top of the local education authority's priority list. I told the parents and the managers that I would do all that I could to get this replacement at the earliest possible date. But it was con- ditional on the Government, of whichever party—this was prior to the election—making money continually available for this purpose. I told the parents that we should not try to cancel the Castle scheme, for which there is a need. However, I assured the parents that if the new Government made clear that money would be available for this purpose in the next financial year, perhaps some re-phasing could be done to start the rebuilding of St. Catharine's early rather than late.

Such candour may not gain votes, but I do not believe in telling one group of parents a different story from another group. I made clear that I fully supported the Castle scheme, but that I would do my best, as I had for the Castle scheme, for St. Catharine's. I did not try to do a deal and set one group of parents against another. I deplore the idea of people casting covetous eyes on a scheme which has been approved for part of my constituency and arousing hopes and expectations in almost every school in other parts of the city.

We have plenty of time left for the debate, but I wish to conclude because I do not want to take unreasonable advantage of the House. Everything is set to go. All that is required is the Minister's decision on objections under Section 13. In view of Circular 10/70 I believe that these matters should be left primarily to the decision of the local education authority. The phrase in paragraph 2 of the circular is rather wide: The Secretary of State will expect educational considerations in general, local needs and wishes in particular and the wise use of resources to be the main principles determining the local pattern". In this case there are the right educational considerations. There is clearly local need, and the wishes of the people who live in the area are crystal clear. They want this school, and I think that in the short-term, and certainly in the long-term, interest it is the right use of resources to go ahead with it. I am asking not for any allocation of funds, but merely for a favourable and early decision on the Section 13 objections.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that, when faced with problems of this kind, local education authorities can work on the basis of Circular 10/70 meaning what it says. I hope that theirs will be the paramount view in deciding the form of organisation, and that arguments about whether the school is too small because it is comprehensive, and other such arguments, will not be brought up every time. This is the sort of thing that happens with every new plan, be it for a primary or for a secondary school. I hope that we shall not have the Section 13 procedure used to bring the whole of the argument at local level up for national decision in every case.

I know that, because of the statutory procedures to be followed, it may not be possible for me to get a clear and full answer, but I hope that the views which I have put forward will be borne in mind by the Secretary of State when she comes to determine the issue, and that in view of the urgency of getting on with the job the decision will be taken at an early date.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has put his case for a Section 13 application for a change of plan, and it is only right that the House should know that this is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of controversy in Sheffield. I suggest that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to give judgment she will need more than the wisdom of Solomon to decide what course of action to adopt. My task tonight is to deploy some of the reasons why the Under-Secretary of State—and we are pleased to see him here—should be very careful about taking the advice offered to him by the right hon. Gentleman.

I hesitate to intervene in an affair which concerns the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—

Mr. Mulley

I want to get one thing clear. This concerns my constituency, but the decision to proceed and to make the application is not mine. It is that of the local education authority. I am merely sustaining the right of Sheffield to determine its own education policy.

Mr. Osborn

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will find me disagreeing with him too much on that, but there is a controversy about the rights and wrongs of the development of the Castle Compre- hensive School and it is right that the House should know about it.

This issue involves priorities in education expenditure—

Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside) rose—

Mr. Osborn

I should like to get on with my speech, but I shall, nevertheless, give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman spoke about controversy. Does he consider that the controversy is basically about education, or are he and his party turning it into a political controversy? Indeed, is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman went to Sheffield this week to be briefed by the Conservative opposition on the city council on their point of view?

Mr. Osborn

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) would be well advised to let me make my own speech. If I do not cover the points that he wants to raise he will be entitled to intervene later.

This is definitely a local issue. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park has deployed his arguments about a local issue with skill, and has put forward the point of view of parents in his constituency. This I acknowledge. But he would have gained more support from me—I am not entirely in disagreement with him on every issue—if he had put forward a case for more expenditure on new schools in Sheffield. But the new Secretary of State for Education will have to keep within a budget. I do not know the extent to which Sheffield is spending less money in running schools and providing education and in terms of capital expenditure on new schools than are the other major cities, but I understand that Sheffield is not top of the list in terms of the amount of money spent per head of population or children involved.

I intervene, first, because a petition has been sent to the Secretary of State for Education from many people involved in the issue; indeed, the Conservative deputy chairman of the Sheffield education committee will have sent a letter to the Secretary of State outlining the difficulties and disagreement with the party in power in the Sheffield City Council. Already I have sent the Minister correspondence from other parents—including correspondence from a parent-teacher association that has written to all Sheffield Members of Parliament—connected with St. Catharine's School. I have been in touch with the people involved, and they have expressed concern about the priorities affecting even my own constituency.

This involves the Church of England development at Broomhall and the closure of primary school places in my constituency. The distortion of priorities could affect the whole school programme in Sheffield, and Sheffield citizens want an assurance that this will not happen.

The right hon. Member referred to the St. Catharine's development. It is not a questoin of being for or against the Castle Comprehensive School but, as I understand it, in a letter earlier this year the Minister's predecessor pointed out that funds for raising the school-leaving age could not be diverted to a programme of this type. The letter implied that the Castle Comprehensive School might well have to go ahead at the expense of other priorities. That was the information given to me. It would be useful if the Under-Secretary could confirm or contradict the earlier correspondence on this issue.

Mr. Mulley

I think that I can clear up that point. The major part of the cost—as I said in my speech, if the hon. Member had done me the courtesy of listening to it—comes from a previous allocation for areas of special educational need. There was a balancing sum, which was determined not by the previous Secretary of State but by the local education authority. That authority provided that from a sum to replace schools in difficult social areas part would be allocated for the Castle School. This decision was made by the local education authority, and it must be borne in mind that the Castle School is replacing a former secondary school, thereby making additional primary provision in an area of great need. In that sense, therefore, primary education has gained and secondary education has lost. It is in that sense that the Castle School comes into consideration.

Mr. Osborn

The right hon. Gentleman has taken me away from what I was saying, but this has been debated fully in the Sheffield council chamber. The Minister should know the arguments for and against. But I have already written to the Secretary of State asking for her view on the likely expenditure in Sheffield on the priorities which she has approved. I have already asked the director of education to give me full details of the programme agreed as of now. I am still awaiting this information from both sources, but it is a matter of debate. The information should be available to all Members of Parliament for Sheffield.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it must be the local authority which determines its own priorities. This is the Conservative view also, and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that, to a greater extent, the local authorities must determine their own needs and priorities. But, after all, the local authorities require funds from the Secretary of State. There must be some dialogue. I am convinced that there has been a dialogue between the director of education and the Ministry officials during the few months of the election period.

The right hon. Gentleman made one or two imputations about my views on comprehensive education, and I should like to make two points clear. First, I endorse the views of the Secretary of State in our major education debate last week, that it is possible, in certain circumstances for grammar schools to be run alongside comprehensives. I regret that two grammar schools have now become comprehensive in Sheffield, but this has happened. This is history now: I accept that there are no grammar schools in Sheffield and that the city is developing its secondary education on comprehensive lines.

Second, because of the nature of the ruling party on the city council, if we have to accept, as the city has accepted, that comprehensive education is the development of the future, I would be much happier if there are shortcomings in a comprehensive programme, if they were met and dealt with.

I wanted to make clear those two points—that I agree with the views of my Conservative colleagues about the education pattern for the future, but that, because of the nature of the city council, I recognise that Sheffield is comprehensive and the debate is about the best priorities of expenditure on a comprehensive programme of secondary school development again expenditure on primary education and the other needs of the city. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) reminded me that I had been in consultation with the Conservative members of the city council. Of course I had. Surely, if I am going to speak in this debate, I should obtain their views. I have spoken to the deputy chairman of the education committee, Councillor Frank Adams, and the past chairman, Alderman Peter Jackson—

Mr. Mulley

As a matter of fact, as I understand it, there are no Conservatives holding chairmanships or deputy chairmanships in Sheffield. The custom there is for the ruling party to provide the chairmen and deputy chairmen. He may be chairman of the Conservative group, but not of the committee.

Mr. Osborn

He has an office: I understood that he was deputy chairman of the committee. He is a senior Conservative representative on that committee. But I will not split hairs with the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Mulley

I am sorry, but it is important to get the facts right, because, when an hon. Member talks about expressing the views of a deputy chairman of a committee of a local authority, he tends to suggest that that is the view of the majority of the local authorities. This is not so in this case, and, if the hon. Member will be good enough to check, I am certain that he will find that no Conservative holds office as deputy to a Labour chairman, just as Labour did not have any deputies to Conservative chairmen when the Conservatives were in power. The party in power picks the chairman and deputy. The other party may have a shadow chairman, or something of that kind.

Mr. Osborn

I have obtained the views of the Conservative representatives on the appropriate committee, and perhaps I stand corrected on their exact title—namely, shadow chairmen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the education committee met yesterday and that I understand from the Conservative representatives on that committee that the chairman, Councillor Peter Horton, is believed to have completely altered the draft letter replying to the Minister; that he has not accepted the draft put forward by the director of education?

This information has been given to me and I understand that there is to be a censure motion at the city council on the way in which the chairman has handled this matter. I do not know the exact details of this issue—of the rights and wrongs of it—and I draw the matter to my hon. Friend's attention only to point out that the views expressed by the majority are not shared by—

Mr. Mulley

I would like to clarify—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a debate, not a duologue.

Mr. Osborn

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to continue my speech without interruption.

There are certain interesting aspects to be taken into account. The secondary school development in the Wybourn area is a long story, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us more information about it. One of the arguments for this school has been that there is a lack of facilities locally and that local youth clubs could benefit from using these facilities. However, there is a contrary argument; that it might be better to spend money providing facilities for clubs and not having clubs use a school as a vehicle for such facilities. This contrary argument is being deployed.

I understand that the teachers in the area are opposed to the development of a small comprehensive school in the Wybourn area on both social and educational grounds. Educationists hold the view that it would be better for children to go to school outside the area—thereby meeting children from other districts—possibly at Norfolk Park and Hurlfield. Apparently this was a recommendation put forward by an inspector of the Ministry of Education, though again the question of funds arises.

I gather that about £250,000 has been allocated to Sheffield and that some of it has already been allocated to the Beaver Hill School. I understand that materials have been delivered but that the contract for the extension of this school has had to be cancelled. May we be given an explanation of this and its implications, including the views of the headmaster and teachers, who thought that they would be in a larger school?

Obviously, parents in the Wybourn area have objected to the extra travel and cost involved in sending their children longer distances to school. I imagine that this pressure has been on the right hon. Gentleman, who has been guided by the views of local parents. These views are bound to have been taken into account by him in raising this subject tonight.

One of the great arguments for a comprehensive policy, at any rate in the Sheffield area, has been the virtue of larger schools, say, 1,500 pupils. Thus, the building of yet another small comprehensive school of 600 places removes some of the initial argument that had been put forward in Sheffield for a comprehensive policy.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Castle site as being available. I understand that there is some difficulty about the site and that there may have to be an alteration of planning priorities in this matter. It would be useful to know what the exact planning position is.

Mr. Mulley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You indicated that I should not intervene further, so I have not done so. But I would point out to you the difficulty that an hon. Member is in when another hon. Member intervenes in matters concerning his constituency and puts a whole series of pieces of inaccurate information to the House. Apparently, I cannot intervene to correct him. I cannot have leave to speak again. I want to make it quite clear, therefore, that by my silence I am not assenting to the correctness of the information which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) is putting forward; and also to give notice that I shall in future feel free to intervene in the discussion of any education issues in his constituency as he has intervened on this issue.

Mr. Speaker

I have only suggested that interventions should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Osborn

The right hon. Gentleman gets more and more barbed as the debate goes on. I have pointed out that, quite rightly, he has put forward a case in his constituency, and I hoped that he would regard my understanding of this case as reasonable.

I come back to the question of land. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should make absolutely certain that the site is available. My information is that there is some doubt about availability of land for the school. Planning procedures may be involved.

The Minister should know that there are alternative proposals for the provision of secondary school places in this area. She should be satisfied that the construction of a small comprehensive school here is the best alternative. If she is so satisfied, however, what guarantee can we have that the project will not disturb priorities for the provision of new secondary school places elsewhere in Sheffield? Promises were made by the Conservatives in the last municipal elections, and certainly nationally at the General Election, that we would give priority to primary school places. There are priorities in Sheffield which must not be jeopardised by the development of the Castle comprehensive project whatever the rights and wrongs of it are.

I have intervened in order to assure the Under-Secretary that there are many good educational and social arguments against the Castle Comprehensive School. My hon. Friend should make himself aware of the contrary arguments, and know of the reservations that others have had about this project. I regret that it has seemed necessary to bring to the House of Commons for debate this evening a subject which should be debated in the council chamber at Sheffield. The issue is essentially a local one—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must not rule himself out of order.

Mr. Osborn

I certainly do not want to rule myself out of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister will be receiving a letter setting out fully the contrary arguments to secondary school development of this type, and indicating some of Sheffield's needs. I very much hope that either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have time to visit Sheffield and see the nature of the problems we are debating.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside)

I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I in no way intend to make any observations on the case he has put forward so lucidly and clearly to the Under-Secretary in favour of the confirmation of Castle Comprehensive School.

I intervene briefly because I am very indignant that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) should have intervened in a debate on what would normally be considered a constituency matter which my right hon. Friend wished to bring to the notice of the Minister. The hon. Gentleman used the bulk of his time to promote what is a minority political view in the City of Sheffield and in this Chamber, but I believe that the normal channels available to an education authority, to political figures at local level and, indeed, to the Department, are sufficiently open without having to use these tactics in the House.

I appeal to the Under Secretary. It is invidious that this whole matter has developed into a political charade. There is danger for the educational future of children involved in this comprehensive conurbation and the primary school children at St. Catherine's and other underprivileged schools and under-privileged areas. I hope that he will look objectively at the case. I remind him of the strong case he made in the recent debate on education when he said that it is the intention of the Government to honour and respect the local democracy of local authorities. I assure him that rightly or wrongly, this scheme of the Castle Comprehensive School is needed in the view of the locally-elected democratic Labour council. I hope he will think twice before interfering even though he has plenty of prodding from the minority Conservative body in Sheffield.

There is a great deal of neglect of primary schools in my constituency. In the Gracious Speech the Government strongly asserted that they want to improve standards and facilities of primary education. This conflict in Sheffield has got out of all proportion. It is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman and the Government to settle it by releasing a little more money so that these primary schools, with St. Catherine's at the top of the list, can be helped in the very near future. If he takes that course he will raise education out of the political cauldron and possibly satisfy all parties which feel aggrieved.

9.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee)

At the start of his speech the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was kind enough to make a courteous reference to my having been on duty late last night in a cause which had the heart of the whole House. I was very much obliged for that courteous reference and I am glad that there is such great interest in education in this House. Tomorrow night the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are to raise another important matter dealing with education. As the only Under-Secretary to the Department in this House, I shall be happy to be on duty.

It is part of my duty to the House to reply to this debate. My task is made easier because the right hon. Gentleman also began his speech by announcing that he did not expect a decision from me tonight. It is always so very much more agreeable to be able to start by agreeing with what an hon. Member has said. I can, therefore, confirm that I am not going to make an announcement of a decision tonight. The reason, of course, is a very proper and good one. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is now before my right hon. Friend under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944. The proposal has been the subject of objections, and my right hon. Friend is in a quasi-judicial capacity at this precise moment. It would clearly be discourteous to Sheffield and those who express views on both sides of this controversy if I were in a casual way to announce a decision on the matter tonight.

As was explained to us very helpfully by the right hon. Gentleman, the background to this matter has a long and complicated history. It might be helpful if I put on record that the Sheffield local education authority's plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city were approved by the then Secretary of State in November, 1968. It provided for a system of 5–8 first schools, 8–12 middle schools and 12–16 and 12–18 upper schools, the 12–16 schools being grouped with 12–18 schools which would provide sixth form facilities for the group. This was a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).

The authority's formal proposals under Section 13 for the implementation of this scheme as from September, 1969, were approved by the then Secretary of State in July of that year. Under these proposals the existing secondary modern school in Wybourn was closed to allow the premises to be used as a middle school. Secondary pupils from Wybourn began in September, 1969, to attend other comprehensive schools outside the immediate Wybourn area, and it was the authority's original intention as the right hon. Gentleman explained, that this would be a permanent arrangement.

As has been made clear to us, subsequently, after representations by parents living in the Wybourn area, the local education authority reconsidered this part of its scheme and accepted the parents' argument that Wybourn should have its own comprehensive school. Accordingly, in March last it submitted to the Department a proposal under Section 13 for the establishment of a new 5-form entry comprehensive school to be known as the Castle Comprehensive School, in the Wybourn area. This represented a modification of the proposals previously approved. The proposed new school would be provided in place of the extensions to another comprehensive school—Beaver Hill School—envisaged in the authority's original plans.

When a local education authority makes a proposal to establish a new school, the Act requires that it publishes Press and poster notices of its intention and allows a period of two months within which objections may be made to my right hon. Friend. The Sheffield authority duly published notices of its proposal to establish a new comprehensive school at Wybourn, and a number of objections—I think that this has not been objections have been received.

It is fair to mention that one of the mentioned so far—comes from the Sheffield Teachers Association. I know that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned teachers. I make this point not in any way to give weight one way or the other but to show that some of the objections received were not of the type of which any Secretary of State would take no cognisance.

The Department has asked the local education authority for its comments on the points raised by the objectors. This is following the ordinary statutory procedures.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman says that this is a fairly substantial objection. In the circular saying that there was local freedom to develop secondary education on whatever lines a local authority chooses, did not his Government choose not to take any notice of the strong representation by the N.U.T. on this point?

Mr. van Straubenzee

The answer to that question is that nothing in that circular changes the law. Indeed, last week my right hon. Friend made that point extremely clear. We should not be having this debate if the circular had altered the law. I am saying no more than that under that law which remains and which is an essential part of my right hon. Friend's policy, if a new school is to be established certain procedures have to be followed.

I was doing no more than pointing out that certain objections have been received, but wishing to shade the matter in this way—helpfully, I hope—I would add this comment. All of us realise, in our representative capacities, that there are people who will object, perhaps wilfully, to almost anything, and we are, shall I say, used to receiving such objections in our own postbag and giving them the weight which, over the years, we have felt it appropriate to give them. Here, on the other hand, one objection has come from the Sheffield Teachers Association, which. I imagine, both the hon. Gentleman and I would regard as not a body to be ignored. I make no more point than that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam asked me a number of questions on detailed points. I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not answer them, for this reason. The position which we have now reached, as I have explained, places my right hon. Friend in a quasi-judicial position, and if I were to attempt to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend I might inadvertently prejudice her dispassionate consideration of the matter. My hon. Friend was kind enough to say—a little alarmingly, I thought—that my right hon. Friend would need more than the wisdom of Solomon. Happily, I am able to say that that is precisely what she possesses, for Solomon was a mere man. There will, therefore, be no difficulty in that regard.

We have yet to receive the local authority's comments on the points raised by the objectors. My information is that they will not come to my right hon. Friend's Department until after meetings which are to take place at the beginning of September. I think that my hon. Friend will accept that it would not be proper for me, therefore, to comment on whatever internal arrangements there may be within the city council. When those comments are received, it will be for my right hon. Friend most carefully to consider the objections and the authority's comments on them, together with, if I may say so, the points so cogently made by the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he will, I know, accept, the points made, and the point of view represented by, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam.

Since this matter has its ramifications within the whole city, although I do not wish to intervene on this occasion in the white heat of internal dissension within the city, I think it perfectly proper for any hon. Member who has the privilege of representing any part of Sheffield to express a view upon the matter.

Mr. Mulley

I was not concerned to protest against the views expressed by the hon. Member for Hallam. Obviously, he is entitled to express them, and, no doubt, they will be taken into account by the Minister when she makes her decision. I was objecting to inaccurate information which the hon. Gentleman was putting to the House. Understandably, he is not so intimately informed, not having had almost day-to-day contact with the parents, and so on. I mention, for example, the doubt about land being available. I understand that there are two sites to choose from, and, further, that there is no question of planning diffi- culties, Sheffield being its own planning authority. I hope that the Minister will check the points made before taking neat what the hon. Member for Hallam says.

Mr. van Straubenzee

Those hon. Members who have not been in the House for as long as the right hon. Gentleman will greatly respect the skill with which he got in his debating point. I merely say that all these are matters which must be taken into account.

I can give the hon. Member for Brightside the definite assurance that my right hon. Friend will look at the matter objectively when she comes to make a decision, and the political complexion of the Sheffield City Council at the time will not be a factor entering her consideration.

I hope therefore that with the assurances I have given showing the timetable, which perfectly reasonably—I make no criticism of this—at present rests with the City of Sheffield, and showing that my right hon. Friend is therefore following the judicial procedures, I shall have discharged my duty to answer the debate very properly raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Forward to