HC Deb 22 February 1973 vol 851 cc922-32

Amendment made: No. 104, in page 84, line 53, at end insert: Sections 15(1) and 42 except in relation to compensation falling to be assessed by reference to prices current on a date before the passing of this Act and except for the purposes of section (Compensation in respect of agricultural holdings) (6) of this Act'.—

[Mr. Graham Page.]

school system. That system is largely unique. When introduced in 1947 it was looked upon by the education world as a major innovation. It provides several schools on one campus, each with its own headmaster. At present there are four such bases, comprising five grammar schools and five high schools. Another base is about to be built and a sixth is planned. Many teachers believe that this model combines some of the best features of comprehensives while avoiding some of the worst. About one-third of all the children of secondary school age go to one of 10 establishments enjoying grammar school status. Nearly 18 per cent. reach sixth form and over 8 per cent. go to university.

In the latest edition of Where? a Dr. Midwinter has an article which suggests that there is a strong correlation between social class and entry to sixth forms and universities. He says: A couple of freak results apart, you tell me the social class composition of a given county borough and I will tell you within a few percentage points how many of its children are in sixth form and how many are in university. We do not consider ourselves to be freaks, but it would appear that we are in a class of our own, because Bolton is doing better academically than this sociologist calculates we should. According to Dr. Midwinter we rank sixty-ninth out of 103 county boroughs in social class but twenty-seventh on university places—clear testimony to the success of the present pattern of secondary education.

Conservatives do not believe that this pattern is perfect but they prefer to build on something tried and proved rather than to embark upon wholesale reorganisation. The Labour Party in Bolton, on the other hand, favours comprehensives through and through, some for educational and some for political reasons. The Labour Party has campaigned for it at successive local elections and gave the go-ahead after its victory last year. A working party was set up and after seven months' deliberations it has now published an interim report. During this time there has been consultation with teachers, school governors and the Roman and Anglican Churches.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has specifically asked that full opportunities should be given to parents to make their views known before decisions are reached. It was with this request in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) and myself went to see Lord Belstead at the Department of Education last summer. At the time we were accused by our opponents of reneging on our undertaking that these matters should be settled locally. That charge is without substance, because the very purpose of our visit was not to ask the Minister to override local wishes but to ensure that consultation with parents and other interested parties was both open and meaningful.

Such accusations do not come well from those who have spent the last few years endeavouring to force comprehensiveness upon us whether we want it or not and who are now proposing to remove the whole educational function away from metropolitan Bolton and to pass it to Greater Manchester.

Before I come to the proposals in the interim report, I wish to impress on my hon. Friend how unseasonable they are, both with regard to the imminent changes in local government and in relation to other educational priorities in our town. In a few weeks we shall have elections based upon the new metropolitan district, and just over a year from now there will be one authority, one policy and one budget, not just for Bolton but for Turton, Kearsley, Horwich, Westhoughton, Farnworth, Little Lever and Blackrod. Our new partners will want to have a say in the way in which the funds are to be spent.

I am sure that it makes sense to base future plans on the total resources available in the new metropolitan district. Catchment areas for the comprehensives must be drawn to take account of the needs of the new authorities with which we are about to be united. Links between Horwich and Heaton, and Turton and Astley Bridge, suggest themselves. This is self-evident, and I find it extremely unsatisfactory that all the calculations and figures in this report are founded exclusively on present-day boundaries. Only the Roman Catholic authorities seem to be taking the overall view. The working party itself has had no consultation with neighbouring authorities about their plans, and this fact alone must cause doubt on the validity of their findings.

In Bolton we have 29,000 children of school age; 10,250 are in secondary schools and 18,500 are in primary schools. The spending per pupil at the secondary stage is £211 a year; at the primary stage it is £101 per year. In the secondary schools there are 17 children for every full-time teacher, and in the primary schools 28 pupils per full-time teacher.

I turn again to the magazine Where? Last December it published a table showing how much the local education authorities spend on teachers' salaries. Bolton is 33rd out of 103 county boroughs in secondary spending, but right down at 96th place in primary school spending. The editor says that the difference in figures reflects a decision on the part of authorities to discriminate in favour of secondary education, and he asks the question: Are local education authorities cheating their primary children? I believe that we would be cheating them and that the money, time and effort spent on reorganisation along comprehensive lines would be better devoted at this stage to upgrading our primary schooling.

There is also the matter of nursery schools. In Bolton just over 1,000 pupils are enjoying the privilege of some kind of nursery education. Actually there are 190 children in nursery schools proper. This is about one-fifth of the potential number—not much in a town where so many mothers go out to work.

The proposals outlined in my right hon. Friend's White Paper have been widely praised in our area. The social and educational case for these is well known. If the home environment is as important to the life opportunities of an individual child as sociologists believe, nursery provision at 3 and 4 years will do far more for equality of opportunity than any amount of restructuring at a later stage.

I contend that it is not possible to consider secondary reorganisation isolated or divorced from other educational needs because going comprehensive will cost money. How much we cannot tell until we are given firmer proposals than those now presented to us. Achieving parity of esteem between different schools, forgoing—if that is the intention—places in the direct grant schools, and the construction of a special sixth form college could be expensive. Education already accounts for 50 per cent. of the budget, and after local government changes it will be as much as 80 per cent., remembering that some functions pass to Manchester.

I doubt whether it will be politically feasible to burden ratepayers still further. If that view is correct, the cost of going comprehensive can only be at the expense of nursery and primary schools, or even adult education—a result that contradicts Government policy. I do not expect the Labour group in Bolton to agree with my priorities, but I should have expected the group, in submitting its proposals to the parents and ratepayers of the town, to have argued the case for comprehensives in terms of our overall educational requirements, and that is something that the group has not done.

I come to the report itself. After considering four possible alternatives, the working party came down in favour of two—all-through comprehensives, 11–18, or a two-tier scheme with a break at sixth form level. I favour the latter, as it postpones selection until it occurs de facto by the children deciding either to leave school or to go on with their education. Apparently, about 1,000 places will be needed at sixth form level, and it is suggested that two colleges could be formed on two of the existing bases. This idea, however, conflicts with the principle of parity, as it would tend to favour the 11–16 elements on those bases where sixth forms were housed. I am sure that parents and teaching staffs would regard those bases as superior.

It is for this reason that the teachers themselves prefer that there should be sixth form provision at all the comprehensives. My own choice would be for a single purpose-built college. This idea has the virtue of concentrating in one institution the scarcest of all educational resources—specialised staff—as well as producing returns to scale on libraries, laboratories and equipment. It would also provide a concentrated and stimulating environment for young people that was less that of the school room and more that of the college.

As to the size of schools; my hope would be that small schools would be favoured. Many children benefit and prosper within the atmosphere of a smaller community. This can be more important than providing ever-widening course options.

One of the most difficult problems, as the report readily appreciates, is what to do with the non-base high schools. At present there are six, but it is possible to envisage that three will close in the fairly near future. We should still be left with Castle Hill, Whitecroft and Tonge. They are too small to function on their own and they are geographically distant from the bases with which it is proposed they should be linked.

I am mindful of my right hon. Friend's observations at the NUT conference last year about the problems created by split premises. She said … it is, I believe, for local education authorities to demonstrate that such arrangements will work, without unreasonable difficulty, and that the educational advantages outweigh the obvious drawbacks". Parents are likely to regard these schools as inferior to those on the base, and to feel that their children are disadvantaged. To overcome this, the report advocates transfer to a base at 14. Yet this two-tier pattern was specifically rejected in the report as being educationally unsound when the group was considering reorganisation as a whole.

Again, the observations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are pertinent: In looking at such proposals I have found myself worrying a good deal about the continuity of education between separate schools and, in general, I am reluctant to see the introduction of arrangements based on transfer at 14". The vital issue as to how children are to be selected for the different establishments is glossed over in the report. Banding is rejected because of the "bussing" around the town that it would entail.

We are told that alternatives based on geographical zones or contributory primary schools are being considered, but parents cannot be expected to pass a verdict on abstract notions of how seletion might be done. What they want to know is where their own child will end up.

The report is non-committal about the direct grant schools. I understand the local Labour group's embarrassment, but it must come clean about this. The LEA provides places for 1,328 pupils in these schools. Are they to be used in future? Time and again we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not just comprehensive schools that they want, but a comprehensive system of education. As the Shadow Minister said in the debate at the beginning of this month, A true comprehensive system and the complete abolition of selection are indivisible"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1973; Vol. 849, c. 1639.] The teacher's panel in Bolton share that view and suggest that entrants to the direct grant schools should represent the complete spread of ability.

I understand that the Roman Catholic authorities are prepared to co-operate in bringing their two direct grant schools into any new arrangements, provided that some degree of parental choice remains. But the Bolton school wants to maintain selection in some form. It is prepared to admit free place holders at 11 provided that the pupils are not obviously unlikely to profit from the educational courses and facilities offered by the school.

Is this formula acceptable? If not, then more than just the places at Bolton School or even Canon Slade will be at stake. The Catholic authorities have made it plain that their co-operation in any scheme of reorganisation will be entirely dependent upon a situation in which the local authority no longer takes up selection places in the other non-Catholic direct grant schools.

If this document is nothing more than an attempt to get a public debate going in our town, I welcome it, but if it is being seriously advanced as the fulfilment of an obligation to consult parents, upon which they can be expected to pass a judgment at local election time, I must advise my hon. Friend that it can be considered as no such thing. Too many questions remain unasked and unanswered for anybody to be able to form a clear opinion or judgment.

I believe that Bolton should, without more ado, get together with its neighbours and draw up a long term education plan for the new metropolitan district as a whole—not just secondary schooling, but right through from nursery provision to university entrance. If, after establishing the new priorities, secondary education reorganisation is still thought to be desirable, let us have some clear answers to the substantive issues involved.

What is the future of the direct grant schools? How will children be selected for different establishments and how will this be squared with parental choice? How will parity of esteem be achieved in practice, with particular regard to the non-base high schools? What practical measures will be taken to minimise the disruption necessarily involved in any changeover? What are the implications for the jobs and status of teaching staff?

These are the questions that I am asking. These are the issues I shall be asking my right hon. Friend to scrutinise with the utmost care when considering any proposals that may be submitted to her.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond (Bolton, West)

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) in expressing concern about this matter, but at the same time we both want full consultation with parents and teachers. Did my hon. Friend see a recent report in the Bolton Evening News which showed that a school in Westhoughton—a district coming within the new metropolitan district—had gone comprehensive and the parents did not know about it? It is an alarming statement when my hon. Friend and I are trying to get the parents of Bolton to tell us what they think so that we may be able to convey their messages to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, will mention that very alarming fact.

3.13 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) for raising this particular subject at this time. I know the great personal interest that he has taken in the educational system in Bolton, of which he is justly proud.

Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), who has been present throughout the debate, have made notable contributions to the discussion of educational issues in Bolton.

I understand, as my hon. Friend has made clear, that the plan for reorganisation of secondary schools in Bolton is a preliminary document which has been circulated for general discussion by all interested parties and that it has also been publicised in the Press.

I understand further from my hon. Friend that the document, after discussing various possible schemes, tended, if any reorganisation were to take place, to favour either "all-through" 11–18 year old comprehensive schools or 11–16 schools with some separate sixth form college provision. I have no doubt, particularly after hearing my hon. Friend's remarks, that this will give rise, as it certainly should, to much local debate. My hon. Friend has performed an important public service in raising this issue today.

My right hon. Friend does not comment on any non-statutory plans, whether in preliminary or final form, for the reorganisation of secondary education in any particular area. I must follow her example in this. This is because any such comments could be held to prejudge any decisions that she may be called upon to make on any specific proposals for schools which may be submitted to her under Section 13 of the 1944 Education Act, as amended. This could therefore lead to confusion about the legal basis under this section of the Act on which alone decisions can be given.

It will at present be for the Bolton Education authority to decide, if and when it considers that it has received full comments on its preliminary plan from all interested parties, whether it wishes to proceed with working out fuller plans for secondary reorganisation. Before any plans could be translated into action, however, it would be necessary for Bolton to submit further proposals under Section 13, each one related to a specific school.

Under Section 13 the authority would also have to give public notice of its proposals, and the Act provides for a two-months' period following publication during which the managers or governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals or any 10 local government electors for the areas concerned or any local education authority concerned may submit objections to my right hon. Friend. Her duty then is to reach decisions on the proposals on their merits and taking into account any objections which are made.

It may, however, be helpful to my hon. Friend if I mention some of the various principles which will guide my right hon. Friend in reaching any decisions which she may be called upon to make. My Department's Circular 10/70 advised local education authorities and other bodies that educational consideration in general, local needs and wishes in particular and the wise use of resources are expected to be the main principles determining the local pattern.

The circular also stressed that where a particular pattern of organisation is working well and commands general support my right hon. Friend does not wish to cause change without good reasons. It went on to say that the Secretary of State would expect any local education authority which was thinking of proposing any changes in the local pattern to maintain close liaison with those representing the denominational and other voluntary schools in the area. As my hon. Friend has stressed, denominational education has a special place in the Bolton area.

Again, the Secretary of State will expect full opportunity to be given to parents to make their views known before decisions are reached about the form of any proposals.

There is one other point that I should mention, in view of the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed about the need to consider any plans within the general context of the educational system of the new metropolitan district.

My Department's recent Circular 1/73, entitled "Reorganisation of Local Government: The Education Function" said, in relation to any proposals under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, that the Secretary of State will expect the existing and the new local education authorities to examine together the implications and the timing of all current proposals under Section 13. If any of Bolton's plans are eventually translated into statutory proposals under Section 13, therefore, they will have to be considered in the context of the new district and in the light of the consultations that have been carried out with all interested parties in that district. I would therefore expect that Bolton would be taking all this into account when considering the nature and timing of any plans or eventual statutory proposals that it may wish to make.

For the reasons I have given earlier this morning, I am not in a position to comment on the merits or otherwise of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East. Nor can I comment directly on the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) concerning Westhoughton and the situation there. I have, however, noted that very important point, as well as the other points raised in this short debate.

I hope that both my hon. Friends will be assured that the provisions of the Education Act 1944 and the policy of the Secretary of State, as I have outlined it in the debate, in considering statutory proposals for the reorganisation of secondary schools, will together help to alleviate some of the anxiety which they have expressed about the future of secondary education in the district.

The debate has been of very great importance to the people of Bolton. We in the Department appreciate very much the public spirit which my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, East and Bolton, West—particularly the former—have shown in raising this subject in the House. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East that the extremely important points that he has raised will be fully considered within the Department, and I am sure that they will give rise to a wide-ranging local debate in Bolton.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Three o'clock a.m.