MERLEY SCHOOL, POOLE (REORGANISATION) (Hansard, 27 October 1980)

§ Mr. John Ward (Poole)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being present at this late hour to answer the debate. I know of his dedication to the cause of good education. We shall not be wasting our time tonight by discussing the proposals that the Dorset county council are about to submit to the Secretary of State for the reorganisation of the Merley combined school, in my constituency.

The Dorset county council is controlled by Conservatives. It saddens me to have to criticise members of my party, but my first duty is to my constituents. I shall fight for them as vigorously as I am able. The Merley parents are as well aware as anybody of the need for wise spending in the public sector. The parents have been consistent in their view that what they want can easily be achieved within the county budget if quality of basic education is given priority over some of the desirable but fringe activities of the county authorities.

Ironically, the parents are asking for what is envisaged in the East Dorset structure plan, which was prepared at considerable expense for the Dorset county council. That point was well illustrated in a letter dated 19 March 1980 from Mr. Ian Andrews, the town clerk and chief executive of the borough of Poole, to the county education officer. In the same letter Mr. Andrews makes it quite clear that Poole council opposes the plans and, perhaps surprisingly, reveals that there was no consultation between the county and borough councils before the announcement was made public.

Attached to Mr. Andrews' letter is a report prepared by Mr. Graham Rogers, the borough architect and town planning officer of Poole. It is a reasoned and objective study, which sets out detailed objections to the county proposals. It highlights the fact that Dorset county council has, over the years, consistently underestimated the demand for school places in the borough. I shall quote but one paragraph from the report: 168 The proposals appear to be based on finance and the need to utilise spare capacity at other schools rather than on the educational welfare of the children. Bearing in mind all the disadvantages of the proposal, one is forced to question the reliance on the concept of 'viability' expressed in terms of numbers alone. It is particularly pertinent in the Merley instance where it is not a proposed school which is under consideration but one which has successfully established itself as an integral part of the community Elsewhere in the report Mr. Rogers rightly questions the wisdom of spending large sums of money at Broadstone middle school now when the county council itself suggests that a middle school may well be required at Merley in future.

I shall try to divide my speech into three main sections, covering education, finance and social effects. Merley was a fairly isolated village in my constituency, which was chosen as one of the areas for expansion into a balanced community. A site was chosen, and still exists, for a first and middle school. Buildings are already operational, catering for children in both first and middle school age brackets. Many young people bought houses in the area, secure, they thought, in the knowledge that a first school would be built, allowing the existing buildings to become a middle school.

I have a recent notice issued by the county council on 13 July 1979, which states: The intention is to build a new school at Merley for children between 5 and 8 years of age. When the school opens the present combined School will become a Middle School for children between 8 and 12 years of age. If later the number of children in the area justifies changing the age range of the Middle School to between 9 and 13 years, the First School age range will be changed to between 5 and 9 years. Should such a change be proposed a Public Notice of them will be published at that time. For some reason that has never been satisfactorily explained to me, there are no less than three ages of transfer to secondary education in my constituency. The Merley combined school has been built up over the years to be one of the best of its type in the county. The headmaster, Pete Willis, is dedicated to his profession. He is backed by enthusiastic staff and managers and, with tremendous support from parents, the school has developed into a community. It is bustling with activity during lunchtime and in the evenings, and it serves children and parents alike.

169 The parents' support has been forthcoming in more practical ways. In 18 months they have purchased a minibus for the school, and they have recently bought £500 worth of library books. It is little wonder that the parents refer to it as "our school".

The county council now proposes to back down on its previous promises, mainly, it is said, because of falls in rolls elsewhere. It proposes that Merley should now be a first school only, catering for children in the 5 to 9 age group. Using the council's own figures, the 420 pupils for a viable 9 to 13 middle school are available at Merley, yet the children in that age group will be dispersed to three schools in other areas. In no way do either I or the parents criticise the other schools. However, I wish to examine that proposal carefully with my hon. Friend. I believe that the county has not appreciated the damage that the proposal will do to the community and the danger that will exist for young children.

I wish to examine briefly the means of access to each school. First, there is Allenbourne school in Wimborne. It entails a difficult journey of 1.8 miles, partly along a trunk road, which involves crossing the River Stour, which frequently floods in winter. At least, that journey has the merit that most of it is through built-up areas. Lockyers school, Corfe Mullen, is another proposed school, and I find it difficult to use restrained language when referring to it. The council is seriously suggesting that children of 9 and 10 years of age should cross a busy trunk road and then travel a distance of 2.1 miles along a narrow country lane with steep banks, overhanging trees, no footpaths and no lighting and which is in places not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. I say in all seriousness that no child of mine would be allowed to attend that school if it meant such a journey.

The third school is Broadstone middle school, which is 24 miles from Merley. The journey entails a walk of one mile down a trunk road serving Poole harbour, and here the council has accepted that a footpath will be needed. What consideration has been given to parents with a child at Merley first school and another at one of the three middle schools that I have mentioned? Apparently, there has been no consideration at all. I conclude 170 that few, if any, of those who made the decision on dispersing children from Merley have done as I did and travelled each of the proposed routes. If my hon. Friend thinks that I exaggerate the danger, in all seriousness I invite him to visit Poole and to bring his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Baroness Young also. We shall walk those routes together, and they can judge for themselves whether it is irresponsible to suggest that young children should be put into such unnecessary danger.

With his long experience of running an outstandingly successful school, my hon. Friend will agree that it is not buildings but people who make a good school. He will also agree that in the important formative years, between the ages of 9 and 13, children should be set on the path to citizenship and learn to associate with their fellows in school sports and cultural activities out of school hours. No child living in Merley and attending one of the three schools that I have described will be able to do that, because of the travelling involved.

When these plans were first mooted, there was a predictable outcry from the parents, and the county council asked the education committee to reconsider the matter. The education committee said "No change". It was wrong then and it is wrong today. In desperation, the parents have now obtained their own quotations for building a first school at Merley in order to demonstrate to the council that the scheme which they propose could actually save money. Another factor is that although the council is saying that there is a shortage of pupils at Broadstone middle school, I have received complaints from parents of children at that school who wish their children to stay in the selective system. They said that at two weeks' notice the county council told them that their children would have to move to other schools, although previously they had been told that the move would be made only in one year's time.

I now intend to examine the financial implications of the Merley scheme and to suggest ways in which the county council education budget could have been more wisely used. I must say that the parents believe that the county has been less than objective when dealing with the 171 financial aspects of this problem. Let us first consider the one-mile length of footpath down the Wimborne Road that would be needed if children were to reach Broadstone middle school in any degree of safety. Here the council has admitted that "something would need to be done". It allowed £25,000 to £30,000, and said that it expected it to come out of the highways budget and not the education budget, as though that would affect the cost to the ratepayers. When pressed, it was conceded that perhaps £39,000 would be needed, and when pressed again the estimate was raised to £45,000.

The parents decided to get expert estimates and were told that a minimum of £70,000 would be required—nearer £100,000 if drainage and fencing were included. Similarly, between March and June this year the council updated its own estimates for the proposals and what it said the scheme requested by the parents would cost. The parents have analysed the county council's costing very carefully and are unhappy because the cost of the scheme preferred by the parents appears to have escalated at a far greater rate than the scheme preferred by the county council. It is this sort of thing that makes the parents question the reliability of the figures on which the councillors based their decision.

I now turn to the parents' own design for a new first school on the existing Merley site, not a do-it-yourself effort but proper quotations and professional costings. In the short time available to them, the parents have designed and costed a prefabricated school, designed to a specification drawn up at their request by the present headmaster. The buildings would cost about £174,000 and would be available in months. Ground works would cost another £15,000, but this could be reduced to £7,500 because more than 130 parents have offered to do the unskilled labouring on the project.

The response from the county authorities is that they would require additional expenditure to bring it up to what are euphemistically called "standards", and the cost would be £450,000—roughly what it is proposed to spend at Broadstone middle school to accommodate Merley children. The county admits that the final numbers for Merley school children 172 are far from clear. For instance, 54 new four-bedroomed houses are about to be occupied. Incidentally, it is proposed that mobile classrooms should be used in the first instance to extend the Broadstone middle school. Why not use them at Merley?

Again, there are considerable savings, which the council might consider, in other areas of education. Two items of county expenditure have particularly worried the parents of Merley, who rightly, in my opinion, question the wisdom of such expenditure if good schools are to be destroyed. First, last year an excellent comprehensive school was opened at Corfe Hills, and many of the Merley parents hoped that eventually their children would go there. As it was built during the big spending period of the Labour Government, no expense was spared on buildings or equipment. It is true that gym classes must use the school assembly hall—not a big hardship, one would think, given the high standard of the buildings and equipment that they have at present. Now, the Merley parents find that the county is to spend £600,000 on this already well-equipped school to build a music and gymnasium complex, and this within 21 miles of Merley school, which the county is proposing to destroy. I would have thought that tact, if not good housekeeping, would have called for the postponement of this expenditure.

Secondly, we have in Dorset, working from county headquarters, about 21 education advisers. Their function is frequently called into question by councillors, ratepayers and even school governors, yet they have an amazing capacity for survival. We are told that their role is both inspectorial and advisory and that they cost the county about £200,000 per annum. If that figure is made up mainly of salaries, and if travel and overheads are included, their true cost must be much higher. Those are just two items in the county education budget, which could save at least £800,000 and probably much more. Certainly, what by those standards amounts to small change would save Merley school.

Having prepared their own scheme for a Merley first school, the parents pressed for a meeting of councillors and parents so that the proposals could be clearly explained. They also asked the county 173 officers and me to attend. I was presented with a petition with 900 signatures asking for help.

Knowing how important it was that the councillors should fully understand the proposal, I wrote a personal letter to every county councillor urging him to attend. Unfortunately, only a handful of county councillors accepted the invitation to the meeting, which was attended by 400 parents. Four county councillors and one official met a group of parents the night before to be briefed on the scheme, but we cannot escape the fact that only a very few county councillors know the full details of the parents' proposal when 60 councillors made their decision on Merley school at their meeting on 24 July. Still fewer have seen the dangerous routes that the young children are expected to use.

By now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may think that you know this resourceful and determined group of parents, and you would expect them to check an alternative means of transport. They have done so. If buses were available, it would cost parents £2.25 per child per week. I said "If buses were available". The parents have checked with the local bus company, which says that it does not have the extra capacity in its existing fleet, nor would it be willing to add to its existing fleet vehicles that would be used only twice a day during term time.

Let us consider the social effects of the county council's proposal. It would do much to destroy a school that has received enthusiastic support from everyone in Merley, not simply parents. It would reduce by half that all too rare brand of volunteers who have already done so much for the school and the village. It would mean children being dragged from a school in which they are happy to attend schools that are remote from their village. It would deprive those children of a chance to take part in many of the extra-curricular activities which are so important for their development. It would give endless worries to parents whose children would have to use ill-lit roads through wooded areas without footpaths. Instead of being educated and growing up with those who live near and share their interests, there is a three-to-one chance that they will have little contact with their fellows.

174 On the Conservative Benches we know that money is important, especially when it is provided by the ratepayer and taxpayer. But having looked at this problem I am sure that, given good will and an unbiased approach, a solution could be found that would meet both sides in this dilemma and yet not cost more on the county budget.

I have made some suggestions about savings in the county education budget. On the cost side, I quote for the benefit of those who did not attend the parents' meeting the words of one parent: When the county calculate the cost they have not allowed for the potential cost of the loss of a local school. They have not allowed for the potential cost of destroying a good community in Merley. They have not allowed for the potential cost of a child being injured or killed on the dangerous journey to the alternative schools". There is much common sense in those remarks, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will bring his own brand of common sense to this debate. The parents are seeking a sound basic education for their children. They do not want flashy buildings or a mass of way-out subjects. Surely that is not an unreasonable ambition for any group of parents. The parents are asking that they be treated as caring parents who want the best for their children and the community. An objective study by a neutral body is now needed—a study that is not determined to see all the good things about one scheme and none of the difficulties and drawbacks and, at the same time, all the difficulties in an alternative scheme and none of the benefits. They seek the protection of the House and of my hon. Friend and his colleagues from the bureaucratic bulldozer being driven through their lives by people who could not by any reasonable process have reached the conclusion they reached if they had visited the area and fully understood what was taking place.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)

I have listened with care to the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). I visited his constituency under his distinguished predecessor. I pay tribute to the present. hon. Member for Poole for the way in which he has worked in the House. Having studied the documents on this 175 case, I know how highly he is respected in his constituency. It is my hon. Friend's home ground, and lie knows his way around it—not just the paths and the roads, but all that is happening—better than any of us here. We were almost privileged to have this debate two and a half months ago, but then we had to wait to see what happened. I am told that parents were driving around the area with car stickers saying "Merley schools for Merley children". I have no doubt that at the general election they will be displaying stickers which bear my hon. Friend's name.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that he has put me on a spot this evening. For reasons that I shall explain, I am inhibited in what it would be proper for me to say in reply to this debate. The House will recognise how painful that is for me. I must be careful in what I say. The changes in school organisation which Dorset county council approved on 24 July will call for formal proposals to be published under what would have been section 13 of the 1944 Act but which from 1 August has been section 12 of the Education Act 1980.

The authority will be obliged to publish its proposals with a copy to the Secretary of State and provide a two-months' period during which objections may be made. I have been told today that there is every likelihood that the formal proposals for the change in school organisation will shortly be made by the Dorset authority. That will provide a two-months' gap for objections to be lodged—no doubt my hon. Friend will be involved in them—and during which the parents of the area can take whatever action they wish.

A copy will go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. If there were no objections—and it seems from my hon. Friend's speech this evening and from what we know of the area that that is most unlikely—the decision would rest with the local education authority unless my right hon. and learned Friend called in the proposals, as he is entitled to do under the terms of the 1980 Act.

If there are objections, the issue will come before the Secretary of State. The fact that we are having the debate this 176 evening indicates to me that it is fairly certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will have to consider the proposals and take the decision. That is why I must watch what I say. Any comment I make about the merits of what is proposed or likely to be proposed in the near future could be held to prejudice my right hon. and learned Friend's decision. When he makes it, he will do so only after he has studied all the evidence, including the views of the objectors. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the objections put forward this evening by my hon. Friend. That will be part of the material that will be examined before my right hon. and learned Friend makes his decision.

If my hon. Friend had been hoping to hear my views, I am afraid that he will be disappointed. I shall not say whether I think that the proposals are good or bad, right or wrong. I can say only that my hon. Friend made a very good case on his side. I propose to spell out in a wholly neutral fashion, which will be good for my self-discipline if for nothing else—a kind of Lenten exercise—the reasons as I understand them for the decisions that Dorset county council has made.

Poole was once an excepted district. In simple terms, it ran its own education service. Local government reorganisation in 1974 brought it within the county of Dorset. That local government reorganisation took place before my hon. Friend and I entered the House, so we are clear of any responsibility there.

One of the differences between Dorset's education and that provided by Poole was that, whereas the county's pattern involved children transferring between the different stages of their schooling at 9 and 13, the transfers in Poole took place at 8 and 12. That may seem a minor matter, but it is crucial to a proper understanding of the changes which Dorset now proposes to make.

The pattern of comprehensive education which operates in the area in which Merley is situated and in other areas of the county is a three-tier system of first, middle and upper schools. In what I may loosely describe as the Poole area—but excluding Poole itself; a real conundrum—first schools are for the 5s to 8s, 177 middle schools for the 8s to 12s, but the upper schools, which are in Corfe Hills and Wimborne, take children not only from these 8 to 12 middle schools but from middle schools elsewhere which provide for children aged 9 to 13. In practice, therefore, Corfe Hills upper school has taken a dual intake of both 12 and 13-year-olds each year. Dorset is now saying that Corfe Hills, where numbers are high, can no longer take on this double load. Its solution is to make all the middle schools available for children aged 9 to 13 and the first schools for children aged 5 to 9.

This obviously affects the situation in Merley. The original plan was that Merley should have a 5 to 8 first school and 8 to 12 middle school with the children going on to Corfe Hills upper school at 12. Progress towards that objective had been made by planning and building a middle school, which served initially as a combined school for pupils aged 5 to 12, which is what Merley now has. When numbers in the appropriate age group had grown sufficiently, the combined school would take on its planned role as the middle school and a new first school would be provided for the 5s to 8s. That was all well and good, and I understand that Merley folk were quite happy about that arrangement.

However, the problem which Dorset says has arisen is that Merley cannot provide enough children aged between 5 and 13 to justify two schools. No responsibility was put on my hon. Friend for the shortage of children in that area. I have no doubt that since he became the Member for that area people with child- 178 ren have been moving in, knowing that they had a staunch defender of educational standards. The confidence of living there may even have increased the degree of, fertility. I do not think that if there should be a deficiency—my hon Friend disputed that there was any deficiency—any responsibility rests on him. However, Dorset holds that there is a shortage of children aged between 5 and 13 to justify two such schools—a 5 to 9 first school and a 9 to 13 middle school. Therefore, instead of turning the combined school into a middle school and building a new 5 to 9 first school, it now plans to make the combined school into a 5 to 9 first school. When children reach the age of 9, they are to go either to Broadstone or to Allenbourne middle schools—not far away, but not in Merley. At 13 there will be a choice of upper school—either Corfe Hills or Queen Elizabeth's at Wimborne.

There it is. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other on which is the best arrangement, whether there are enough schools or whether the pied piper has been at work. This will have to be considered later. When the time comes, it will be up to the Dorset local education authority to produce the arguments and the facts and figures to satisfy my right hon. and learned Friend. It will also be up to the opponents of the scheme to marshal their arguments as they have been marshalled this evening by my hon. Friend and prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the local education authority is wrong.