HC Deb 01 August 1972 vol 842 cc521-30

11.45 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

The people I represent in this House would like me to say first of all to the Under-Secretary of State that they are most appreciative of his attendance tonight to answer to them, through me, on this matter—a matter which is so important to them, especially to those who are parents.

There are two things I must make clear at the outset. One is that I am unique among Members of Parliament in not pretending to have any influence on the borough council or any standing in the council's discharge of the responsibility which we in this House have put on it. The second is that I raise this purely local matter exceptionally in this House now only because the point has been reached when the Minister is brought into play with a function under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944. Once the Minister has a function, this House has a function; and once this House has a function,I have a function.

The Minister's function is that laid down in Section 13(3), namely, to consider modifying a proposal to combine Downshall Secondary Modern School with Beal Girls' Grammar School in Ilford, in response to an objection submitted by the managers and governors of the schools affected and by local electors. I wish to make sure that the petitioners' feelings are publicly and fully expressed and acknowledged by the Minister in this House.

The Secretary of State acts in this matter in a quasi-judicial manner. We do not therefore expect from her, through my hon. Friend, a judgment or comment here and now, but I think we are properly entitled to ask for three things. First, we ask for an assurance that the Minister has the message from the objectors, which I will explain directly; secondly an indication from my hon. Friend now about when the Secretary of State's decision is likely to be made public; and thirdly a description of the process by which this decision will be reached and the sort of considerations and criteria that will be in the Minister's mind when making her decision.

It is my duty to deliver the objectors' message as I understand it. They are objecting to two things. Specifically and in detail, they object to the proposed reorganisation of these two schools. Secondly, and in general, they object to something much deeper and more fundamental, to which I shall refer later.

The specific objections, taken in order, are these. The objectors submit that it is wrong to combine two schools three-quarters of a mile apart because of the inevitable waste of time in travelling and the disruption of timetables. They submit that this will cut the time the staff will spend on teaching and will increase opportunities for truancy and indiscipline.

They submit that the proposal for a lower-tier Downshall School and an upper-tier Beal School will cause a break at 14 which will be particularly disruptive to children taking O-levels at 15.

They submit that the proposed change will disrupt the studies of girls already at Beal Grammar School, especially as this change may cause staff resignations.

They feel that the catchment area for the proposed new school will consist largely of an area in the older part of the borough. They envisage even that there may be a gradual shift of parents with particular ambitions for their children into areas where the general educational ambitions for their children into areas where the general educational standards of the majority of those in the catchment area might supposedly be higher. They see this as a form of selection by wealth, which is the very thing that some of those most enthusiastically in favour of comprehensive eduction get most excited against.

The fear that the money to be used for raising the school leaving age will be diverted to converting the Beal Grammar School for girls into a mixed school, since no funds are to be made available specifically for reorganisation.

With reference to the reorganisation of secondary education in the borough as a whole, they ask the Minister further to consider that if she rejects the merger of the Beal and Downshall schools, she must then logically allow the Beal Boys' Grammar School to be rescued also, otherwise the balance in the borough as between boys' and girls' places will be upset.

Their next objection I shall quote verbatim from the notice of objection: In the knowledge of the shortage of maths, science and language graduates entering the teaching profession we cannot feel convinced that each and every proposed comprehensive school will be able to offer courses leading to university entrance in the same way as at present offered in the grammar schools. This must mean a lowering of standards for those children who would have achieved selected places under the present system. In this connection one grammar school in this borough which is in process of converting to a comprehensive school is already restricting the range of academic subjects it offers to its pupils. Next, the objectors believe that the present proposed scheme leaves only one girls' grammar school in the borough, and this at one end of a sprawling borough in which the communications are roughly comparable to those in the Sahara desert. Therefore no girl in the Chadwell ward, to be precise, will be able to take a grammar school place if she gets one.

Finally, the objectors express doubts as to the wisdom of destroying schools of proven educational value when doubt is being increasingly expressed, as they claim, among educationists about academic standards in comprehensive.

So much for the detailed points. But underlying the detail there is a far deeper feeling, which is not always articulated, that somehow there has been a betrayal. The objectors feel that they are the ones who believe in excellence. The believe in high standards, hard work, discipline, endeavour and attainment. They feel that their beliefs are not being supported by authority in the way they are entitled to expect. They suspect that the worst elements among those who support the idea of comprehensive education and oppose them are motivated by envy, sloth, resentment and a desire to pander to the vicious class myths of the Left.

Their cry may not be a very fashionable one at the moment. Certainly it is not the most popular one, and perhaps it is less than just to the best of those who are opposed to them. But they are entitled to be heard, and I ask my hon. Friend—he is a Conservative Minister—to give sincere and sympathetic consideration to their objections.

I said that the cry of the objectors was not a popular one, and I should be less than frank with the House if I did not concede that opinion expressed by teachers in the borough and by parent-teacher associations and others consulted, with the exception of the body which is specifically organised to preserve the grammar schools, and which have all been conscientiously consulted by councillors, is in favour of the proposals of the Redbridge Borough Council to which the objectors are objecting, namely, to limit grammar schools in the borough to two and to bring about this particular merger to which the objectors object. Whether the opinion that has thus been expressed and which I felt it only right to confess to the House is indicative of total opinion in the borough is not for me to say. But that expression of opinion must not he concealed.

It might be fairer to conclude that the impartial observer would say,

  • "There is so much good in the worst of us,
  • And so much had in the best of us
  • That it ill-behoves the most of us
  • To cast aspersions on the rest of us."
I shall allow myself one personal comment, because it is wrong not to make a frank statement of one's own personal position. If I had had to face the dilemma—it has been a painful dilemma which has not been brought upon them by any wish of theirs—which faced the councillors of the Redbridge Borough Council, I doubt whether I could have honestly opposed the scheme which has been eventually, and is now currently and largely reluctantly, adopted by the majority of the council. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who objected to it. It would have been with reluctance that I should have been persuaded to support it. It is largely because of the fault of Labour Government, now the Opposition, that the councillors were placed in such a situation, let me add in parenthesis. None the less, and especially because of that, I urge that serious consideration be given to the objections under Section 13.

Finally, I refer to a painful topic on which many constituents would welcome some comfort and advice from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. There are many families which are now suffering anguish and bitter disappointment in the borough because a son or daughter has qualified for a grammar school place and has been denied a place in either of the grammar schools now being retained in the borough, because of the reorganisation which is taking place. It is particularly painful in some cases where twins have both qualified for grammar school places and one has been given the grammar school of his or her choice while the other one has been denied a place at all. I have had the most distressing and heartrending letters asking for my help in this and other tragic situations.

One father wrote to me explaining that the whole family had been dedicating themselves for some four years to making sure that their boy succeeded in getting a place in a grammar school. The boy secured a place and, between being told that he had succeeded and being told what school he could go to, the father and the boy had gone round the borough looking at the grammar schools and deciding which one they would like him to go to. They were then told that they could have no place at all. The boy has come out in a rash, and anyone who knows anything about the way the body and the mind relate will realise that a boy of 11 years does not come out in a rash for nothing.

That is the sort of thing of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be aware. It should be realised what terrible and crushing repercussions this kind of reorganisation of education can have. I hope that it is not unfair if I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the matter. It is not a matter on which my hon. Friend, the House or I, as a Member of the House, have a proper function as I understand it, but it is a matter which is causing great distress in the homes of many of those who perhaps offer the most to our country and who are entitled to the best in the education system. I do not want my hon. Friend to turn a deaf ear to these people any more than to those on whose behalf I have, perhaps more appropriately, explained the submissions made by way of the Section 13 objection.

11.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee)

My hon. Friend has asked me basically to deal with three matters. I shall do my best to do exactly that in the limited time which he and I understand the rules of the House give us.

First, my hon. Friend asks me to confirm that a careful note will be taken of what he delivers on the Floor of the House as a message from the objectors to the various notices under Section 13 by the local education authority. I am definitely able to give him that assurance. On many occasions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown that she pays the closest personal attention to objections under Section 13—I now speak of the country as a whole—and that it is no mere formality where she is concerned.

My hon. Friend was kind enough to explain the semi- or quasi-judicial nature of my right hon. Friend's duties. Therefore, he understands totally—and I hope his explanation has helped his constituents to understand—that it would be totally wrong for me and not in their best interest if I expressed tonight judgments or views about the merits of the matters which are the subject of the Section 13 notices. These are matters which need to be carefully considered and there are Statutory procedures to be gone through. It would be wrong of me in one way or another to prejudice that consideration by anything I said tonight. It is for that reason that I am not going to comment on the detailed matters which are the subject of the Section 13 notices. I confirm, however, that objections both received already and yet to be received will of course be given the most careful weight.

My hon. Friend asked when I thought my right hon. Friend would make public her decision. She is anxious to take an early decision on the proposals. The period covered by notice runs until 7th September. Therefore, local people have the opportunity until then to make their views known. The next step is for us to seek the authority's comments on any objections which have been received and to inform ourselves fully of all the relevant factors. That being so, and that procedure having been gone through—it is no mere formality with my right hon. Friend—I assure my hon. Friend that a decision on the proposals will after that be reached as quickly as possible. Beyond that, it is not proper for me to go if careful consideration is to be given.

My hon. Friend asked me to have understanding, which I do, of the feelings of parents whose children are not allotted, at the present state of the reorganisation in the borough, to a grammar school for which they feel their child has qualified. I think he perhaps has two particular schools in mind which started their first comprehensive intake in September. Both he and I would want to avoid any comment appearing to be critical of the devoted staff who work in both schools. Experience suggests that there are difficulties when comprehensive schools are being introduced in an area over a period rather than all at once, that preparation and constant oversight are certainly needed when schools have to operate in older buildings for an interim period until purpose-built accommodation can be provided.

The best I can say at the moment is that we sympathise with the authority's wish to replace the whole of one and part of another of the schools concerned at an early date. My right hon. Friend feels it is right at present, however, to concentrate the resources available on the improvement of old primary schools. I do not say that as an apology, because I believe that as a national policy this is broadly acceptable to a very large number of people, but it does necessarily constrict us when it comes to the replacement of existing secondary buildings of whatever kind.

Last of all, but most important, my hon. Friend asked if I would describe the sort of considerations in the Secretary of State's mind when she considers—as she is considering at present in the case of the borough a part of which my hon. Friend represents—Section 13 notices of this kind.

First, any proposals must be able to be implemented in reasonable conditions and make a wise use of existing resources. It is true that use often has to be made of existing buildings which were not designed for the needs of a full ability range, and although much can be done and is being done by the teaching profession and the local authorities to ameliorate conditions, my right hon. Friend gives careful attention to any proposal for a school in sub-standard premises or a school in two or more sets of premises. The latter situation, of two or more sets of premises, in particular can create problems of administration and communication, of which we are all aware. If we lived in a perfect world such schools would be replaced at once in new buildings on one site. But, as I have said, my right hon. Friend is giving the priority of her resources—after providing for "roofs over heads"—to the replacement of old primary schools. My right hon. Friend is careful, therefore, to approve only those proposals where the educational advantages outweigh the obvious drawbacks of unsuitable buildings.

My right hon. Friend, secondly, is concerned with the size of any proposed school. Smaller schools may not offer the breadth of opportunity at all levels which is available in a larger school. But with generous staffing and careful planning they can and do succeed and develop strong sixth forms with a good range of "A" level options. My right hon. Friend has said on several occasions that she thinks that children may benefit from the atmosphere of a smaller community. Larger schools have obvious advantages in the range of options that they can offer, but they pose problems of organisation. A great deal depends upon the particular area, the children and the staffing available.

On another point of organisation, my right hon. Friend looks most carefully at proposals for two-tier systems. She looks particularly at the age of transfer from the lower school to the upper school. My hon. Friend specifically mentioned that point. Here again, my right hon. Friend is concerned that the standard of education in an area should be preserved and, where possible, improved as a result of any proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education.

My hon. Friend will notice that I have used the words "the standard of education". I am not one of those who shy away from the use of the word "standards" when it comes to education. I hope that it is common ground between us—I believe that my hon. Friend can rest assured about it—that my right hon. Friend has particularly at heart the interests of the children concerned.

The practical advantages of a proposal must always be weighed against its effect on the educational opportunities and standards existing in an area. It is for this reason that each proposal is considered on its merits and in relation to the effect which a change of character will have. In approving a proposal, my right hon. Friend would do so in the expectation that the range and standard of courses open to a child would at least be maintained, as would the ratio of staff to pupils and the standard of accommodation and practical facilities. In many cases the effect of reorganisation is not only to maintain but to improve these standards.

Last but by no means least, my right hon. Friend looks to see that a proposal accords with local wishes. It is for this very reason that the statutory procedure provides for objections by interested parties and for comments on those objections to be made by the local education authority. It is proper that local people who are much affected should have the opportunity of expressing a view upon a matter which is obviously very im- portant to them. This debate provides another channel for an expression of that view.

I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure my hon. Friend that no decision is taken on matters of such weight and concern to him and his constituents as statutory proposals for the reorganisation of education without very careful personal consideration by my right hon. Friend not only as to their own merits but as to their likely effect on the standard of education in the area. If that can be conveyed, I hope and believe that once again my hon. Friend will have done a service to his constituents.

Mr. Iremonger

Will my hon. Friend say something about the difficulties of parents and children who are not getting the school of their choice? What is it best for us to try to do for them?

Mr. van Straubenzee

I must make it clear that the House for a long time, rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—has vested in the local education authority, substantially, the administration of individual schools. It does not rest with my hon. Friend as Member of Parliament or with myself as representing the Department to make detailed decisions in matters of this kind. As my hon. Friend knows, there rests the residuary power in the Secretary of State which can be appealed to in the case of an aggrieved individual parent. In our partnership system, it is the administration of education which we vest in the locally elected representatives of the people. I believe that there are far greater strengths in that system than weaknesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.