Elsted Primary School (Hansard, 6 March 1984)

§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

I am delighted to have this opportunity of raising an issue which has aroused considerable feeling in my constituency and which has implications for villages in rural areas elsewhere, namely, the proposed closure of Elsted village school.

There has been a school in Elsted since 1820. For over 160 years Elsted primary school has provided generations of pupils with a solid foundation in basic numeracy and literacy as well as a happy environment in which to learn and develop. It was, therefore, a thunderbolt for this village and for the surrounding community to learn that their school was threatened with closure, not for academic reasons, nor because of inordinate cost, but so that it could be merged with a smaller school in the nearby village of Harting. On 24 February the West Sussex county council passed a resolution to close not only Elsted school but the Cocking primary school—another village school in my constituency, with only 17 pupils.

Under the Education Act 1980, proposals for school closures must be submitted to the Secretary of State. I was anxious to take the first opportunity to acquaint my right hon. and hon. Friends with my strong objections to the closure of Elsted school and my conviction that there are special considerations that justify a rejection of the local education authority's proposal.

I wish to tell my hon. Friend the Minister a little about Elsted school, and also a little about the village—which is far from the madding crowd and set in a most delightful part of my rural constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting Elsted school only last weekend with governors and parents. The school presently has 27 children on the roll, although the number will rise to 32 at the beginning of the next academic year and will continue to rise over the next few years.

The school has always provided a high standard of education and has attracted pupils from surrounding villages such as Treyford, Didling, Trotton, Minstead, Steadham and Hurst as well as South and East Harting. There has always been strong parental involvement in the school. Equipment purchased by the parent-teacher association is too numerous to mention in full but includes the BBC computer, part of which was financed by funds raised by the pupils in a cross-country run. The equipment includes a coloured television, a tape recorder and various sports equipment. A major item that has been provided by parents is a swimming pool, which is also used after school hours and during holidays.

The school is situated in the centre of Elsted village. It has an excellent headmistress in Mrs. Anne Day. The school is a focal point of local community activities and a significant patron of the village hall. The parents reflect a cross-section of the community, including agricultural workers, one-parent families and professional groups, all of whom appreciate that a small mixed ability class can create a good social, emotional and educational atmosphere for children.

The headmaster of Midhurst intermediate school, which many of the pupils subsequently attend, is quoted as saying: In our experience over a number of years, we would rate Elsted School as a first class example of what a village primary 828 school should be … Well taught groundwork has enabled Elsted pupils to take the transition to this school in their stride. We feel that it would be a great pity to close a school that we recognise as a fine example of its kind. The same sentiments are shared by county councillor Dr. Derek Stephenson, who made an impassioned and compelling speech when the subject was debated at the West Sussex county council meeting. That view is shared also by the action committee to save Elsted school, representatives of which came to the House today to present me with a petition. It is shared also by the school governors, by the Sussex rural community council and by the parish council of Elsted with Treyford and Didling. How could the closure of such a school be contemplated?

Apparently, advice was received that a combined school at nearby Harting would achieve economies of scale. I think we have heard that before. Coming from one of the low-spending authorities which has consistently followed Government strictures on local government expenditure, I am the first to appreciate that all potential areas of saving money must be explored. However, the closure of Elsted school will make neither financial nor educational sense.

New facts have come to light to support this view and I ask my hon. Friend to take full account of them. First, on the financial front, a merger will prove more, rather than less, costly per pupil. The council's estimate of the running costs of Elsted school is some £35,688 a year, but this is based on amortising building maintenance over a relatively short period. In fact, it has been estimated that if the cost is spread over 10 years and the increase in intake in September is taken into account the running cost per pupil will work out at £1,062 per annum. This is less than the average running cost of small rural schools in West Sussex, which is currently about £1,200 per pupil. It may also be significantly less than the cost per pupil at the new merged Harting school, because, in a survey conducted by the action committee against the closure of Elsted school, all but one of the parents with children currently at Elsted school indicated their intention of sending their children to schools other than Harting if Elsted is closed.

While my hon. Friend may feel that a survey collected by such a group is somewhat biased, even allowing for a measure of error, I still feel that it is a very significant factor, which has not been taken into account, that, with freedom of parental choice, not all the pupils of Elsted school will necessarily be sent freely by their parents to the new merged school in Harting. This must necessarily affect very substantially and directly the average cost of education per pupil at such a new school. While that may not undermine the feasibility or continued viability of any school based at Harting, I believe that this comparative exercise justifies the continued existence of Elsted school.

Furthermore, no capital receipts will accrue to the education authority or, as far as I am aware, to the Church through the disposal of the present Elsted school building. This is because the school was originally provided in trust for the education of local villagers, and the property will revert to the trust and not the local education authority. There is no crock of gold, therefore, for the local authority through the disposal of the capital asset.

I would add and urge my hon. Friend to consider as well that my understanding is that in the course of the last year not insignificant sums of money have been spent by the local education authority on refurbishing Elsted school and improving the oil heating facilities there, presumably at 829 great cost to local ratepayers and taxpayers. It does seem rather extraordinary that within such a short space of time, a matter of months after spending such capital moneys, the local education authority and the county council should recommend to the Secretary of State that that money be effectively written off, the school closed and the children moved elsewhere.

Secondly, much has been made of the argument that the population of Harting is larger than that of Elsted and that this justifies closing the latter school and merging it with the former. However, a significant number of children in the Harting catchment area, especially in the north and the east, go to schools other than Harting, notably Rogate and Elsted. This is the parents' choice, and I had always understood that parental choice was a criterion which the Government upheld.

Thirdly, it has become increasingly clear that the motive underlying proposals for the closure of Elsted school and its merger with Harting is not so much educational or financial efficiency as a false assumption that Elsted school enjoys some middle-class snob appeal. The governors of Harting school, in a document setting out their views, said: Regrettably, it has to be stated that there has long been a social cachet attached to attending Elsted school … A merger would end this situation once and for all. Indeed, in a letter to me the rector of Harting and, I believe, chairman of the governors of Harting school, the Reverend K. L. Masters, said: One of the divisions that has festered in this local community has been the separation of children into attending either Elsted or Harting school. That is a problem of which I was made aware even before being instituted as Rector. It has been aggravated over a long time by the efforts of Elsted School parents to persuade any new middle class families in Hafting to send their children to Elsted School without even looking at Harting School. To merge the Schools will be an important step towards overcoming that division. I have a high regard for the rector of Harting. Not for a moment do I question his sincerity or that of his fellow governors. He, understandably and rightly, is concerned to do what is best for his parish, best for the children and best for the parents. However, social engineering is a less than compelling reason for closing a long-established school. Since when were academic excellence and positive parental choice justifications for closure?

I fully appreciate the views of Harting parish council and the governors and parents of Harting school, most of whom support the idea of a merged school. They believe that it would end the uncertainty over the future of the two schools and perhaps lead to a higher average standard of education for the children of both communities. I share those objectives, but I resent the suggestion — presumably promulgated by the local education authority—that one school must close if the other is to survive.

That view pits community against community in a way that might be convenient for the education authority, because it wants the closure proposal to be supported, but it is debilitating for the people affected, who feel threatened and protective towards their community school. The right course should be to preserve both schools, to recognise the wishes and choices of parents in all the parishes affected, to devote the resources necessary to provide comparable and high standards of education, and to preserve the identity and community spirit of rural villages.

I recognise that it is not economic to keep some schools open, especially at a time of falling rolls. My hon. Friend 830 will be the first to remind me of that. Nevertheless, he will recall the pledge that our party made at the general election, that the Government is concerned to ensure that small village schools are not closed, wherever such closures can be avoided. Elsted is just such a case. I would not claim the same for Cocking primary school, whose closure was recommended in the same council resolution. Many councillors recognise this, even though they voted on a composite motion at the county council meeting to close those schools. It is significant that, despite the clear initial view in favour of the closure by the education subcommittee, when the motion came before the full county council the vote was much narrower than had been expected. It was 37 to 28. Considering that county councillors come from all over the county, including areas less familiar with the merits of Elsted school, that was a relatively fine vote and would justify the Secretary of State in taking on board the real concerns that I and others have expressed.

In the light of the further information that I have provided, I hope that my hon. Friend will reprieve the school permanently and not refer the decision to West Sussex county council for further consideration. Mergers have not always achieved the financial or educational results intended. In this case, I am persuaded that the best course is to keep both schools open and distinct.

My hon. Friend is a man of judgment and sensitivity. I have every confidence that he will take on board the points that I have made. If there is one testimony above others which should remove any remaining doubt in my hon. Friend's minds it is that of my constituent Mr. W. F. Perret, whose spastic daughter Sonia passed through Elsted school with flying colours. Mr. Ferret writes: I have been informed that Elsted school might be closed for good. My wife died in September, and now I have to look after my daughter, who went to this school to learn as she is partially handicapped. The teachers and school helped her such a lot that she is now going to Lord Mayor Treloar's college at Alton, Hampshire, and, as you might know, this school helps youngsters to grow up in our society and environment, which has decreased a lot. Our daughter has benefited from going to Elsted school, so why should not other youngsters be able to do the same and learn at a better school rather than grow up to be on the streets, on the dole and fighting each other? It is up to you and your partners to help out to keep one good school open. We all know that the Government is trying to cut costs, but why a small school which helps youngsters around here to grow up and learn a lot? The postscript to that story is that Sonia, who came to Elsted hardly able to walk, feed herself or cope in any way, is now, after seven years of constant help and encouragement from staff and pupils, an articulate girl who can read, write and compute well above average standard. At the end of tern she conducted the leavers' service in front of a full church congregation. No words of mine can match the moving experience of Mr. Ferret and his daughter Sonia. I implore my hon. Friend to save Elsted school.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on obtaining the Adjournment debate on the possible closure of Elsted school. I am pleased to be able to reply to him. He has spoken tonight about a subject in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken a close 831 interest recently and, in doing so, has shown again the keen and diligent way in which he represents his constituents' interests.

My hon. Friend has referred to the possible closure of Elsted primary school. I shall come to that in a moment, but there are a number of important educational and financial considerations which underlie the closure of any school, rural or urban, which need to be considered. I shall try, in the time available, to discuss those, too. Finally, there are particular considerations that apply to village schools, and I would like to say something about them.

With regard to Elsted primary school, I was careful to talk of its "possible closure". There are detailed procedures enshrined in law that have to be observed before any school can be closed, but, in the case of Elsted school, these procedures have yet to be set in train. Before going on to discuss the underlying considerations I mentioned earlier, perhaps I might outline the statutory procedures that are set out in section 12 of the Education Act 1980. When a local education authority decides that it wishes to cease to maintain a school—whether it be a county school or a voluntary one — it must publish locally notice of what it is proposing and submit the proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There then follows a two-month period when objections may be submitted to the local education authority. Those who have a statutory right to object are defined in the Act as 10 or more local government electors, the governors of any voluntary school and any local education authority that might be affected by the proposals.

If there are objections, the authority must send them to my right hon. Friend within one month of the expiry of the notices with its observations and my right hon. Friend must then consider the proposals on their merits and make his decision accordingly. If there are no objections, the authority may, in the case of county schools, determine to implement the proposals without reference to my right hon. Friend unless he has informed the authority that he wishes to decide the proposals irrespective of whether objections have been made. This power to call in proposals was always intended to be used sparingly.

In the case of voluntary schools — Elsted is a voluntary school—any proposals to cease to maintain a school automatically require the approval of my right hon. Friend, whether or not there have been objections. I have noted all that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has said about the Elsted school, but it is not possible for me to make any comment about its future at the moment. Proposals under section 12 for its closure have yet to be published, although I understand that the West Sussex education authority intends to do so before long. I trust that my hon. Friend will have taken careful note of the Secretary of State's role—it is a quasi-judicial one, and I must be careful today that anything I say will not prejudice the decision which may be his to make.

Let me just say that when my right hon. Friend considers any proposals before him he has to take account of all the relevant factors. These factors include the educational and financial merits of the proposals, the statutory objections and the edcuation authority's comments upon them and his own general policies on education as set out, for instance, in circulars 2/80, 2/81 and 4/82. I might also add, as an aside, that representations are sometimes made in favour of particular school 832 closures. Surprising though this may seem at first sight, some deputations brought by hon. Members on both sides of the House support the local education authority's view that a school should be closed so that other schools can achieve the viability of pupil numbers which would result. My right hon. Friend will also take account of such representations when they are made. His decision is taken only after the most careful consideration of all the relevant issues.

Let me say a word or two here about the amalgamation or merger of schools. There is in fact no specific provision within the Education Acts to effect an amalgamation. Such an effect can and frequently is achieved, however, by proposals to cease to maintain two schools, and to establish one new school in their place. The new school will have a new legal identity, a new instrument and articles of government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the decline in school population. What is frequently overlooked is that by end of the decade the size of the school population will have fallen by a quarter, and demographic changes on that scale inevitably present new challenges and problems for the education service. Furthermore, even on the highest assumptions of numbers of births, the present school population will not be reached again — if at all — before the very last years of this century. This fall in the birth rate compounds the effects of the quite separate demographic changes affecting the rural population.

It is sometimes alleged that it is Government policy to close village schools. That is not so. We believe that there are strong arguments on many fronts for taking out of use surplus places and for taking advantage of falling rolls by rationalising primary and secondary school stock. Circular 2/81 put these arguments to LEAs and emphasised my right hon. Friend's belief that they apply in urban and rural areas alike. It is for each local education authority to review its own provision in the light of its own needs and priorities and to make such statutory proposals as it judges necessary. It is then, where appropriate, for my right hon. Friend to consider such proposals on their merits.

Let me repeat that proposals for the closure of Elsted primary school have yet to be submitted by the West Sussex education authority. If and when the proposals are published and submitted to my right hon. Friend, there will be, as I said earlier, two months from the date of their publication for objectors to lodge their objections with the authority. Since Elsted is a voluntary school, the proposals will come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision. There will, of course, be opportunties for my hon. Friend to bring deputations and for them to put their point of view. I assure him and his constituents that all their arguments will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend, along with the other considerations that will weigh in this case, before he reaches his decision. For the present, it would not be right for me to offer any opinion or further comment on this case lest I be thought to be prejudicing any decision that my right hon. Friend may have to make.

I end, as I started, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester on his success in obtaining this debate and on placing on record his views about this proposal.