EDUCATION, MANSFIELD (Hansard, 18 January 1972)

§ Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

I do not know whether I am expected to apologise to the Under-Secretary for dragging him here at this unearthly hour to answer the debate. As a former miner working at night comes as second nature to me. But this is the luck of the draw, and it is no deliberate plan of mine to be here at 3.30 a.m.

The problem of future education in Mansfield arises from the historical fact that Mansfield's selective schools have had to provide education not only for Mansfield's own pupils but also for those from surrounding areas. We are left with the freak situation of having within the borough 4,410 main school places for secondary education and of these more than half—2,250—are selective places. The situation is highlighted by Her Majesty's inspector's report on Brunts 426 Grammar School, Mansfield, on the areas of intake for the six years 1963 to 1968. Of an intake of 510 pupils, 238 or 46.67 per cent. were from within the Borough of Mansfield and 272 or 53.3 per cent. were from outside.

Since 1964 comprehensive schools have opened in the surrounding areas and the Nottinghamshire local education committee plans to have six comprehensive schools within a six-mile radius of Mansfield by the end of 1973 when it expects that about 7,440 pupils will be receiving a comprehensive education. Added to this list is the comprehensive school in the neighbouring constituency of Bolsover in Derbyshire. So, by the end of 1973, Mansfield Borough will be completely surrounded by areas with a system of comprehensive education. These schools will provide academic places for over 2,000 children who would have had to be catered for in Mansfield's selective schools. Selective places in Mansfield will become surplus to requirements. At present just over 50 per cent. are selective, and the education authority suggest that this has to be adjusted to something like 28 per cent. selective and 72 per cent. non-selective.

In addition there is to be the raising of the school leaving age. Provided that Mansfield fills the spare selective places created in Mansfield itself with the increased numbers of non-selective children it will be able to absorb almost the whole of the increased secondary population arising from the raising of the school leaving age. The spare places almost exactly balance. There are 4,410 main school places. The number required in Mansfield in 1972 will be 4,360, in 1973 it will be 4,631, in 1974 it will be 4,515 and in 1975, 4,450. The Nottinghamshire Education Authority has decided not to allocate any money to Mansfield because of the raising of the school leaving age.

There is an increasing feeling that Mansfield is being left out of things. One increasingly hears such remarks as, "Mansfield is being turned into an educational backwater"; "Educational Standards in Mansfield will suffer"; "The secondary moderns will become educational slums." That is hardly good reading for parents in the Nottinghamshire Evening Post or the Mansfield Chronicle-Advertiser.

427 The system is already creating educational problems. The latest one is of a family from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose children used to attend the comprehensive school in Shirebrook, Derbyshire. Mansfield Secondary School has nothing to offer by comparison with its curriculum.

I would advise people moving into the area to try to stay outside the boundary of Mansfield, which does not have one comprehensive school. I understand from the answer to Question No. 85 on 26th February, 1971, that not one pupil from within the borough is receiving comprehensive education. I hope that this debate will start us off towards a fair deal and the end of the saga of Brunts Grammar School and Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar Schools.

With regard to Brunts, I can do no better than quote the inspector's report of 1969: The reports of 1936 and 1954 devoted considerable space to describing the inadequacies of the premises. It is more than unfortunate that the report could repeat almost verbatim made on the premises by the two previous ones, though it must be said in all fairness that the Governors have been singularly unlucky in their efforts to improve the situation, when first the 1939 War thwarted them, then a proposal to add some accommodation in 1958 was changed to a suggestion for rebuilding on a new site, and a proposal for secondary reorganisation in 1965 resulted in their withdrawing their building project from the 1966–67 building programme. In the proposals it was suggested that the building plans be deferred to the 1967–68 building programme, but now, in 1972, Brunts is 10th in order of priority for the 1973–74 programme.

The 1969 report concluded: The school still appears to be a happy community and maintains the tradition of hard work in the face of deficiencies of premises which have been recorded for at least 33 years. The devotion of the headmaster and staff in overcoming difficulties and the needs of present generations of pupils merit serious attempts to improve, without further delay, the working conditions in this school. I entirely agree with that. With the Brunts saga and the mess which we are in with regard to the proposed recommendation of the Nottinghamshire County Council with regard the Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar 428 Schools going bilateral, there is little wonder that the people of Mansfield are becoming angry with the county council on its attitude towards Mansfield education.

Yesterday, 18th January, 1972, according to the Answer to Question No. 44 on 16th December, 1971, is the final day for statutory objections to this proposal. Consultation between the county council and parents, pupils and staff have left a lot to be desired. The council's proposals have been condemned by parents, pupils, headmaster, staff, governors, West Notts Divisional Executive, Mansfield Borough Council, Mansfield's M.P. and were, I understand, the way out of our difficulties least recommended by the then Director of Education. I assure the Minister that when, at Mansfield Town Council, Councillor Max Banks moves a proposal and Councillor Mrs. Caley seconds it, history is being made in Mansfield. The proposed scheme is certainly being opposed and the oft heard remark about the scheme is that it is "neither nowt nor summat."

I feel sorry for and have already forgiven the only county councillor in the area who found himself having to vote for the scheme, proving, of course, that there was quite a three-line whip in evidence on that occasion at County Hall. It also proved what I always suspected, namely, that when the county council wants to be political, it can show its fangs.

But the final decision rests with the Secretary of State and in the letter from the Department dated 23rd December the right hon. Lady promised to consider all the circumstances and said that the views of my constituents would be taken into consideration.

It is not often that an hon. Member can say that he has the full backing of his constituents, but on this issue, as the correspondence shows, the Minister will be aware that I can make this claim. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet a deputation of parents and staff, who have formed themselves into a committee following numerous well attended meetings, so tht they can put their views forward about what they are calling a sordid situation.

For historic reasons, Mansfield has been left with a freak situation from the 429 education point of view. We are going to need a great deal of help from the Government in general and the Department in particular to overcome this situation. I am tonight asking for the Department's inspectors to come to Mansfield and make a report on the position, for we are talking about the best investment that we in my constituency can make, and that lies in the education of our children. We are most certainly not satisfied with the progress that is being made.

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

I shall attempt to deal with, if not fully to answer, the various points raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).

I make no complaint whatever about the lateness of the hour at which this debate is taking place, which is neither his fault nor mine, though it proves that mining is not the only occupation in which one is trained to work at night. It is clear that when necessary both of us can be moles.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not go into any detail on the merits of the matters he raised in relation to the Sherwood Hall Boys and Girls Technical Grammar Schools. No discourtesy is intended, and the hon. Gentleman will understand that, as it happened, yesterday—and it is "yesterday" in Parliamentary terms—was the expiry date for objections to be made to my right hon. Friend in relation to Section 13 notices.

Unless that procedure is to be a farce, any Secretary of State of any party must retain a certain judical independence while the Section 13 process is continuing. Once the date is passed, as it now is, the local education authority, in this case Nottinghamshire, has the right, which is given to all, to comment on the objections, and doubtless that will now take place. However, it would be improper for me to comment in any way, one way or the other, on the merits of those proposals.

I am well aware that on the publication of the statutory notices objections have been made. I understand that the effect of the notices is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to make a significant change in the character of these two schools and 430 convert them into bilateral schools, in each of which half of the entry would be by selection at eleven plus and the remainder of the entry would be from the locality of the school without selection. I understand that a number of local people have submitted objections to the Department. It is right and proper that they should wish to do so and I note the hon. Gentleman's comment that he would like to associate himself with the request for a deputation to be received.

I hope I am accurate in saying that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State on this matter and my noble Friend has explained—and I think he is right on this—that he would prefer to wait until the period for objections has expired and until he has had the opportunity of studying the county's comments on the points raised by the objectors before making a decision. My noble Friend must, like myself, be very careful not to destroy or impair the objectivity of the approach which the Secretary of State will make to this matter.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the objections lodged under the statutory procedures will be most carefully examined, as will the comments of the local education authority. This is the very reason for having the procedures. Otherwise, why have them? 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 important to them.

I thought, too, because I realise that this has been a matter of dispute, debate and discussion for many years, that the hon. Gentleman might raise the question of Brunts Grammar School. No words that I use are meant to import any complacency into the state of the school. Given greatly increased resources, there are schools all over the country—we can all think of them—that we would like to get our hands on, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as with all forms of government, this is a matter of priorities.

For better or for worse—from my point of view I am clear that it is for the better—my right hon. Friend, after she has, as any Secretary of State must, provided for "roofs over heads" as we call them in shorthand, is devoting the first 431 priority of her resources to the replacement of old primary schools. I can perhaps put it in this way, that the cost of the replacement of Brunts Grammar School is roughly equivalent to the replacement of four or five primary schools. That is the equation that we have to take on board.

The national background against which my right hon. Friend has to take her decision is that about one in five of our primary school children are in nineteenth century schools, compared with about one in twenty in secondary schools. That is the justification—I realise that this is controversial—for the concentration, at least at present, upon the replacement of old primary schools. But I do not go on from there—and certainly my right hon. Friend does not—to suggest that there is not a great task still to be done in the secondary schools, but, given the need to have a system of priorities, I assert that this is the right order of priorities, and the county of which the hon. Gentleman represents part has benefited from this policy.

My observation at Question Time was that the policy had been widely supported in the hon. Gentleman's county. In the four years from 1970–71 to 1973–74, Nottinghamshire has had allocations for the purpose I have been talking about of £150,000, £280,000, £219,000, and now £400,000. The last of those, as the hon. Gentleman knows, includes the replacement of St. Peter's Church of England primary school in Mansfield at a cost of £84,000. I have to set this against the national background, while not importing for one moment any sense of complacency.

I thought it might also be of assistance to tell the House, because I have been able to make inquiries at rather short notice on this point—about monies for R.S.L.A. purposes in Mansfield. The hon. Gentleman used a phrase about how he wished that Her Majesty's inspector, might come down to Mansfield, but throughout the country one of the advantages of the inspectorial system and 432 one of the great strengths of the British educational system is that they do not have to "come down" but are around constantly, and while they might not make a visitation at regular intervals they are very much in touch. I am informed that in all the secondary schools in Nottinghamshire, where no major capital work is being done for raising the school leaving age, the authority is proposing to make some provision so that it will be seen that every school will have been helped. I have been provided, through the assistance of the Inspectorate, with a list of those schools. In one of them the headmaster is not yet aware of the firm nature of the project, but soon will be. I have been able to look around them all, on paper, and I think it makes an impressive story.

The object is to do precisely as the hon. Gentleman says, to have something on the ground, maybe not always sufficient, to mark this important matter of raising the school leaving age. I hope he and I are in full agreement, that it is an important step forward and one which I hope neither of us will be put off by criticisms from any quarter.

My time is virtually up and, if I may just draw the threads together, for reasons the hon. Gentleman has understood, and which I hope will be understood locally, I do not feel able to comment at all on the matter of the Section 13 notices at present in front of us. I have attempted to place the Brunts School replacement in a national background. I realise that answer is not encouraging immediately, but most educationalists would feel that priority dictates it as the right one. I will, of course, convey to my noble Friend the point about a deputation, but I have expressed the problem of timing which I think the hon. Gentleman accepts and I have mentioned the allocation of monies to the R.S.L.A. projects to show the determined attempt by the authority to make preparation for this very important event in our educational history.