HC Deb 08 December 1978 vol 959 cc1833-44

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

I greatly welcome the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to raise the question of the closure of Eggington school in my constituency of South Bedfordshire. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I begin by thanking her and her staff for seeing a delegation from the village during the summer to discuss the proposed closure, and for the courteous and helpful way in which they have listened to the case put forward then and in other representations which I have made to her Department.

A proposal to close a school in Bedfordshire is a most unusual event. Since 1945, there has been a considerable rise in the county population, along with substantial housing development, some of it done at a great pace. Inevitably, therefore, new schools have been needed in the county, and they have been provided, so that it is virtually unique to have to bring before the House, as a result of the county council's decision, the subject of a proposal to close a school in Bedfordshire.

I shall give a brief history of the matter. In 1975—I hasten to add that that was when the county council was not in the control of the Conservative Party—a small schools committee was set up to consider the possibility of closing schools. In fact, the possibility of closing Eggington school arose in 1975, and again I hasten to add that this was not done on a party-political basis. There was no absolute majority party in control then.

In the autumn of 1975 I wrote to the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), pointing out, first, the proposal of the county council and, second, the anxiety which it had immediately aroused. In her reply of 7th October 1975 the hon. Lady said: In considering the proposals "— that is, to close the school— the Secretary of State takes into account the educational considerations, economic factors and any points made in objections. It is the last bit of that sentence which is important— any points made in objections. As the Minister knows, a large number of points were made to the Department both by letter and orally when the delegation came with me to see her in July. Nevertheless, in spite of that meeting, the county council went ahead this year and applied for a section 13 notice under the 1944 Act to close the school. The present Under-Secretary of State wrote to me a little earlier this year, on 9th November—a rather brief letter, if I may say so—saying that after the most careful consideration of all aspects of the proposal, including the points raised by the objectors "— that is, the people in the village who do not want the school closed— the Secretary of State has today approved the proposal. Therefore, the object of this short Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to be more forthcoming about why her Department agreed to the closure and also to clarify the position regarding what would happen if Bedfordshire county council had second thoughts on the matter, in the light of the county council's recent decision not to go ahead with the possible closure of Odell school, a similar school in another part of the county.

I wish now to make a few general points about village schools. There is certainly rising support for them and a growing appreciation of the role that they fulfil. This ties in with the Government's commitment to spend more on nursery education and with their wish that county councils spend more on education. Indeed, the number of pre-school children in Egging-ton continues to rise. At present, there are 20 children of four years and under in the village. The school itself has 12 pupils at present. If the school does close, there will be no provision for under-fives in the village. Of course, there is a great advantage in having nursery and the first part of one's education very much on the spot if possible. When we are concerned with a village, as we are in the case of Egging-ton, I believe that it should be in the village itself.

The parents are very satisfied and pleased with the education provided at Eggington school. When the delegation saw the Minister earlier this year, it laid great stress orally, and in the written documents, on the fact that it was very satisfied with what was provided at the school. Second, the school is involved in a considerable number of educational community activities. In other words, it is a school which is deeply ingrained in the general community and civic life of the village of Eggington and also the large and growing town of Leighton Buzzard next door. The school provides an important social centre for activities in the village. In fact, there is nowhere else for people to meet.

I should like to make two points about development in South Bedfordshire. First, there is the developing estate at Leedon Farm in Leighton Buzzard adjacent to the parish of Eggington. It may be possible for the children from Leedon Farm to go to Eggington School. That is certainly something to be considered, because not for the first time in South Bedfordshire housing development is proceeding very fast and there is always the underlying anxiety about whether school and social facilities will keep pace with housing.

Second, there is always a risk of further development in what is sometimes thought to be the green belt in South Bedfordshire. In fact, there is not yet a green belt in South Bedfordshire. It has not yet been confirmed. There is a proposed green belt and often the argument is used"There shall not he development in such and such a place because of the proposed green belt." But that is not a safeguard. Frankly, whoever owns a field or a piece of land in South Bedfordshire could one day, because of development policy, find development being allowed.

The closure of a school is a very final act. Once closed it remains closed. I want to stress the point about development. There have been many places where we did not think development would occur, but where it has occurred as a result of planning appeals. The same could apply to the immediate neighbourhood of Eggington. There could be development, and this is certainly something not to be disregarded when considering the major matter of the possible closing of Eggington school.

I should like to put a couple of important and direct questions to the Minister. First, when a section 13 notice goes to the Department, does the Secretary of State just act as an umpire, merely to ensure that the rules for closure have been observed by the county council? If the Secretary of State is not an umpire, obviously she is a sort of activist. One would therefore assume that, if the umpire role does not exist, the Secretary of State would decide whether a school should be closed on the ground as to whether it fitted in with, and was in accordance with, general Government education policy.

I have already mentioned the desire and wish of the Government to spend more on nursery schools in order to extend nursery school education opportunities throughout the country. This is a very important question. Are the Government an umpire, or are they an activist when the Secretary of State has to decide whether a school should close?

The closure of the school, as the Minister knows, will take place at the end of the academic year in July 1979. If Bedfordshire county council had a second thought, which is possible in view of the fact that it had a second thought on Odell school and did not push ahead with it and send it to the Secretary of State—what would the Government's attitude be? Could the council have a second thought? Would the law be being observed if it did? If it said to the Government that it wished to reverse its decision, would the Government be an umpire and merely ensure that the law was being complied with, or would they say"Would this decision dovetail and be in accordance with our general education policy?"That is my second question to the Minister.

Finally, my own point of view as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. I have stressed the endless pressure on South Bedfordshire for more housing development, given that we do not have a confirmed green belt and given that our structure plan has not yet been approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Given the pressure of development and the contribution that Eggington school has made and would continue to make in the life of the village if it were kept open, my own view is that we should keep the school open for an experimental period to see how things work out locally and nationally in regard to small schools and the Government's general policy on education.

That is my personal view. I hope that the county council will have a second thought on the matter. There is still time for it to do so. But, in view of what the school has to offer and continues to offer and the powerful education arguments put to the Secretary of State by those in the village who wish the school to stay open, I hope that the decision to close the school will be reversed if not abandoned and that we shall keep it going for an experimental period, all the time observing how things are working out both nationally and locally.

4.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson)

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has given us an opportunity to consider again the issues raised when a school closure is proposed to the Secretary of State and when such a closure is approved.

These issues have been raised not infrequently in the past in areas where such closures are intended. Almost invariably parents and the local community feel very strongly that they wish to keep their school. I cannot recall any recent school closure which has gone through without objection. That was not so in earlier days, but it is becoming obvious that every school closure proposal is meeting with a great deal of opposition. That is quite understandable, and I have much sympathy with such opposition.

We take enormous care to consider each case on its merits. We give as full consideration as possible to the issues raised. We do not have hard and fast rules which are applied inflexibly, whatever the circumstances.

Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the background to this difficulty is the persistent decline in the school population. By the end of the next decade, the size of the overall school population will have fallen by a quarter. That presents us with considerable problems. It also presents us with opportunities to give children better chances than they might otherwise have.

I referred to the fact that there were problems. There is no doubt that sound and sensitive management of staff, pupils and of all the educational arrangements involved is necessary when faced with difficulties of this kind. We have to safeguard the standard of education that the children are receiving. We have to be aware of the social implications of the changes proposed, and we also have to try to maintain, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, the necessary flexibility to cope with the change in the situation.

It is against this background, therefore, that the Government issued a general circular in June 1977 which asked local authorities to make the most realistic assessment that they could of school population trends in their areas, to examine systematically with the local people involved—particularly, managers and governors of voluntary schools—the educational opportunities and to consider how the premises available to them might best be used.

We have tried to encourage local authorities to be aware of local views, and particularly of the social consequences in areas where there are village schools. This is the general background to proposals for school closures in any area. We have also stressed that, apart from the consideration of consultation with managers and governors, once some overall conclusions are reached there will be on each proposal full consultation with parents, teaching staff, managers and others before a local education authority puts proposals to my right hon. Friend to close a school. I emphasise that it is not within my right hon. Friend's power to initiate a school closure. The initiative must always come from the local authority. My right hon. Friend merely approves or rejects proposals after considering all the factors.

One of the matters which was underlined in the circular, but which appears to be sinking from public view, is the fact that it is not simply a matter of efficiency or financial interest that motivates many authorities in examining available schools. In the circular we have underlined the fact that the curriculum in small schools may become restricted. Indeed, in many areas it is doubtful whether all the small schools can attract or retain the quality of staff or command the quantity of material resources required to give children the education which they deserve and the sort of education which will compensate for the restrictions which are imposed by the size of the school.

Recently Her Majesty's inspectorate published a wide-ranging survey on primary education in England. It threw up a certain amount of evidence to the effect that the performance of children suffered when, because of falling rolls or because of local difficulties, classes of mixed age-ranges are introduced.

It was surprising that a similar decline was not evident when considering class sizes of between about 25 to 35. There: was nothing like such a marked impression resulting from a change in class size within that range, as appeared to be the case where one was considering perhaps smaller classes but dealing with a wider age range. We must seriously consider this aspect when we are examining opportunities of children in small schools.

I do not dispute the fact that there are financial savings to be gained by closing small schools, and authorities have to consider the subject of efficiency. However, I wish to emphasise that this is not the first priority. Any savings which are made will allow greater provision on other matters which parents might also find equally desirable. This allows more to be spent on school improvements which in many areas are very much needed.

I understand that the Bedfordshire education committee first reviewed the situation in regard to small schools in 1976, before the departmental circular was issued. At that time it identified the schools which would have fewer than 30 pupils on their roll by 1981 and set up a working party to examine the issue in greater depth. The working party made certain recommendations about consultation procedures, and it was agreed that discussion papers should be prepared setting out the case for each school and that meetings should be held to discuss them.

I do not doubt that there will be those in the village who wish more had been done, but, frankly, Bedfordshire, in adopting this course, has done a great deal more to see that local interests were informed and consulted than has been the case with other closures that we have had to consider.

I met a deputation of some of the hon. Member's constituents who made a variety of points about the educational and social welfare of the children involved, all of which were examined and carefully considered with the authority and taken into account when my right hon. Friend made her decision.

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South touched on the question of the size of Eggington. There are not even 12 children in the statutory age range of the school. It has been brought up to 12 by a number of four-year-olds. At seven the children go to Stambridge first school, which is less than a mile away, and the impact of the closure of Eggington will mean that the children make this journey from the outset rather than at the age of seven. I also understand that, although Stambridge was built in 1880, it has been remodelled and extended much more recently and therefore there is no question of the premises being inferior.

The hon. Member referred at length to the possibility of development in Bedfordshire—the possibility of fresh housing and of more children becoming available. We looked at this matter with great care because we have no wish to close options which may be needed in the future. Apart from the fact that Eggington has only 12 children at present, I understand that the accommodation available is suitable for only 20, and that the school is on a restricted site. Even if more children were available for Eggington, there would be a question about the educational viability of the school and this could not be easily resolved. Even if the authority thought it right or could afford to develop Eggington, the site itself does not permit it. Therefore, we are in difficulty in considering the retention of this school.

The hon. Member asked whether the Secretary of State regarded herself as an umpire or an activist in these matters. I suppose that she is somewhat in between the two. Certainly she does not consider herself merely as an umpire who has specific rules to enforce. There are some areas in which she must operate on that basis, but this is not one of them. She attempts to make her own decision on the educational welfare of the children involved and to make it on a case-by-case basis. She looks at possibilities in each area and the interests of the children involved.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about Odell School and the possible role of the authority in the future consideration of the closure of the school. This is very much a question for the authority. It is not within the power of the Secretary of State to initiate a closure or to comment on whether such proposals should or should not have been made. If the authority decides to put forward proposals, they will be considered fully in the light of the situation. This is not something that is within the remit of the Secretary of State; it is for the local authority in Bedfordshire to consider.

As for the Secretary of State's role vis-à-vis the present proposals, it is not within her power to alter her decision. She cannot revoke or reconsider it. It is within the power of the county council to come back to the Secretary of State with fresh proposals. The hon. Member asked whether I could give an indication of the Secretary of State's attitude to such proposals. In all honesty, I cannot. It is impossible to tell what view the Secretary of State would take on fresh proposals from the authority to keep the school open. It would have to be made on the basis of some sort of fresh evidence or fresh conclusions on the part of the authority. It is not possible to say what judgment the Secretary of State might make on such comments and proposals.

In any case, even if I had any idea what view my right hon. Friend might come to, it would not be possible for me to tell the hon. Gentleman, because the law lays on the Secretary of State the duty to take a decision in a way that is impartial and is seen to be impartial. One might describe it as a semi-judicial decision. Therefore, even if I were able to gues what my right hon. Friends decision might be, it would not be possible for me to say. In fact, I have no idea what attitude my right hon. Friend would take. I emphasise that the matter is not within her power. It is entirely up to the local authority, which is free to make fresh proposals to keep the school open, if it chooses.

I referred in passing to the financial aspect of closures. It is vital that such decisions are made, as the decision in question has been made, on educational and not financial grounds. Nevertheless, if we are to look at, say, even more borderline cases than Eggington school, there are financial considerations to be taken into account. Authorities have only limited funds to spend, as have the Government. Priorities must be decided.

Whenever closures are proposed, no matter in what part of the country, authorities and parents must decide whether they place a higher priority on keeping open comparatively small schools—often, although not invariably, in unhappy circumstances, schools that are not always Providing a very good education, although there are some where the educational standard is good—than on perhaps slightly less convenient arrangements which enable them to spend far more on books, on perhaps employing extra teachers, on improving a comparatively smaller number of buildings and so on.

These decisions are not for me or for my right hon. Friend to make. They are decisions for authorities and their electorates to make between them. They are not simple decisions. Five years ago it was perhaps assumed that the matter was simple, and that it was more efficient and more sensible to close schools. The pendulum is perhaps swinging back a little the other way, and it is being assumed that it is better for everyone to keep such schools open. I suspect that the balance of argument lies rather more in the middle. We shall all have to grapple with the real difficulties of the decisions in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.