§ 136 Leave out Clause 98
§ Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136A to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which I shall urge the House to reject. In speaking to Amendment No. 136, I am happy to set out the Government's position on selective admissions to grammar schools and the reasons why I must urge noble Lords to agree with the government amendment.
We made a commitment in our manifesto that, although we do not support further selection by academic ability, we will empower parents, by means of petitions and ballots, to decide whether selective admissions to grammar schools should continue. The reason for the commitment is that we know many parents have strong views about selection. We thought then, and still think now, that it is only fair and right that parents should be able to decide the future of selective admission arrangements at grammar schools. We delivered this manifesto promise with Sections 105 to 109 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
On 14th March, by a majority of just five, this House voted to remove those provisions from the 1998 Act. In doing so, it removed the right of those most directly 805 concerned to decide the future of local schools and placed that power back in the hands of local authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in another place the day after that vote, as I did in this House, that the Government's position on selection remained the same. We therefore pledged to restore the provisions for petitions and ballots to the School Standards and Framework Act. That was achieved while the Bill was in the other place, and I believe that noble Lords should join me in underlining that position here.
We believe that parents are best placed to decide the future of selection at grammar schools. The high turnout of 75 per cent in the Ripon ballot—far above the turn-out in local and national elections—clearly showed that parents want to express their views.
On previous occasions the Opposition have argued, and may do so again, that petitions and ballots represent a threat to some of our best schools. Yet, in the 25 years before the 1998 Act, 18 of which were under a Conservative government, the number of grammar schools fell from 809 to 166. To continue to attack this Government's grammar schools policy would simply be to fuel an old debate and, in the case of the Opposition Front Benches, to demonstrate (if I may say so) some inconsistency in relation not only to grammar schools but parents' ballots. After all, it was the Opposition who when in power introduced the principle of parental ballots on the issue of grant-maintained status.
Noble Lords have on previous occasions heard a great deal about statistics and how they prove the relative merits of the comprehensive or selective systems. We have recently published statistics which show that the average GCSE point score for 15 year-olds in grammar schools (who make up roughly the top 25 per cent of the ability range in selective areas) is 60.7, compared with 60.9 for the top 25 per cent of 15 year-olds in comprehensive schools. Objective consideration clearly shows one thing: broadly speaking, bright pupils perform as well in comprehensive schools as in selective schools. I hope that noble Lords will help us move on from this outdated debate which pits grammar schools against comprehensive schools and support the Government's schools agenda. This agenda is founded on a clear drive for higher standards and the promotion of greater diversity, including the specialist schools programme. This agenda is vital if we are to prepare young people better for the challenges of a rapidly changing and technologically advanced world.
I turn now to Amendment No. 136A. In my remarks so far I have sought to set out the rationale for the balloting process—our belief that parents should have the opportunity to decide this issue—and that is why I ask noble Lords to resist this amendment. We publicised and consulted widely on the details of the balloting process. We believe that the arrangements 806 that we have put in place are fair and sensible. Indeed, we listened to reasonable arguments and sought to reconcile, on the one hand, the principle of allowing parents to raise petitions and, on the other, the need for stability in schools. We entirely recognise the need for this stability. That was why we introduced a five-year moratorium for ballots after one had taken place. It is a means of providing a balance between allowing parents the opportunity to express their views and not distracting attention from the crucial work of raising standards in schools.
The five-year moratorium means that if there is a ballot during the first year of a child's time at an 11 to 18 grammar school and the outcome is to keep the existing admissions arrangements at that school, a further ballot can be held only after five years. Should the result of that further ballot be in favour of changing the admissions arrangements, the time-scales for implementation would be such that the child would be able to complete even his sixth-form education at the school before the change was made. A five-year moratorium, therefore, offers an entirely appropriate period of stability in relation to admissions. It ensures considerably greater stability than the Opposition were prepared to offer when in government in respect of ballots on grant-maintained status where the moratorium was for one year only.
In contrast, Amendment No. 136A seeks to extend this moratorium from five to 10 years. At a stroke, that would remove the opportunity for many parents ever to have their say about the future of selective admission arrangements to grammar schools. For feeder school ballots, where the electorate is drawn from the parents of primary pupils, a 10-year moratorium means that children would pass completely through the age range from which the parental electorate would be drawn before a further ballot could be held. For area ballots, where all parents of children up to 16, including those who turn 16 during that year, have a vote, a 10-year moratorium is still a very long time. Why should the parent of a child of five at the time of a first ballot not have the chance to vote again on the issue until the child is approaching the end of its compulsory school years? In these circumstances, we cannot reconcile this amendment with the clear aim of the ballot policy to place power in the hands of parents. I must, therefore, urge noble Lords to support government Amendment No. 136 which reinstates the ballot procedure set out in the 1998 Act and to resist Amendment No. 136A.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.—(Baroness Blackstone.)