BRENT (Hansard, 8 May 1975)

§ Q1. Mr. Canavan
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit the London borough of Brent.

§ Q2. Mr. Cartwright
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to visit the London borough of Brent.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)
I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, he hopes to be in 1607 the London borough of Brent on Saturday to see the Rugby League Cup Final.

§ Mr. Canavan
On his next visit to Brent, will the Prime Minister assure the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who contributed to the recent Black Paper on education, that the idea of educational vouchers is completely unacceptable to any Labour Government, since it would reduce children to the status of being near-chattels of the market place? Will the Prime Minister also reiterate Labour's education policy that comprehensive education should be available free to all children without the necessity to pay fees, trading stamps or any other half-baked Tory nonsense?

§ Mr. Short
I can given a complete assurance to my hon. Friend on his first point. We do not intend that a commodity like education should be sold over the counter, like groceries, for vouchers.
As for my hon. Friend's second point, I assure him that we intend to ensure in this Parliament that the policy of comprehensivisation is completed.

§ Mr. Cormack
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) is absent today only because he is lecturing in Washington on some of the concepts outlined in his Black Paper. Is he aware, further, that many people in this country believe that the Black Paper highlights many of the real deficiencies in our education system? Will he consider a thoroughgoing review, such as that which has been demanded by the Opposition, into the working of our education system?

§ Mr. Short
No, Sir. I do not agree at all. This Black Paper is like all its predecessers, and they were among some of the most shoddy and, to me, defamatory documents that we have ever had about education. For one of the coauthors to be the head of a comprehensive school, as he was then, and for another to be a university professor, is quite disgraceful. This document, like all its predecessers, is a ragbag of slogans—and nothing more—which have been described by the magazine Education as ranging from the tendentious to the banal.

§ Mr. Cartwright
In view of the constant knocking campaign against the standards of education in comprehensive schools, of which the Black Paper forms part, will my right hon. Friend confirm once again the substantial achievements of our comprehensive schools, especially in inner London, where, over the past 30 years, they have provided many opportunities for thousands of working-class children who would never have enjoyed them under the narrow selective system which the Black Paper advocates?

§ Mr. Short
Indeed, that is the case. This Black Paper brings no evidence to support its assertion that standards in education are falling and that able children are suffering in comprehensive schools. There is no evidence of this, and none is produced for the assertion in the Black Paper.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Whatever may be the varying views on education, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his suggestion of restrictions on comment on the matter is repugnant to our cherished tradition of open discussion in a free society?

§ Mr. Short
I have not said anything about restricting comment. What I protested about was the standard of comment and the disgraceful defamatory comments in the last Black Paper about myself, as well as other people, which are unworthy of a university professor and the former head of a comprehensive school.