HC Deb 15 June 1965 vol 714 cc406-18

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

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Frank Taylor (Manchester, Moss Side)

I count myself fortunate tonight on two counts. First, because I have the opportunity to speak about the difficulties facing us on the education front with immigrants, and, secondly, because I am able to begin this speech before midnight, when I expected to do it somewhere near the dawn.

What I want to do, first, is to show that there is a problem with regard to immigrants at school, which is centred on the big cities, particularly, London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. These are outstanding, but there are also areas of difficulty elsewhere, where, to say the least, there is serious concern over the problems facing them. So as not to deal exclusively with my constituency of Moss Side, I propose to give a few figures in respect of other parts of the country.

In London, at the latter end of last year, the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) discovered that in some classes in some schools in his constituency there were only two or three white children in the class. I think that it is unnecessary to quote the many speeches and statements which have been made about the position in Birmingham and Liverpool, except to say that in 1962 it was calculated that in Birmingham 11 per cent. of the residents were immigrants, although 60 per cent. of these were Irish and were not coloured.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that these places have large numbers of immigrants, just as I am sure he will accept that in considering immigrants one must recognise that the majority are coloured.

In Bradford, at the end of last year, where there were said to be 13,000 immigrants, some schools had more than 50 per cent. immigrant children, and 60 per cent. of those immigrants had arrived in England without any knowledge of English. In respect of Manchester, and particularly Moss Side, I have more detailed figures. In the city as a whole the immigrants comprise 26 different nationalities, and in 17 schools there are substantial numbers of immigrants. Percentage figures are available in respect of these schools, and there are six or seven schools, mainly in my constituency, which have very high percentages of immigrant children.

Respectively the figures are 36 per cent., 38 per cent. and 39 per cent. in three schools, 43 per cent. in each of two other schools, and 53 per cent. in another. The top figure is 57 per cent. These figures are extraordinary, and I am sure they have not previously been appreciated by many people. It is certain that these figures are increasing, overall, month by month.

One important point that emerges from these statistics is that in Manchester there are four times as many 5-year-old immigrant children as there are 11-year-olds. I will return to the implications of this situation later. Inside the overall immigrant situation there is the problem of immigrant children, mainly born abroad, who need special help. This is almost invariably due to the fact that they speak no English. Their education presents a very difficult problem.

This does not necessarily mean that they are unintelligent; it means, usually, that they are backward because of the conditions of their upbringing, prior to coming to this country. It might help if I quote some other figures concerning Manchester, for 1964, giving separate comparative totals of the different nationalities attending some of the schools, broken down into two divisions—juniors and infants. I shall show the importance of that later. The highest numbers are from the West Indies where there are 83 juniors as against 21 infants—

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

Does not the hon. Member agree that the main problem involved is one of language, and does not he further agree, therefore, that if the majority of these children are West Indian this problem does not arise.

Mr. Taylor

I shall deal adequately with that point when I come to it.

In the case of Pakistanis, there are 72 juniors as against 67 infants, and there are 45 juniors from India as against 15 infants. These figures are interesting for two reasons. One is that although one would have thought that the Indians and Pakistanis, who normally speak their own language—Punjabi, Urdu, Hindi, or some other native Indian tongue—would have the largest number of children in both categories needing special attention, the figures show that West Indians have by far the highest number of juniors in need of special attention.

Looking into the matter further, we find that the reason appears to be that although West Indian children speak English as their native tongue they speak a kind of patois based on eighteenth century English, which is quite unintelligible in this country. That is what the statistics show: it is not just what I am saying. More junior West Indians are in need of special attention in the Manchester area than any other nationality. Once again, there is an interesting difference between the number of juniors and the number of infants, which I shall deal with later.

One would have thought that this problem could be dealt with by importing foreign teachers who had a closer affinity with these categories of children, and could, therefore, bring them along better, but efforts made on this front have not proved successful, because many foreign teachers, although quite adequately qualified, cannot be understood even by the interviewing officers here, once again because their type of English is so different from English as we know it. Consequently, this has not proved to be a solution. If they are not intelligible to the interviewing officers they would not be intelligible to the children whom they would be trying to teach English.

The problem falls under three main headings. First are the families who have no English at all, neither the parents [...]or children. The second class, including West Indians, are those who speak a patois which puts them in almost the same category as the first. The third group is comprised of cases where the children come with their parents to this country and where the parents can speak English quite well but cannot read or write. As a result, the children start heir education suffering a setback.

Among these difficulties is a bright point, some blue sky among the cloud. It is that there are far more younger children of immigrants at school than older immigrant children. However, this smaller group of older children have a special problem. The older children of school age who come to this country have a problem which the younger children, particularly those born here, do not have. Often the younger ones are brought up in an environment with English being spoken. The problem will, therefore, work itself out as the years go by because in our schools there are more and more children who were brought up in this environment. Having been born in this country, they do not have the same language difficulty as many of the older children, except in cases where their parents cannot speak English.

This problem will probably work itself out provided—and it is a big proviso—the Labour Party's policy of 1961–62 is riot reintroduced, for if we have a flood of immigrants coming here again the problem will be magnified.

There are, of course, many ancillary problems. While many immigrants vastly improve their living conditions by coming here, in far too many cases their living conditions are at or near slum level from our point of view. The inflow of immigrants with their families adds to the housing problem, particularly in an area such as Manchester, where the problem is already acute. This applies to the majority of big cities. While in those areas the housing problem is at its most acute, immigrants usually decide to settle in those areas. The overcrowding to which many immigrants are accustomed causes difficulty and places them high on the local authority housing lists. This does not help to make for good relations with the indigenous population.

The maternity wards of some hospitals are crowded with immigrant women who are having babies and the waiting lists for beds for expectant mothers are filled. These problems must be faced. We must also realise that the children born in this country to immigrant parents in circumstances such as these have their own problems.

According to the latest figures I have been able to obtain, unemployment among immigrants is about three times the national average of 1½ per cent. It cannot be good for children to be brought up in such circumstances, with their parents living on unemployment pay and National Assistance. This problem hits both the children and their parents.

Despite all this, I have on many occasions observed the children of immigrant parents going to and from school and have been impressed with the way in which they are dressed and cared for. The little girls' hair is usually beautifully done and the children are neat and tidy and obviously happy. They are well behaved and provide an example for other children and parents to follow. I have been most impressed with the way in which their parents look after them. This indicates that large numbers of immigrants are anxious to do their utmost to integrate, but despite all this it is obvious that a chronic situation exists, that it may become more difficult in the future and that something must be done about it.

It is a good thing to consider just why the present situation has arisen. We must do that before we can consider a solution. It goes without saying that the problem of immigrant children stems directly from the inflow of immigrants. The net inward movement in 1955, 1956 and 1957 was between 42,000 and 45,000. In 1958, it was 30,000; in 1959, it was 20,000; in 1960, it was 57,000; and in 1961 it shot up to 135,000. Then, while we were discussing immigration legislation, it rose to 95,000 in six months, representing a rate of 190,000 a year.

That is nearly ten times what it was before. Of course, the fear of restriction uplifted the number of applications when the Bill was introduced, but it is rather extraordinary that, after the Bill had been produced, the large number of applications continued; and, in the 18 months up to December, 1963, there were 347,000 applications. That gives some indication of what would have happened if there had been no restriction on the intake of immigrants.

Furthermore, we should remember that, throughout this period, students and dependants had been admitted free of control, but in the face of the figures for 1961, it is difficult for one to understand why the party opposite should have adopted the attitude it did—[Interruption.] Well, hon. Members opposite voted against the Bill on Second Reading and Third Reading, and that is one of the reasons why we have this problem of the juveniles at school now. While the Bill was being opposed by the party opposite, another 100,000 immigrants came in, and now we have the children resulting from that intake.

One important cause of the present situation is that the position is not known to many people and I believe that few people have recognised that many of our schools have more than half their membership made up by immigrant children. That position will become worse because there seems to be a concerted move to pretend that the problem does not exist. I know that the Minister of Education has issued a document only today on this very subject, but it is a weak and watery item and the problem will not be cured simply by pretending that it does not exist.

The Minister has suggested that schools should not have more than one-third of immigrant children among their pupils and that any number over that figure should be sent to other schools so that the numbers may be kept down.

This would be no cure; it will only aggravate the problem because the children who know no English can be taught it in reasonably sized classes or groups where there are teachers to train them. On the other hand, if they are spread throughout the whole of the schools, the problem will become very much worse and, incidentally, far more expensive.

Let us remember another important point. These immigrant children will be planted in the schools which are different from those where their brothers and sisters are, and different from those where they would like to be; and in schools, probably, where they may not be welcome because they would have been forced on a particular school against everybody's inclination.

We all want to integrate these children into our economy and our national life as happily as possible and the best way for doing this is for it to be done as naturally as possible. Already, grant-aided teachers are being trained how to teach English to non-English-speaking children, and children are being taken from their classes until such time as they are sufficiently forward to change over into the full educational system. This is good strategy, and we need more of it. It is expensive, but good. I see that the circular refers to this point.

I gather that the Minister feels that I should conclude. I thought it reasonable to speak for 20 minutes.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell)

Not if the hon. Gentleman wants a good answer.

Mr. Taylor

I wrote to the hon. Member and said that I should speak for 20 minutes, and I said that if this were not satisfactory we could make other arrangements. I have had no reply.

We cannot ignore the fact that the birth rate among immigrants is far higher than that among indigenous people. The figures which I have show that it is twice as high, and it may be even higher. In any case, there will be a big increase in population. The estimate is that by the end of the century the indigenous population will have increased by 40 per cent. and the immigrant population to six times the present population.

Many immigrants want to bring their families here, and it is difficult to know who are their wives and who are their children because in many cases there is no documentation. There are difficulties in restricting the number who come to this country. We must face the fact that there will be a big increase in population.

The great increase in immigration took place in 1961, and none of the children born since that date has entered school. The difficulties which we are considering, which are great enough, do not include those children. The number will therefore increase fantastically in the next three or four years. What is the Labour Party's policy on this issue? We know that it fought immigration restriction from start to finish and that only a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that it was mad to limit immigration when we need workers. This is directly opposed to any restriction of immigration. I do not know whether that is Labour Party policy, or just his own view. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what the Labour Party will do to cure this problem, which will be very great indeed in two or three years' time?

12.12 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell)

The hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor) came very near to abuse of the decencies of the House in that he asked for an Adjournment debate on the problems of the education of immigrants and went on to make a political speech on almost every subject under the sun dealing with immigration except education. Then in one half sentence he acknowledged that this very day the Government, through the Department of Education and Science, have issued a circular giving their whole policy of education for immigrants in educational establishments, and particularly in schools. He made several political statements. It is quite proper in the House to have arguments about immigration, but not when one has asked for a debate on the specific question of education.

If the hon. Member did a disservice, I do not want to follow him too far into a general political argy-bargy at this time of night. He and his party were in power for 13 years. The problem which we have tried to tackle in the schools in six months was left to us. It is not a bit of good talking about the debate which we had on the restriction of immigration unless it is related to the arguments which were crucial at the time. Many hon. Members opposite, perhaps including the hon. Member, would have had us sign the Treaty of Rome, which would have compelled this country to accept unlimited immigration from member countries of the Treaty of Rome. It was in that context that we were discussing immigration.

He and I come from areas of high immigration. I acknowledge his concern, and I have the same concern in Birmingham. It is no accident that all these immigrants concentrated in certain areas in our big towns. They concentrated in areas where houses became vacant because of the Rent Act and the evils of that Act perpetrated by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends by reason of evictions. We do not find large areas of immigrants in council house estates or in areas containing houses taken over by local authorities. They have gone into houses from which the previous tenants were forced out as a direct result of the action of the previous Government. There is a lot to be said about that, and it is time we started to say it, but now I want to say one or two things about what I think is the constructive policy for education that is contained in the circular that has been sent out today by my right hon. Friend.

The Government's policy is that we must start from the assumption that the standards of our education must be maintained at all costs. If that intention is made clear to the parents of English children it will remove quite a few of their quite reasonable fears that if their children go to a school at which there are a lot of immigrant children they may not get the education they merit. That intention is the bedrock and foundation of the circular.

That means that if we have immigrant children who cannot speak English properly or are not up to the acamedic standards of the school, then for academic lessons they should be separated so that they do not hold up the progress of the other scholars. The children should come together on social occasions—play, and so on—and in lessons for which a good understanding of English is not essential, but should come into the main academic stream of the school only when they have a thorough grasp of the language and have caught up academically with the rest of the school.

It also means that we must realise that there is a limit to the number of immigrant children who can be absorbed into any school. I know that, since my own children go to a school with nearly 30 per cent. of immigrant children. I am personally familiar with this problem. We think that one-third is about the limit we can expect any school or teacher to cope with. We say in the circular that when that point has been reached there should be a policy of dispersal.

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with a policy of dispersal. He says that to move the children from area A to area B in Manchester stops integration. That is a very fine academic argument, but, in practice, it does not stand up, because, in practice, area A is an area that is already saturated with immigrants. Therefore, if we do not have a policy of dispersal, we automatically have a policy of segregation. In practice, therefore, we either have a policy of dispersal or one of segregation—we cannot have both, because they are quite contradictory.

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to support a policy of segregation, but that is the logic of what he now advocates. I therefore hope that, on reflection, he will agree with the Government's policy as outlined today. We think that when we have reached a maximum of one-third in a school it is sound sense to say that for educational and social reasons no more immigrant children should go to that school, but should be dispersed elsewhere.

The next point in our policy is to ask local authorities to appoint special welfare officers in the schools. These are non-teaching people who will help the teachers in many ways, particularly in matters of social awareness and hygiene, and so on. Many of these people from overseas have entirely different social customs and habits, and it follows from what the Gov- ernment have said that if people settle here we are entitled to expect them to observe our conventions. We can best do that by giving this sort of aid to the teachers.

These welfare people will also form an important and direct link between the schools and the homes. It is no good getting the children right—although this is vitally important—if, after school, they go to homes where there is no contact between the English home and the immigrant population. So we believe welfare officers will play a valuable role of this social character.

I do not believe that it would be right for us to leave the debate without noting that a great deal has already been done. I hope that hon. Members will agree that a great deal has already been done in Manchester, particularly by its education authority and teachers. While we are sending out this circular today as a result of our six months in power and of our trying to grapple realistically with the problems and produce a policy that is sensible, acceptable and will work, we ought to realise that a lot of authorities over the years, years for which we are not entirely responsible, have been grappling with the problem. The local authorities deserve a lot of praise from hon. Members.

Manchester has appointed extra teachers, many part time. It has done a wonderful job in bringing in part-time teachers, particularly for the intensive teaching of English which the hon. Member recognised to be the kernel of this nut. It has been arranging for teachers to attend special courses at Manchester University and in association with the university, and has done a lot of work there. Exhibitions of books and teaching material have been mounted in Manchester. I do not think that has happened in many other parts of the country.

Manchester has encouraged the formation of study groups of teachers engaged in teaching immigrants so that there can be the greatest possible sharing of expertise between teachers. Special arrangements have been made for schools and children to be constantly supervised. Manchester has a fine record and its teachers, who have co-operated so wholeheartedly with the local authority, are, I feel, also deserving of special mention.

I will sum up my remarks by saying that we put out this policy today. We believe that it is practicable. We believe that it is acceptable. It has only been put out after prolonged discussion with the local authorities, teachers and everyone concerned with the problem. H.M. inspectors have a great deal of knowledge and information available which they put constantly for the use of local authorities and teachers and for people in the schools. I believe, given good will all round, that this policy can be accepted.

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

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.