HC Deb 28 July 1966 vol 732 cc1881-3
29. Mr. Longden

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in cases in which he has ruled upon a local education authority's plan for reorganising secondary education which would leave some pupils in selective schools for an indefinite period, what action he proposes to take when that local education authority proceeds with its original plan.

Mr. Crosland

No such case has arisen.

Mr. Longden

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sensible thing to do is not to impose a crash programme of universal comprehensiveness—which appears to be the purpose of Circulars 10/65 and 10/66—but to allow comprehensive schools to compete with existing bipartite schools and after a few years to judge which is the better system?

Mr. Crosland

It is quite clear that the hon. Member cannot have read Circular 10/65, if he describes the situation in that way. As for its being a sensible solution, apart from the fact that it has been rejected by the electorate, it is quite impossible to have this competition, because a comprehensive school cannot be comprehensive so long as there are selective schools in its area.

Sir E. Boyle

I do not wish to anticipate the debate that we intend to have on this matter, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question raises a very real point? Will he give an assurance that in cases like that of Manchester, where he has given contingent approval to certain schemes only upon certain building work being done, he will firmly insist on those conditions being fulfilled before final approval is given?

Mr. Crosland

This has nothing to do with the Question. If I laid down conditions, however, I should make sure that those conditions were met. The Opposition must come off the fence and make up their minds whether they believe in selection. At the moment they are trying to have it both ways and are adopting a completely inconsistent position.

31. Mr. Wall

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision he proposes to make for denominational education to continue under a comprehensive system.

Mr. Crosland

In Circular 10/65 I asked local education authorities to include voluntary schools in their plans for the reorganisation of secondary education.

Mr. Wall

Will not comprehensive education mean the concentration of a larger number of pupils in a smaller number of schools? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to safeguard parents' rights in respect of denominational education for their children?

Mr. Crosland

I think the hon. Member will find that the point that he has in mind—which is a real one, concerning the size of classes—is met in the Education Bill which is now before the House and which we shall debate when it comes to us.

Mr. McNamara

Can my right hon. Friend indicate the degree of co-operation he has had from denominational schools on this point? Is he aware that many members of denominations are very grateful to the Government for implementing the increased grant, which has enabled them to go ahead with forward-looking plans for education?

Mr. Crosland

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his fair statement of the case. I want to stress once again the very high degree of co-operation that we have received from denominations in our consideration of this problem.

33. Mr. Armstrong

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will fix a time limit for the operation of any interim scheme of secondary schools reorganisation which involves selection for different types of school.

Mr. Crosland

It would not be practicable to fix an exact time limit; but Circular 10/65 stressed that such schemes should be regarded only as an interim stage in development towards a fully comprehensive system.

Mr. Armstrong

Can more urgency be given to this very difficult problem? Where parents are compelled to choose at 13—as many schemes provide for—between schools offering different facilities and proceeding on different vocational lines this is social selection at its worst, and we want it ended as quickly as possible?

Mr. Crosland

I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it is a difficult problem. As he knows we have approved about four major schemes of this kind so far, and in each case I have made it clear to the authority that the scheme is acceptable only as an interim measure, and that it will have to give way eventually to a fully comprehensive scheme. But it is not practicable to lay down a time limit and to state a particular year by which these schemes should be altered.

Sir E. Boyle

I do not wish to debate the matter now, but does the Minister recognise that the approval he gave to the Doncaster scheme was very much welcomed in many quarters, and that it will be a much more serious issue if the suggestion is that any such scheme as that will be ruled out for the future, except as an interim measure?

Mr. Crosland

I have made my position clear both here and to the Doncaster authority. These schemes are not suitable for a long-run solution, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has given, but if they come forward in the interim period it would be wrong on my part to reject them out of hand.