HC Deb 06 July 1981 vol 8 cc237-44

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

9.21 am
Mr. Tom Ellis (Wrexham)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Rampton committee's interim report, "West Indian children in our schools," although in the short time available I can hardly do justice to the importance of the subject, the quality of the report or even the extraordinary intervention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the committee's work.

There is no need for me to justify the report's importance now that we have the shocking examples of Bristol, Brixton, Southall and Toxteth demonstrating some of the extreme consequences of a conflict of cultures. The problems of racial minorities in our society are grave and urgent. Clearly, the education of such minorities must be a major concern of the Government and all our citizens.

Anthony Rampton's committee was set up to perform an extremely difficult task. It is now clear that that task has become even more difficult as a consequence of the Secretary of State's intervention and of the manifest prejudices—both his own and his Department's—that his intervention reflects.

Mr. Rampton, who has an outstanding reputation and record of achievement in race relations, while being a successful and hard-headed business man, employing many black people, was appointed by a Labour Secretary of State to chair a committee chosen a few months later partly by that Minister and partly by an incoming Conservative Government. His committee contained political appointees of differing colours, together with representatives of the ethnic minorities. They were charged with finding why West Indian children were doing badly at school and with finding ways quickly to put matters right without extra expenditure by the Government.

The membership of the committee and its terms of reference were announced at the end of July 1979, so it was able to begin work in the early autumn of that year. The committee submitted a unanimous interim report to the DES, with about 80 recommendations for action, on 27 February this year. About 20 of the recommendations were addressed solely to the Department, which is in a position, if it wishes, to take action at least on those. That was a remarkable achievement, which is greatly to the credit of the committee and its chairman, especially as the initial reaction to the committee on the part of ethnic minority groups was hostile. Indeed, it was due largely to the individual efforts of Mr. Rampton that submissions of evidence eventually came in and that his committee established a degree of credibility with the ethnic minority

A typical and fair comment made after the official publication of the report is this one from The Economist of 20 June: The whole subject"— that is, the poor educational attainment of West Indian children— is embarrassing. To discuss it frankly is useful. To produce an agreed report on it, from an official committee of all races and practically all political views, is a considerable achievement.

But the initial reaction of the press was much more disparaging, and it is worth while looking at that reaction. It is important to bear in mind that, although the report was sent to the Department in February, it was not published until 17 June after an inexplicable delay of nearly four months at the hands of the DES.

The House will recall the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration of 17 February 1977. This report called for a high-level and independent inquiry into the causes of underachievement of children of West Indian origin. As I said, the membership and terms of reference of the Rampton committee were finally announced in July 1979, and the Government called for an interim report.

One assumes that the situation had been known to be urgent at least since 1977 and that it was this urgency which led to the request for an interim report, a request admirably met in a little over 12 months with a number of recommendations for action which could be taken without great expenditure by the Department.

The first indication that all was not well came with the extensive leaking of the report several weeks after it had been sent to the DES and significantly, I believe, after the Brixton riots. Whether the report would have been published if there had been no Brixton is an intriguing question.

As I said, the initial press reaction was heavily slanted against the report in the crudest way. There was nothing restrained or sensitive about the press leaks and the inspired criticism of the report. They were remarkably in character with a Government who pride themselves on their dry abrasiveness.

The criticisms were that the chairman of the committee lacked intellectual bite, that the committee was hopelessly divided, that its meetings were a shambles and that the chairman was too weak to impose discipline or his members. Even worse, there were reports of fudging fundamental issues such as the relationship, if any"— how grateful we must be for the "if any"— between intelligence and race and the effect of a child's home and cultural background on his educational development. Incredibly, the committee was criticised for assuming that West Indian children in any case could reach normal levels of achievement. This is what The Times education correspondent said about the committee before the report had been published: And they"— that is, the committee— should not have assumed so easily that the low achievement of West Indian pupils necessarily equalled underachievement, as they had gathered no firm statistical evidence to prove that West Indians are in fact performing at a level below their capabilities. If ever a comment was inspired by the bureaucratic insight that people are guilty until they are proved innocent, it is that one.

Two members of the committee nailed this canard in a letter to The Guardian a few days after the report had been published—a letter, incidentally, which tells us something of the difficulties that the chairman had overcome. The letter was addressed to the editor of The Guardian and said: While recognising this, you go on to talk about a fear, at least among some members of the Rampton Committee, of the racialist theories of genetic inferiority. No one"— I ought to add the word "sic" there, because that is what is in the letter— on the committee had such a fear, for there is enough evidence to show that no such inferiority exists. The West Indian children in the West Indies achieve impressive results in their school leaving examinations. As we show, some West Indian children in British schools too achieve good results, and their performance improves as a result of supplementary education. All this puts paid to any notion of genetic inferiority, and indicates beyond a shadow of doubt that the West Indian under-achievement must be explained in other terms, some of which the Report stresses.

In due course, the report was at last published, four months after it had been with the Minister and after Brixton. The level of debate on the report improved and commentators began to show a more mature appreciation of the true worth of the Rampton committee's achievement. The educational correspondent of The Observer succinctly described the issue: Talking to members of the Committee last week, however, it became clear that a more rigorous approach would have split this multi-racial, all-party committee. Such rigour would demand the close examination of two hypotheses. One—to which the Report leans—is that our whole education system and society are hugely biased against disadvantaged young people in general and black people in particular. The other, as one member put it, is 'that, by and large, blacks are thicker'. The first view is not acceptable to the Government and some of its appointees on the Committee. The second is wholly unacceptable to everyone.

In the light of that statement of the options, put with all the intellectual clarity and succinctness one could wish for and in the light of Bristol, Brixton, Southall and Toxteth, the DES for its part should be showing with some urgency not merely a departmental concern but some political understanding and sensitivity. The Department must have enough intellectual bite to grasp that intellectual rigour, especially when it is invoked to pander to prejudice, is not incomparably of the stuff of politics in the way that compromises and occasionally necessary inconsistencies are.

That is why one wishes desperately that there were a politician at the head of the Department of Education and Science. He is clearly needed there. Perhaps one might be allowed, appropriately in the present context, to quote as a homily to the Department and its Ministers from a review by Sir P. B. Medawar, a sufficiently distinguished intellectual, I trust. The quotation is contained in a book entitled "The Politics of IQ". Sir Peter says: If a broad line of demarcation is drawn between the natural sciences and what can only be described as the unnatural sciences, it will at once be recognised as a distinguishing mark of the latter, that their practitioners try most painstakingly to imitate what they believe—quite wrongly alas, for them—to be the distinctive manners and observances of the natural sciences. Among these are the belief that measurement and numeration are intrisically praiseworthy activities, the worship, indeed of what Ernest Gombrich calls idola quantitatis and their belief in the efficacy of statistical formulas.

Politics is a natural science. We are not dealing, as this overwhelmingly mechanistic Government appear to believe, in a straightforward and shallow positivism. The causality, so dear to the heart of the Secretary of State and his Department, is a spurious causality which is quite inadequate for complex and emotional race relations, an area in which democratic Governments must, thank goodness, allow for the wilfulness of men.

I have a few minutes remaining in which to sound a word of warning to the Minister and through him to the Government. I shall address three or four pertinent questions to him in the hope that something might be rescued from the debacle his Department has engineered about the Rampton-Swann committee.

What is coming across, not only to ethnic minorities but to all of us who are concerned with social harmony, are the Prime Minister's crass comments on Brixton, the British Nationality Bill, the long delay by the DES in publishing the interim Rampton report, the callow press leaks about the committee and its chairman, the discourtesy, let alone the disingenuousness, of not including the chairman's covering letter with the published report, his perplexing departure and the resignation of some committee members and the threatened resignation of others in protest. Incidentally, all except two or three members strongly supported their chairman. There was also the appointment of new members to apply their intellectual bite with rigour and vigour. Now there is some woolly talk from the Secretary of State about further consultations before implementing any of the report's recommendations.

Credibility, that all-important quality of any committee of inquiry, especially this one, has been severely strained. It must be the task of us all to try to repair the damage. It is with that in mind that I should like to ask the Minister several questions which I hope he will try to answer.

First, what action is now being taken by the Government? They called for an interim report as a matter of urgency. They now have it. But they are using the singling out of West Indian children as a reason for not acting. In answer to a written question, the Secretary of State said that he would consult widely on the report's implications and emphasised that he was looking forward to receiving in 1983 the Committee's main report on the … needs.…of children from all ethnic groups."—[Official Report, 17 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 363.] It is clear that West Indian children are to have less attention devoted to them in the main report than Asian children.

What consultations has the Minister already embarked upon? Which minority groups and other institutions has he written to? What is the date by which responses have been sought? Why is it necessary to consult at all about the recommendations addressed solely to his Department? If the ethnic minorities are to have any confidence in the Government, and if the future work of the committee is not to be undermined, Government action is needed now.

What is the Minister's reaction to some of the recommendations? What about the proposals to keep proper statistics about race in the education system? Only two authorities now keep such statistics. What is the Minister's view on that? What about the recommendation on the use of funds under section 11 of the 1966 Local Government Act being monitored by black and Asian communities? What about the failure of teacher training institutions to prepare teachers for their role in a multi-racial society"? The section of the report on initial training was anything but woolly, as some of the early critics maintained. What will the Minister do about that? Can he estimate the costs that will be incurred in implementing those recommendations addressed to his Department? Does he know that a favourable response to the report is coming through from many teachers' organisations now that a considered assessment has been possible?

According to Friday's Birmingham Post, recommendations have been made by three teachers' organisations for the appointment of staff with the responsibility for multicultural education, for the recognition of Creole and for the inclusion of Asian language classes in the mainstream of school curricula. Above all, does the Secretary of State know, as The Economist puts it, that by his rudeness to Mr. Rampton, he has struck a blow against good race relations? Will he now try to make amends by taking the interim report seriously and acting on its recommendations?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) for raising this subject. However, many of his comments will not have helped the smooth relationships in which he apparently believes.

The last two schools of which I was head had large racial minorities. The first had a large racial minority of Indians, and the second of West Indians—about 20 per cent. I have checked with that school, and it certainly has not been under-achieving with many of the West Indians. Many of them went up to university and were house captains. In addition, I have a large immigrant population in my constituency. Indeed, there is a school there with a majority of immigrants. I have visited it and appreciate the work that it has done.

The hon. Gentleman was somewhat uncharitable in his remarks on timing, and the record ought to be put straight. The recommendation that there should be such an inquiry was made by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in 1977, and the Labour Government, of whom he was a supporter—I do not want to do a "Rhubarb, rhubarb" this morning but to lift the debate to a better plane—took two years to set it up. So no delay on our part has been equivalent to that of the Labour Government on this matter.

From the time we came into office we put the plan into action. It was started by the Labour Government and I pay tribute to them for that. On 1 March the Secretary of State received the report. He announced on 1 May that it would be published and on 17 June it was published. Although I have no facts and figures with me this morning as to how long it has taken to publish other reports, it was only three and a half months from the time of arrival to publication. I should like to examine at some time with the hon. Gentleman the time taken to publish other reports, because I should be very surprised if they were published at a speed far in excess of this one.

I should like now to deal with about three points raised by the hon. Gentleman—that is all I shall have time for this morning. Let me first pay tribute to the work that was done by the committee under Mr. Rampton and to the work that will be done by the committee under Lord Swann. It is particularly important that we pay that tribute, that we build on what exists, and that we build up the relationship if the report is to be used to advantage. We thank those who have worked before and we thank those who are still working, and we look forward to the later report that we shall have from them.

The issues which the committee has had to handle are complex and sensitive. I am aware of how sensitive they are and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as well. Its former chairman, Mr. Rampton, and all its members, as I have said already, have put in a great deal of hard work, and we are indebted to them for all their efforts. The Government would not have followed through the plans of their predecessors for such an inquiry had they not shared the concern of others about the needs and achievements of ethnic minority children in general. We did not expect that the committee's task would be straightforward, nor has it been.

The committee has pointed to a number of possible causes for low achievement among West Indian pupils—I hope that I shall have time to deal with some of them—and to various measures that might be taken by the education service to counteract their effects. The Government will consider the committee's recommendations very carefully, in the light of all the comments which may now be made by interested bodies.

We believe that consultation is vital. The Government cannot proceed on their own in this matter. We do not proceed by diktat. If there is to be a full understanding of all the issues, and if we are to proceed in practical ways rather than on the basis of theory, a wide range of views must be sought. The committee itself foresees this in its report; it envisages discussion and welcomes comments on its findings. The hon. Gentleman and I must have seen them when we read the report.

Given the nature of the education system in this country, there must be a large measure of agreement between local authorities and the teaching profession, between teacher training institutions, schools and colleges, about aims and what needs to be done to attain them. It is usually easier to reach agreement on the former than on the latter. Let me take one example that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly mentioned this morning.

The committee is clear—the hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing about it—that the Department of Education and Science should collect statistical information on the ethnic origins of pupils in schools and should also make use of ethnic classifications in the national statistics relating to teacher training, to other forms of higher and further education, and to teachers in employment. The hon. Gentleman referred to two authorities that collect those statistics. It is the committee's belief that ethnically based statistics would be of value at all levels and to all parties within education. But we all know—and certainly Ministers in the Department know—from the experience over the proposed ethnic origin question in the 1981 census, and from the reaction to a DES proposal to assess the performance of a sample of West Indian pupils, that the issue is an extremely sensitive one. If we drive on with this without taking people's feelings into consideration, more harm than good can result. Much opposition comes from the minority communities themselves.

The committee has recognised that it would be wrong for the Government to take any initiative on this front without first consulting the local authority associations, the teachers' associations, the Society of Education Officers and representatives of ethnic minority communities. I know through contacts in the Department with the teachers' unions that many of them feel strongly opposed to the collecting of specific ethnic statistics. I know what the report says. If, however, the Government went ahead, I do not believe that we would obtain the co-operation of those in the classroom. Without that co-operation, more harm than good is likely to be caused. One needs co-operative teachers within the classroom. This indicates how delicate and sensitive is an issue in which many of us in the Department have been involved through consultations over the past three or four months.

Two issues have dominated public reaction to the report. One is the question whether the committee has succeeded in demonstrating that West Indians as a group are under-achieving in the maintained education system. The hon. Gentleman referred to this matter. The other is the suggestion that society in general and teachers in particular treat West Indian children differently. I know that the committee was well aware of the need for further work to be done on the subject of achievement and that it was working within a tight timetable. I know, too, that it is anxious to commission further research and other work to inform its further report. Certainly, the evidence that has been assembled must be a cause for concern and I am sure that the findings will be much discussed.

I note with interest that the committee intends in its main report to look at the circumstances associated with West Indian pupils who have enjoyed academic success. Such information could be valuable in identifying what is missing for those who have been less successful. This is most important. If we can identify schools and areas where West Indian children are succeeding and can find the formula and transfer it, I believe that this is what is required. It was my belief as a headmaster, and still remains my belief, that to water growing plants is better than to keep digging things up. When one sees something growing, one encourages development. We want research carried out and visits made to enable similar success to be achieved in other schools and areas.

If West Indian children as a group are failing to achieve their educational potential, many people will wish to know why Asian children as a group appear from the evidence available to be close to white children in their achievements and well ahead of West Indian children. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I well know, the difficulties that are involved. Among school leavers, 18 per cent. of the Asian 16-year-olds obtain five O-levels or more compared with 16 per cent. of all leavers but only 3 per cent. of West Indians succeed in obtaining that number. This shows the magnitude of the problem.

I am not commenting on class structure, where the pupils live or whether their families are Labour or Tory voters. I was merely giving the statistics that have to be interpreted. The statistics show that six times as many Asian community pupils gain five O-levels as the West Indian community. This shows the seriousness of the problem. Again, the statistics show that 13 per cent. of 18-year-old Asian school leavers gain one A-level, compared with 12 per cent. of all leavers and 2 per cent. of West Indians. One asks what needs to be done about this serious problem.

This is a big issue and a big report. It may be said that teacher training holds the key. The Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate take every opportunity to encourage consideration by the training institutions of the best way to ensure that students are adequately prepared for teaching in today's society. At present, about half of all initial training institutions appear to be offering relevant studies, and the fact that many are reviewing the content of their courses offers an opportunity for further development of their work.

The Government have taken up the initiative inherited from the Labour Government—this is mostly a search for what should be done, involving all parties—in encouraging certain local education authorities to establish special preparatory courses aimed particularly at students from ethnic minorities to enable them to reach the standard necessary for entry to training courses for teaching, social work or general higher education. These courses are now in operation in certain areas and will be monitored. I should add that we are carrying out monitoring. We have commissioned a new project which will seek to indentify the factors associated with success in multi-ethnic secondary schools, and that line of inquiry should be well developed with the projects we have commissioned. We have commissioned that report with urgency to assess what the successful schools are doing and how we can transfer that success to other schools.

The hon. Gentleman referred to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. Under that section, grant aid is paid to local authorities in respect of special provision relating to Commonwealth immigrants. This may be claimed not only for specialist language teachers but also for a wide range of relevant posts such as multi-cultural advisers or home-school liaison personnel. Let me list some of the work done. The most recent phase of the urban programme—phase 21—includes approval for five educational projects aimed at West Indian communities, and one of those is a £90,000 project to help rehouse a West Indian youth and community club in Reading.

Unfortunately, time for the debate is running out. It is a pity that we did not have longer, with more hon. Members present, to debate this important subject. I began by saying that this is a most important report. It is important that all of us should co-operate wherever we can in picking out the growth areas and putting the results into action elsewhere.

If we are to be one community in Britain, with various habits and arrangements within our society, but all feeling part of the whole, it is vital that the West Indian, the Asian and all other communities should enjoy success in our education system so that they can enjoy the success and confidence which comes from it. We are looking very carefully at all the other points that have been raised by the report. We shall make provision where we can; we shall make the fullest progress that we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock am.