HC Deb 23 July 1969 vol 787 cc2088-100

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

10.52 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks (Bebington)

In January 1969 the education committee of the Birkenhead County Borough, in which half of my electorate reside, sent a form to the parents of children due to begin their secondary education this coming September. As an eligible parent I, too, received this form. The form gave details of the classification examinations which were shortly to be held, and which it was expected would prove to be the last 11 + selection before the borough goes comprehensive in the early 'seventies. The form, as had no doubt been customary for many years, assured the parents that the object of the examination was to enable the education committee to determine the type of education from which the child would best be able to profit.

However, the form went on to draw a distinction between children who had been attending Roman Catholic primary schools—comprising, I understand of some 25 per cent. of the children in the borough—and the non-Catholic children. In the case of the former, it was said that …pupils who attend Roman Catholic Primary Schools will normally be expected to attend Roman Catholic Secondary Schools. In the long run, maintained County Secondary Comprehensive Schools may only have sufficient accommodation for pupils from County and C.E. Primary Schools. Catholic parents were told that …it is of the utmost importance that they should indicate on the attached Application Form their first, second and third choice of Roman Catholic Secondary Schools. But here arose a difficulty whose roots go deep into the past and which has sparked off a major local controversy. It is a difficulty compounded of religious difference, social class, geographical concentration and understandable ambitions of a more mobile and more critical population. I shall restrict myself entirely to the problems of the Roman Catholic boys' schools, but even this self-denying ordinance will tax my powers of disentangling a most complex situation which has locally erupted into fierce acrimony.

Put crudely, there are not enough Roman Catholic grammar schools available to provide academic education for eligible Roman Catholic boys, and this situation has prevailed for a very long time. Indeed, there is but one such school in the whole of Wirral, the Christian Brothers' St. Anselm's College situated in Birkenhead. Until last year, its intake was divided roughly equally between the three authorities of Cheshire, Wallasey and Birkenhead, although the catchment area extends as far south as Chester.

For some six years, I was myself a local authority representative on the school's board of governors, and I can recall during the early 'sixties how anxiously we considered the future provision of adequate Catholic education in a peninsular where denominational provision was being increasingly outdistanced by the influx of Liverpool families into Ellesmere Port. Birkenhead has for many years taken up thirty or more so-called "free" places at St. Anselm's, and in 1968—for reasons which may have been linked to Wallasey's decision that year to cease taking up such places—the figure rose as high as 40.

Even this relatively high figure must be recognised as a low percentage of the Roman Catholic children proceeding to secondary education in the borough, and this can be seen when we consider the comparative provision for non-Catholic boys. The number of non-Catholic boys given places at academic schools in the borough—including those for whom "free" places are provided at the direct grant Birkenhead School—is nearly 250.

On the assumption that the ability range among Catholic children is similar to that among non-Catholic—and this is surely a reasonable assumption—we should therefore anticipate roughly 80–85 Catholic children being eligible for entry into grammar schools. In fact, as I have just indicated, the average entry into St. Anselm's from Birkenhead has been little more than a third of this during recent years, and even in 1968 it was at best one half of those eligible for academic schooling. However, until, the mid-sixties it seems to have been quite general to permit eligible Catholic boys to proceed to non-Catholic grammar schools. In 1965, 27 boys were so admitted, and in the two following years the figures were 12 and 19. Adding these figures to the St. Anselm's entry, we find 60 Catholic boys going to grammar schools in 1965, 46 in 1966 and 52 in 1967.

However, in 1968 a change of policy seems to have taken place, for in that year, according to figures supplied to me on 17th July by my right hon. Friend, not a single Catholic boy proceeded to a non-Catholic grammar school. Instead, we find a substantial increase in the number of Catholic boys being admitted to the academic—technical stream at St. Hugh's —a Catholic school, and a further significant entry proceeding to a similar academic-technical stream which was newly being commenced at another Catholic boys' school, the Blessed Edward Campion. To put it precisely, in 1968, 40 boys went to St. Anselm's, and a further 31 and 16 respectively went to the academic technical streams at St. Hugh's and Blessed Edward Campion. This made a grand total of 87 Catholic boys going either to a full grammar school or a modern school with academic-technical streams. However, the policy of sending all Catholic primary boys to Catholic secondary schools, irrespectively of the expressed wishes of their parents, raises some very serious implications which extend not merely to Birkenhead but to the denominational school system as a whole.

Some of these questions I raised with my hon. Friend in correspondence in early 1968, and I think that in the light of subsequent events I should quote her reply to me at some length. She thanked me for my letter of 24th January seeking …my views on the recent decision taken by Birkenhead L.E.A. with the agreement of Shrewsbury Schools Commission, to the effect that Roman Catholic children are to be excluded from County Secondary Schools. I presume from your letter that Canon Rigby has explained to you that the arrangement was thought necessary because of possible educational objections to transfer in any short interim period, when a selective 11–18 Roman Catholic system may operate alongside a 12–18 County Comprehensive system, and because thereafter accommodation at County Schools will not permit any great latitude for the admission of Roman Catholic pupils. My right hon. Friend then went on, however, to make some comments which clearly have great relevance to the very future of the denominational system. Nevertheless", she said, in general a parent who wishes his child to enter a county school is not under any obligation to declare his religious affiliation, and in allocating children to county schools, I would expect an authority to have regard to logistical factors of pressures on accommodation at particular schools, but not the religious inclination of the parents. My right hon. Friend then went on to suggest that the local authority's decision would not operate as rigidly as had been feared, and that the authority would be sympathetic to a Roman Catholic parent who insisted on a place at a county school for his child.

However, this current year the argument has flared afresh, and this time there seems to be some evidence that the assurances of flexibility have not been proved in the event. As my right hon. Friend will know, I have been deluged with letters from constituents who assure me, and describe in detail, how their expressed wishes for non-Catholic grammar schools have been apparently overridden, and their children allocated instead to the academic-technical streams at St. Hugh's and Blessed Edward Campion. Married to this dissatisfaction is the authority's decision to take up no more than 30 places at St. Anselm's College this September.

According to the answer given to me by my right hon. Friend on 17th July, the present anticipated intake of Catholic boys into St. Hugh's academic-technical stream in September will be 48, and for Blessed Edward Campion it will be 21. This makes a grand total of 101 boys going to Catholic secondary schools, with a further two, or maybe three, having been allocated this year to non-Catholic grammar schools. The parents of boys who feel, rightly or wrongly, that their choice of secondary school has been flouted are in effect saying that they want their child to be allocated on the basis of academic criteria and not on the basis of a presumed but far from universally held religious bias.

My right hon. Friend has been engaged in more recent correspondence with me, and a week ago she wrote to me at some length on what is clearly a complex and tangled dispute involving the wishes and interests of at least three conflicting groups: the local education authority, the Diocesan Commission and the parents. In her reply she made clear, as I fully accept, that the local authority has discretion about the number of places it takes up at direct grant schools, and that she could not therefore interfere in the decision to take up no more than 30 places at St. Anselm's this year. As this is a matter exclusively for the local authority, I shall not pursue it further.

My right hon. Friend then turned to the allegations which I had forwarded to her of discrimination against Catholic pupils on the basis of the statistics I quoted earlier. I do not think, she said, that there is really evidence that the authority discriminate against Catholics by their allocation procedures, and I understand that the Diocesan Commissions have made no complaint on that score. If I may interpolate at that stage, I do not think that my right hon. Friend was fully seized of the argument I was transmitting to her from the parents. Their allegation, in effect, is that the local education authority and the Shrewsbury Diocesan Commission have come to an agreement about allocation procedures which infringes their right as parents to choose schools freely for their children, and that the Commission has quite mistakenly assumed an automatic preference for a Catholics secondary school whatever the relative merits—or at least alleged merits—of county schools in the neighbourhood. In these circumstances, the parents have not been mollified to hear my right hon. Friend's argument that the Diocesan Commission has made no protest about recent events.

She went on in her letter to state that the local authority was not completely inflexible, and three Catholic boys out of eight whose parents had appealed against the original allocations have apparently been allowed to proceed to non-Catholic selective schools. However, my right hon. Friend stressed that there were admittedly special considerations for these cases, and I think she would accept there is an inference that without such special considerations a parent's chance of having the allocation altered would be very slender.

In my original letter to my right hon. Friend of 1 st July I had queried the legal position under the 1944 Education Act—particularly the well-known Section 76 which emphasises the importance to be given to parental choice. Understandably, my right hon. Friend could not anticipate a hypothetical legal action brought by the parents, but, from what I hear in my constituency, this may be less hypothetical in the very near future. It is clear that we could be on the eve of a most important test case which could have repercussions across the whole of denominational education in Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware of the importance of this matter, and indeed in her letter made clear that she saw the point of the complaints made to me. She said that she was prepared to take up with the local authority individual appeals for parents who remain dissatisfied and wish to pursue the matter. In normal circumstances, I would be most grateful to my right hon. Friend for such an assurance, but I am not sure that it fully meets the problem. Indeed, by appearing to respond only to those parents who have the ability and stamina to mount a serious protest it might even smack of selective favouritism.

Surely, what is needed is some clarification of an obscure position; for if indeed, as I was assured last year, the Catholic parents do not even have to indicate their religious affiliations, then why on earth do they apparently have to plead exceptional circumstances in order to see that their children go to the school of their choice, Catholic or non-Catholic, as the case may be?

Incidentally, does it not equally follow that if the Catholic parent is under no obligation to send his child to a Catholic secondary school—and this would be my layman's reading of the 1944 Act—then the non-Catholic parent is also free to shop around, as it were, sending his child to St. Anselm's, for example, on a local authority free place? This is only one of many disturbing hints of the repercussions which could follow an assault on the conventions which have guided the development of denominational education in the post-war years.

The rules of order in this debate preclude me discussing the Birkenhead case against the backcloth of the legislation which may appear in the forthcoming Parliamentary Session, bat I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the time is rapidly approaching when decisions about the future of denominational secondary schooling must be taken. Today, when Catholic communities are, like the rest of us, increasingly mobile and becoming scattered across the land, the problems of comprehensive reorganisation for Catholic secondary schools which deal with large catchment areas are becoming more urgent and difficult. However, my purpose is not to elaborate such themes today, much as I am tempted to ask how we can indefinitely reconcile a policy of abolishing educational apartheid with a separate denominational secondary system. I am simply trying to ventilate a constituency problem which is seemingly intractable and, to me at any rate, rather worrying.

I have the very greatest personal respect for the work being done in all three of the boys' schools that I have been discussing—I have in my time been a governor of all three—and it saddens me to find them caught up in the fury of an argument which could so easily damage their reputations and objectives.

Perhaps the situation has become so vexed and confused that my right hon. Friend will consider setting up a departmental inquiry into the whole issue, and see whether a more thorough probe than is possible in such a debate as this might clarify and ease the situation. I understand that the Educational Right Committee which has been set up in Birkenhead to pursue the matter is seeking a public inquiry of some sort, and, while I am always fearful of suggesting anything which might postpone the taking of difficult but inevitable decisions, I am increasingly inclined to see some merit in this broad suggestion.

This is a traditionally delicate area of public policy, and an objective and national examination of the many interlocked problems would seem a useful precaution against actions and statements which could so easily spark off traditional suspicions and animosities. In all of this, we should remember the children over whose future the argument rages, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond to these summary remarks of mine in a way which will help resolve the dispute.

11.8 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon)

I am not sure whether I have to ask the leave of the House in making what is my third speech this morning.

Listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Edwin Brooks), I became convinced that the real problem we are discussing is not of denominational education in the area as a whole, but really selection for secondary education in one part of the Wirral—Birkenhead. I think the whole problem stems from selection for secondary education. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the lasting solution to this problem lies in a complete end to selection and the development of comprehensive education in both Roman Catholic and county schools. This is the real problem and the ultimate solution.

It is instructive to see how a neighbouring authority, Wallasey, is now providing appropriate courses for Roman Catholic children of all abilities in Roman Catholic schools. Earlier arrangements for Roman Catholic boys were similar to those made in Birkenhead. Each year about 20 pupils went to St. Anselm's and about 50 to county grammar schools. In 1968 selection was ended, and Roman Catholic boys are now staying in their middle schools until the age of 13. They will then go to a third-tier boys' comprehensive school, which is to open in 1970, and transfer two years later to new purpose-built premises.

A reorganisation scheme for Roman Catholic schools in Birkenhead has recently been submitted to my Department, and I am hopeful, therefore, that in Birkenhead also all Roman Catholic children will have the opportunity to follow suitable courses in Roman Catholic schools. The scheme provides that, initially, Roman Catholic boys will go to either a mixed comprehensive school or to a boys' comprehensive school, St. Hugh's, and then to the sixth form at St. Anselm's, which is a direct grant school.

The intention is that in 1972 the authority will stop taking up so-called free places at all direct-grant schools. I should explain here that so-called free places in direct grant schools are not free to the local authority. The local authority has to pay for them, sometimes a very high fee, in addition to the direct grant from my Department. I understand that at Birkenhead the so-called free places to St. Anselm's have in the past been offered only to Roman Catholic boys.

In 1972, when the change is made, St. Hugh's and St. Anselm's will link as comprehensive schools and pupils will then transfer from St. Hugh's to St. Anselm's at 14-plus without selection. I hope to be able to give my decision on this scheme in about a month or so, and I feel that, when the scheme is in operation, the difficulties will be ironed out.

As I say, this may provide the solution in the reasonably near future, but I know that my hon. Friend is concerned with the immediate problem arising from selection. Before turning to the particular points which he raised, I have two general observations to make.

First, we should not exaggerate the scale of the problem. The vast majority of Roman Catholic parents in Birkenhead have not objected to the authority's policy or decisions, but a few of my hon. Friends constituents have expressed disquiet. But this would not be a surprising number in any area where selection persists.

Secondly, I think it unfortunate that the problem has been presented as one of religious discrimination, with all the emotional undertones which that involves. I would be no party to religious discrimination in education or any other field, and I am sure that the Birkenhead authority does not intend to discriminate against Roman Catholics. But there will be discrimination, though not religious discrimination, as long as selection persists. This we have to accept. That is why we want to go ahead as soon as possible with the ending of selection.

Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle)

It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would confirm that over the whole of the country what she has just said about Roman Catholic parents and children is entirely accepted by the Catholic community, and the relationship between ourselves, the Government and the schools generally is almost perfect.

Miss Bacon

I thank my hon. Friend for that and agree with what he says.

In making those two points, I do not want it to be thought that I discount the genuine and strong feelings of the Birkenhead parents concerned.

Let us now examine the facts. The number of Roman Catholic boys allocated to secondary academic schools or streams has increased in recent years. There were 61 in 1966, 60 in 1967, 87 in 1968 and there will be 99 in 1969. In the last two years, Roman Catholic boys formed 25 per cent. of the total number of boys taking the selection tests, and they obtained 25 per cent. of the academic places. The figures do not suggest unfair treatment.

I know that those who complain are more concerned with the distribution of academic places for Roman Catholic boys between various schools rather than the total number. In particular, some think that the authority should have taken more free places at St. Anselm's direct grant school. Last year, it was offered and accepted 40 places, but for 1969 admissions it took only 30 out of 40 places offered. I understand that the 1968 number was exceptionally high and that in earlier years 33 places had been taken. As my hon. Friend knows, authorities have discretionary power to take places, for which they have to pay, at direct grant schools, but I would not intervene to compel them to do so.

The Roman Catholic parents' most serious complaint is that, since 1968, their children have been excluded from the county grammar schools and sent instead to academic streams in Roman Catholic schools. Here, I should say that, although these are the academic streams in secondary modern schools, this is preparing the way for the reorganisation plan which is at present at my Department, when the whole set-up will change.

It is true that the number of Roman Catholic boys admitted to county grammar schools was 27 in 1965, 12 in 1966, 19 in 1967, none in 1968, and, to date, five for 1969, but in 1965 the academic stream at St. Hugh's contained 11 boys and, in the subsequent three years, 15,8 and 31. Perhaps 48 will be admitted in 1969. Moreover, another academic stream was started at Blessed Edward Campion School in 1968 for 16 boys, and the numbers are expected to increase to 21 this year. In general, I find it encouraging that many secondary schools are now developing a wider range of courses, and it may be that the Birkenhead Authority particularly wished to strengthen this development in schools which are to become comprehensive in the near future.

There has been an allegation that the number of passes at these schools in examinations has not been as high as those at grammar schools, but. I should make clear that there can be no comparison because those taking external examinations at the present time at the top of these schools went in when children had already been creamed off to other schools. No proper comparison can be made until 1973 when those who recently entered the schools reach the top of the schools.

Nevertheless, I agree that, if Roman Catholic parents want their children to go to the county grammar schools in preference to academic streams in Roman Catholic schools, they must not be excluded simply because of their religion.

I have already written twice to my hon. Friend about this, and I welcome the present opportunity to dispel what seemed to be misunderstandings about my letters. I hope that, when he has heard what I have to say, my hon. Friend will be able to reassure his constituents. I believe that there is some concern because I said that it was not unreasonable for an authority to adopt a general principle that Roman Catholic schools were for Roman Catholic pupils and non-Roman Catholic schools for non-Roman Catholic pupils. But I made that remark in the context of the plans which local authorities and Roman Catholics have to make about future building programmes and so on. We could not possibly duplicate all the places in the two types of school. As I said, this general principle is a working basis for all authorities and denominational bodies as well, for how else could they make realistic allocations of expenditure between county and voluntary schools or plan sensible schemes of reorganisation?

I would agree that a better description of this principle could perhaps be found than that given in that section of the Authority's circular letter dealing with the allocation of Roman Catholics to secondary education; but that does not mean that the general Principle is unreasonable.

Whilst the general principle may not be unreasonable, its rigid application may lead to wrong results in particular cases. The Education Act lays on a local education authority the duty to pay due regard to the parent's wishes about the education of his children.

It does not follow, however, that the wishes can always be met—this is so for non-Catholics as well as for Roman Catholics—for the authority must also ensure that these are compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

So far as the cases in Birkenhead are concerned, I would expect the Authority, in allocating children to county grammar schools, to take account of parental choice of schools, performance in the selection tests and the logistical factors of pressure on accommodation at various schools, but not solely on the religious inclinations of the parents.

I could not agree with what my hon. Friend requested, because I do not think that this is a matter which could be appropriately dealt with by holding a public inquiry, but in my recent letter I offered to take up with the authority individual appeals from parents who wish to pursue the matter; and I will do this if I can have the relevant details.

I am sure that this will provide the quickest and most practical way of dealing with the complaints. But I want to emphasise that I believe that this is a temporary matter and I believe that the solution is the adoption of the Roman Catholic secondary reorganisation plan

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m.