HC Deb 04 July 1962 vol 662 cc653-64

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

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the case of a school in the parish of Stokesay in my constituency and to tell the House the sorry story of obstinacy, inefficiency and lack of public sense which it illustrates in an education authority and the way in which the rightful expectations of the local community have been deceived.

The parish of Stokesay enfolds within its boundaries the town of Craven Arms, a community of about 2,000 people which originated a century ago with the coming of the railways. It acquired in time a considerable railway depot, railway houses, a cattle market, streets of shops and a residential area. Like other towns which have grown in this way, Craven Arms lacks some of the most characteristic features of a town. It has no main square, no Church of England church, no school playing fields and no large community hall, but it was provided some years ago with a school, known as the Stokesay County School, taking boys and girls from the age of 5 to 14.

In 1947 the Salop County Council, which is the local education authority, approved a development plan under the Act of 1944. This provided for the retention of this school as a primary school for children from 5 to 11, and for the construction of a new Stokesay modern school to be established as a two-stream school for children from 11 to 15 during the period 1950–53. A model of the school was exhibited in 1955 and the necessary Site was acquired in 1956.

No further steps had been taken to implement these proposals by 1957, in which year the development plan was at length approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, but the same proposals were maintained unaltered in the plan as thus finally approved. A new headmaster of the existing county school was appointed over ten years ago and was clearly given to understand that he was to take over the new secondary modern school.

It may be imagined that these proposals gave no little satisfaction to the people of Craven Arms. The new school was planned to draw from a wide surrounding area and the building was expected to include the usual large assembly hall. Educationally the community would have the benefit of a new modern school. Socially it would have the benefit for the first time of a large public hall for community purposes.

In spite of the delay in embarking on the scheme, frequent assurances were given by the authority of its in-tendon to proceed. In 1958 the deputy secretary of the education authority informed parents at the Stokesay school speech day that a start would be made on building a new school within a matter of months. Plans were approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the year 1961–62 and the headmaster was assured categorically in July, 1960, that the school would be built as planned.

In February, 1961, however, the Secretary of the education authority informed the headmaster, in what has been described as a casual and off-hand manner, that he had changed his mind about building this new school. A monster protest meeting was held at Craven Arms on 21st February and a petition signed by 1,041 local residents was sent to the county council. When a referendum was taken 406 parents out of 412 opted in favour of the proposed new Stokesay school. Notwithstanding these protests, the education committee resolved to abandon its original plan to build a secondary modern school at Craven Arms and instead to transport senior children to Ludlow for their education.

This proposal to vary the development plan was brought for confirmation to the quarterly meeting of the county council on 29th April following. The chairman of the education committee, who was warmly sponsoring this proposal, is also chairman of the county council and was in the chair at this meeting. At this meeting the county council representative for the Stokesay area moved an amendment, which was duly seconded, to direct the education committee to implement the original development plan. After considerable discussion, the chairman accepted the motion to refer back the proposal. Although asked to take a vote on this motion, and although the council standing orders require such a vote, the chairman in fact did not call for a vote but formally accepted the reference back.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

Surely that must be wrong according to the county council procedure?

Mr. More

I think it must have been wrong, and I took the precaution to verify the fact with the clerk to the county council, whom my hon. Friend doubtless knows. The matter being referred back to the education committee, the committee again approved the proposal to vary the development plan. This proposal was again brought forward to the subsequent council county quarterly meeting on 15th July, 1961. On this occasion also the chairman of the education committee was in the chair. At this meeting a vote was taken and the education committee's proposal was passed by a small majority; but the number voting in favour of the proposal was substantially less than 50 per cent. of the council members, a number of whom abstained from voting.

Thus, at the first council meeting a vote on the proposal in favour of the new Stokesay school, or the risk of such a vote, was avoided through technical irregularity of procedure, and at the second council meeting the proposal to exclude the school was carried by a minority of the local education authority. When it is remembered that the chairman on both occasions was the chairman of the education committee who was sponsoring the variation of the original proposal, it can hardly be wondered that the people of Craven Arms felt that justice had not been done.

In these circumstances, acceding to the request of my constituents, I forwarded to my right hon. Friend the Minister a long and reasoned letter of protest and pressed him to hold a local public inquiry into the whole matter. I thought then, and I think now, that it was much to be regretted that my right hon. Friend did not think fit to accede to this request. Instead, he was good enough to arrange for a deputation of my constituents to be received by a senior member of his Ministry, the chairman and secretary of the local education authority also being present. I put on record my constituents' appreciation of the courtesy with which they were received and heard.

The discussion at the interview, after outling the events which I have already recounted, turned principally on the merits of the local education authority's proposal, which I shall briefly summarise. The proposal was prompted by the fact that the situation in south Shropshire had turned out somewhat differently from the situation contemplated in the development plan. The development plan had provided, in addition to the new Stokesay school, for a new four-stream secondary modern school at Ludlow, eight miles south of Craven Arms and for a two-stream secondary modern school at Church Stretton, eight miles north of Craven Arms. The Ludlow school was built in 1958 but not to the full size contemplated in the development plan. The Church Stretton school, which had been established in temporary buildings some years before as a two-stream school, was provided with new and permanent buildings in 1960 and maintained at the same size.

The local education authority, in putting forward its proposal to vary the development plan, founded itself upon the Crowther Report, particularly upon the statement that schools with an intake of 75 or less were not thought to have a useful future except in those parts of the country where the pattern of settlement is such that larger schools are out of the question. The authority considered that larger schools had certain marked advantages, and it claimed that the proposed Stoke-say catchment area would not, in fact, support even a two-stream school. It opined, therefore, that the correct course was to abandon the Stokesay modern school and instead to enlarge the Ludlow Church of England school so as to provide accommodation for 600 children.

I had the privilege of listening to the discussion with the deputation at the Ministry. The authority's case was challenged in almost every detail. In particular, the catchment area figures as put before the county council were alleged to be misleading and untrue and detailed graphs and figures were produced in support.

On 29th May last, a letter was sent from the Ministry to my constituents to say that the Minister had approved the local education authority's proposals and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to send a copy of the letter to me. The Ministry letter states that the Minister trusts that all concerned, parents, managers and others, will be ready to accept his decision as in the children's best interests. I am sorry to say that the letter appears to have had a wholly contrary effect. This arises not only from the decision itself, but also from the fact that the letter does not appear to meet, or, indeed, to mention, many of the points that were strongly urged by my constituents.

To particularise, the letter contains no recognition of the clearly expressed wishes of the parents, yet Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944, states in specific terms that the Minister and the local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Mr. W. Yates

It is not only true of that, but it is a fundamental principle of Conservative policy on education.

Mr. More

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it emphasises the interest which we on this side of the House have always felt in that the wishes of those most concerned should be observed.

To particularise again, the letter makes no reference whatever to the social and and community needs of Craven Arms, yet it was most strongly urged by my constituents that a plain duty was laid on the Minister to take such things into account. The letter contains no recognition of the arguments urged by my constituents in connection with the Crowther Report, which, they claimed, in a thinly inhabited rural area, supported the concept of a small school.

To particularise again, the letter makes no attempt to come to grips with the facts and figures produced by my constituents concerning the catchment area. The letter makes no mention of the allegations of lack of fairness and impartiality on the part of the chairman. It makes no reference to the practice of adjoining local authorities or to the grotesque situation which the Salop authority's proposals will produce. Perhaps I may enlarge briefly upon this aspect.

Ludlow is on the southern boundary of Shropshire and closely adjoins Worcestershire and Herefordshire. At Church Stretton, sixteen miles north of Ludlow, the Salop authority, as I have mentioned, has since publication of the Crowther Report provided a complete set of new buildings for a two-stream school. At Tenbury, ten miles east of Ludlow, the Worcestershire authority has, I am informed, since the Crowther Report, established a new two-stream school. At Wigmore, ten miles west of Ludlow, the Herefordshire authority has, I am informed, since the Crowther Report, established a new two-stream school. The logical sequence within this triangle would surely be to establish two similar schools at Ludlow and Craven Arms. Instead, Ludlow is to be made into a big school.

As I represent Ludlow also in this House, it is right that I should say that the Ludlow headmaster at least would welcome an enlargement. It is also right to say, however, that there has, to the best of my knowledge, been not one demand from the parents or the people of Ludlow that their school should be enlarged at the expense of Craven Arms.

It is necessary also that I refer to another matter put to the Ministry by my constituents, to which no reference was made in the letter. This is the accusation that the Stokesay school project was never considered by the education committee on its own intrinsic merits but merely in the context of the darling project of the secretary of the education authority for a secondary modern boarding school at Millichope, in Shropshire. It could be a matter for surprise that a poor county like Shropshire, still lacking funds to replace some of its "black list" schools, has been able to afford so comparative a luxury as a secondary modern boarding school.

It would be no waste of the time of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he would take a hard look at the educational priorities in the county, in which so much money has been spent on educational capital projects. A tardy intervention has recently been made by the finance committee of the county council, and this has produced, since the date of my hon. Friend's letter, a new and extraordinary development in the story of Stokesay school, for the finance committee, acting on instructions of the county council, concerned with the ever-rising scale of expenditure in the county, in particular on education, has proposed that a number of projects are to be deferred or postponed. Among them it named the enlargement of Ludlow school.

This brings me to my final request, which was the original request of my constituents, that a proper public inquiry should be held. The Ministry's letter, referring to this request, states that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the usual procedure for cases of this kind has yielded all the necessary facts and information, but whatever may be the Minister's usual procedure, there can be no doubt as to his powers under the Act. Section 93 expressly gives him power to order a local inquiry, and I submit that unquestionably this is a case in which this should be done. The action of the finance committee, if confirmed by the county council, appears to have removed any contention that this will delay the proposals.

The Minister in this case is not being asked to judge between the claims of two communities. He is being asked to judge between a community which, on the facts I have given, has, I claim, been outrageously treated, and an authority which is clinging to a decision on purely doctrinaire grounds. What is at stake now is the good name not only of the authority but also of my right hon. Friend the Minister. Confidence has been shaken, and it can only be restored by a full, official inquiry on the spot.

I do not necessarily wish to press my hon. Friend for an answer tonight. Salop County Council is to hold a further meeting on 28th July, when, doubtless, this matter will be considered, and after its decision is recorded it may be easier for my hon. Friend to decide the right course to pursue.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

It is with pleasure that I have heard the representation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), a neighbouring constituency to my own. It is not the first time this House has heard an Adjournment debate concerning education in Shropshire. Only a year ago I had reason to submit to the Parliamentary Secretary a request for consideration for a Catholic school in Wellington. On that occasion we were grateful for what the Minister did, and we do understand that he is deeply interested in our educational programmes in Shropshire.

A case has arisen here, in a neighbouring constituency, which warrants the intervention of the Minister in an inquiry, the case for which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I would not like myself to pass any judgment on that, one way or the other, but whatever happens, in view the fact that the chairman of Shropshire County Council did conduct this meeting to which reference has been made, where a vote was taken—or not taken—I would suggest that the Minister devote some of his time to giving very much closer consideration to our education and to our educational facilities in Shropshire, because I do not feel that the hon. Member for Ludlow would have raised this question tonight if he and his constituents had not seriously felt that this was a case which the Minister ought to consider, as I hope he will consider the problems of education in our county.

10.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson)

I should like to say at once that I deeply appreciate the purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) in raising this matter tonight. I should like to pay tribute to him for the care and zeal and persistence with which he has raised this matter with me and with officials of my Department in order to make quite sure himself that we were left in no doubt of the importance his constituents attached to this question. I think I can say, with some fairly long and quite considerable experience of this kind of matter, that I know of no case of this type which has been so carefully considered, so fully documented, and so faithfully pursued as this particular case.

We have in my Department a very considerable file of documents dealing with the various arguments and considerations that have been advanced from one side or another in the case of the school proposed to serve this area. I will deal at the beginning with the point that my hon. Friend made—his final point—the question whether there should or not in these circumstances be a public inquiry of some kind into the details in order to establish for all time what are the precise facts in dispute.

I think that my hon. Friend knows—indeed, if he has read the letters which I have had the privilege to address to him he must know—the procedures followed in cases of this kind. Where it is proposed to establish a new school or to change the nature and character of an existing school, the 1944 Education Act requires that there shall be published in the area concerned a public notice drawing attention to the proposal and offering to those who may be disappointed with the proposal an opportunity to submit their observations upon it to my right hon. Friend.

This procedure has been followed in this case. When the notices were published the opportunity to enter objections was taken by a very large number of electors in the area. Their objections were sent to my right hon. Friend. In accordance with his duty, my right hon. Friend then directed these objections to the local authority for its observations in the normal course of events. The local authority is then required to comment upon those objections and to send its comments to the Minister for him to take into account in reaching his decision.

The procedure is then for my right hon. Friend to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, weighing upon the one hand the proposals of the authority, the objections offered to those proposals and the replies to the objections submitted by the proposing authority. In this case, all these procedures have been faithfully and carefully carried out. My right hon. Friend, faced with a request from my hon. Friend to hold a public inquiry, must then consider whether, whilst his powers under the 1944 Act are such that he could hold such an inquiry, this would reveal some new information or fact or consideration which has not already been placed before him.

Quite clearly, if the objectors have done their duty properly and if the local authority has discharged its obligations properly, there can be nothing that is not already before my right hon. Friend when he comes to make his decision.

Mr. More

I think my hon. Friend must admit that, as regards the detailed statistics of the catchment area and of the education arrangements for the southern part of Shropshire in general, there must be further information which can and should be gone into.

Mr. Thompson

I was coming to the statistics on which these various considerations will arise, but I am bound to say to my hon. Friend that I very much doubt whether there is something which has been held back up to this stage while the whole development of the case has been gone through by those on one side of the argument or the other. If, indeed, they have withheld some secret information which they thought they could develop at a later stage, then in all the circumstances they have missed a valuable opportunity to further their cause.

My point is that, as far as a public inquiry is concerned, all the information is already in the possession of my right hon. Friend when he comes to make his decision, which, as I say, must be made in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Now I come to the reason which may have produced the situation about which my hon. Friend complains. It is true that in the original development plan for the area which he represents it was proposed that there should be erected a two-form entry secondary modern school. This was thought to balance the provision of two-form entry secondary modern schools in other parts of the south Shropshire area. That was 10 years ago.

But development, and ideas in education, as in other spheres, do not stand still. In recent years we have had the benefit of the advice of the Crowther Committee. There have been a variety of educational developments which have led leading educationists to the view that the small secondary modern school is a less viable educational unit than one which is larger. This is not to say that all schools must be large ones or that small schools are no good; but it supports the view that if a school is larger it is probably able to do more for the child than one which is smaller. Therefore, an authority which has the opportunity to provide for its children in a larger school ought to take the opportunity to do so.

I know perfectly well that the parents in an area like Craven Arms will be disappointed if there is no local school just because the school is not local, but they would be quite wrong to regard their children as being educationally deprived as a result of that. In point of fact, although they may be loth and slow to recognise it, their children are undoubtedly better provided for educationally in a school which is larger. Why? The larger school has more staff with a wider range of specialities, skills and subjects. The school community in the larger school is by definition more numerous. There is a greater rub and friction between the personalities of the children, between the types of children who will be there, between the sorts of background from which they come and their kinds of experience. From this comes the spark which enables the teacher to identify and bring on and develop the peculiar talents and qualities of the individual child.

All this is not to say that the smaller school is inefficient or incapable of offering a good education to a child. What it means is that the larger school, within reasonable limits, is able to give the child opportunities and advantages which the smaller school cannot give. The larger school has physical provision that the smaller school cannot have. All the tendency in education today is in this direction. I am sure that while the children of my hon. Friend's constituents may be deprived of some things in this process, as undoubtedly they will be, the close link—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.