Merrivale and Brooksby Schools, Nottingham (Hansard, 24 July 1984)

§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)

Having waited patiently for some five or six weeks, I am grateful, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity to bring this subject before the House. I can only apologise for that, but I hope that the matter will commend itself to the House and to the Secretary of State for action at some time in the not too distant future.

For the proper protection of the rights of parents and local interests our Education Acts provide that notices are issued where authorities are proposing to close existing schools. The Education Act 1980 brought in notices to cover nursery provision. Those notices cover not only closure but change of status, character and the establishment of new schools. Their purpose was to give as much information as possible to people likely to be affected by them so that if they wished to do so they could make objection.

It was expected, foolishly, as I shall explain and illustrate later, that any proposals under notices would have been discussed with the staff, the parents and governors before a decision was arrived at and then, if it were decided so to do, to issue notices. It was expected that when the Secretary of State made a decision on notices he would have the power to approve or reject them, and limited powers to modify. If there were objections, the Secretary of State became, or should have become, the final arbiter and his decision was binding, save that it was possible for alternative proposals to be submitted.

That is a brief but, I hope, correct statement of the background to the incidents affecting two schools in my constituency, Merrivale nursery and Brooksby primary, which illustrates the abuse of the procedures that can arise. If the abuse is left unchecked, it will allow somewhat arrogant authorities to drive a coach and horses through the democratic processes and procedures that I have described.

There has been a vicious and unwarranted attack upon the parents who send their children to Merrivale nursery school because of the known quality of its education. By the avoidance of notice procedures, the parents who send their children to the Brooksby primary school cannot respond to the council's case.

Merrivale nursery school is about to be the subject of a third closure notice in less than three years. One of the Labour county councillors has said, "The governors were consulted on the first occasion. If they are consulted again they will only give the same answer." On that occasion the Labour chairman of governors gave a casting vote under his group's instruction and expressed to me his great unhappiness at having to do so. Councillor Heppall, another Labour councillor, made what I consider to be an outrageous statement. He said that, nursery places should be provided in areas of social need, not in areas where Conservative votes are.

Councillor Riddell, the chairman of the county education authority, the most arrogant chairman of education that I have ever had the mischance to meet, has 962 suggested that Merrivale is a centre of excellence and a maverick institution that should have been closed long ago. He added: Conservative councillors are obviously fighting for their section of the electorate in opposing this closure … it is obvious that the Government only want nursery education to be available to those parents who can pay for it. Individuals who make remarks of that sort about education should not be permitted to serve. They are an affront to the democracy that they are meant to defend.

In the county's submission to the Secretary of State was the following sentence: Merrivale has served essentially the needs of those who can transport their children to the nursery by car, from those areas lacking in nursery provision. That was meant to be a criticism.

The county authority will today have received a petition from 800 parents, and I trust that in due course the petit ion will be presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Councillor Riddell has stated that the spirit of the Act can be ignored. He has said clearly that the authority will continue presenting to the Secretary of State section 12 closure notices until such time as the parents get fed up and give in. That is a circumstance that was never envisaged when the Act took its place on the statute book, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to at least insisting that there be a time gap between one closure notice and another.

The Brooksby school is opening to local authorities a more subtle and sinister way of avoiding the normal democratic processes. I am given to understand that there is another case in Lancashire where effectively a school has had its title picked up and planted some six miles away, and the school therefore technically has not been closed. In that case, no section 12 notice was required. In my case in Nottingham, the title is not six miles, but perhaps half a mile, away. Nevertheless, that school originally had access, allowing the parents to avoid the main road. That extra half mile places a dangerous main road between parents and the school.

I do not argue the case for or against this closure. I suggest that if a local authority has empty premises within its area and can merely take the title of a school and move it to another place, that is effectively a school closure—at least for the parents. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Act. Effectively, the school has been closed and no section 12 notice has been made. The parents have no right of appeal.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not under normal circumstances have accepted such practices, and I hope that he will find the time in the not too distant future to give the parents the protection that they deserve.

§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)

I have listened with great interest and care to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brando-Bravo) about the saga of Merrivale school and Nottinghamshire LEA's attempts to close it. In the time available to me, I shall attempt to answer at least some of my hon. Friend's points.

I understand the anger and frustration of my hon. Friend's constituents that, despite the fact that in a short space of time I have twice rejected proposals to close Merrivale, Nottinghamshire LEA now intends to make a third attempt. My hon. Friend is free to condemn the 963 authority, and has vigorously done so. He will understand, however, when I say that I am not at liberty to do the same. As he knows, the holder of my office acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering proposals made under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980. This means that I am limited in what I can say about proposals which may come before me for decision, lest I am seen to be prejudicing that decision. Within these constraints I shall attempt to be as helpful as I can.

My hon. Friend knows that I first considered and rejected proposals in February 1983. In communicating my decision to Nottinghamshire LEA, the Departments letter informed the authority that I was not satisfied that the proposals would sufficiently satisfy the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by the Merrivale school.

Some months later, Nottinghamshire published new proposals, and my hon. Friend brought a deputation of parents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. On 11 April 1984, I again rejected the proposals, and the Department's letter to the authority said that, while I had considered the proposals afresh, as I was statutorily bound to do, I was still not satisfied that the proposals would fully meet the future demand for nursery education in the area now served by Merrivale.

Nevertheless, Nottinghamshire has decided to try again and, I understand, will publish new proposals early in the next school year. At this point, I imagine that my hon. Friend will be hoping that I will say that the next proposals will receive the same decision as their predecessors. I am afraid I cannot offer him that reassurance. To do so would go beyond the quasi-judicial role of the holder of my office. I am under a duty to consider each set of proposals made under section 12 on their merits at the time they come before me. I must weigh all the factors in the balance and reach the decision which I consider to be right in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It may be that the conclusion is the same as before, or there may be new arguments which are sufficiently compelling to persuade me to approve the proposals. At this stage I cannot anticipate what my decision will be.

What I can assure my hon. Friend of is that I will exercise my power under section 12(5) of the 1980 Act to "call-in" the proposals for my decision. I shall then consider the proposals very carefully and my officials will ask Nottinghamshire, in presenting its case for its proposals to explain why it judges that the current circumstances are different from the earlier ones. Moreover, as my hon. Friend knows, those affected by the proposals will have an opportunity to submit objections to the LEA within two months of the first publication of the proposals. The LEA is then under a duty to forward any objections to me together with its observations. During this process my hon. Friend can exercise his prerogative to bring some of his constituents to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who, as he knows, will listen carefully to the arguments they advance.

I appreciate that this will cause a further period of uncertainty for the parents of pupils at Merrivale, and that they will again be put to the trouble and expense of attempting to save their school. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that any case those parents put to me by way of objection will be considered just as carefully as the 964 authority's arguments for its proposals, and that I shall come to a decision on the grounds of what I judge to be the individual merits of each case.

My hon. Friend has also raised the problems which have arisen following the destruction by fire of Brooksby county primary school. I understand that the authority decided to move the school permanently into the nearby and vacant premises of Greencroft infant school. Its reasons are that these premises can be suitably adapted for about £115,000 whilst to rebuild Brooksby would cost an estimated £386,000. Nottinghamshire does not have to effect this change via the section 12 process which would provide the opportunity for objection. Instead it is able to simply transfer the school using the powers contained in section 16(1) of the 1944 Act. It does not need to seek my approval for this unless it chooses to do so and I understand that it will not be so doing.

I now come to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the law be changed to prevent LEAs from resubmitting rejected proposals within a specified period. He already knows from the answer he received to a question on 19 June that I have no plans to seek such a change.

The Education Acts provide a system in which, subject to certain statutory constraints, it is for local education authorities to decide the pattern of education and of the reorganisation of schools best suited to local needs and circumstances and to the preferences of parents. Mine is a responsive role. I can act only when an authority or the governors of a voluntary school publish proposals; and when they do so, I can only approve proposals, reject them, or approve them with such modifications which after consultation with the proposers I judge to be desirable. I believe that the Act strikes just the right balance between the role of the holder of my office and that of the local education authority. Any legislation which prevented local authorities from republishing rejected proposals until six months, a year, or two years after my decision would upset that balance undesirably. Moreover, it would be difficult to legislate to prevent a local authority or the governors of a voluntary school making a number of changes in the detail of what was proposed and arguing that they had published different proposals.

I see three further reasons against such an amendment to the law. First, circumstances change, and can sometimes change quickly. The legislation which my hon. Friend has in mind could well impede an authority acting sensibly and speedily in changed circumstances.

Secondly the rejection of particular proposals does not always imply that I take the view that no further proposals should be published. There are occasions where I judge that action is required urgently because of falling pupil numbers, for instance, but where I am not persuaded that the published proposals are a satisfactory way forward. The change in the law which my hon. Friend has in mind would not assist matters forward in such circumstances.

Thirdly, the occasion when identical proposals are published again almost immediately after rejection are in practice very rare. My hon. Friend will know from the reply to his parliamentary question that since section 12 came into effect in August 1980 only three rejected proposals have been resubmitted in identical terms in the six months following their rejection. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases where proposals are rejected the decision by the holder of my office is accepted. I do not believe there is a problem on a scale to justify any change in the law.

965 I appreciate the anxieties which my hon. Friend has tonight stated on behalf of his constituents in Nottinghamshire, South. He has made their case well and in his usual way. I am sorry that I have been unable to allay those fears for him, but I hope that he will be reassured that any proposals will be considered carefully and that I will listen to any proposals put to me by objectors as well 966 as considering with equal care the case put forward by the county council. I also assure him that my decision will be taken as quickly as is consistent with full and proper consideration of the proposals.