Harwood Methodist Infants' School, Bolton (Hansard, 22 November 1984)

§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

May I say how glad I am that we are having an Adjournment debate tonight, and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making available this opportunity to debate the future of Harwood Methodist infants' school. The school is not only the last remaining Methodist school in Bolton, it is believed to the oldest Methodist school in the country. Therefore, the local authority's proposal to close it is of concern not only to local residents but to all the people of Bolton and to all Methodists. I welcome in the public Gallery Mr. John Morgan, national education secretary of the Methodist Day Schools.

Bolton has a long history of voluntary schools. The Methodist tradition is especially strong in Bolton, and the school, which dates back to 1822, contributes to the strong Methodist community in my constituency. There is great concern among my constituents about the future of religious education. We await anxiously the publication of the forthcoming Swann report. Parents in Harwood were horrified to learn that teachers in the authority's schools have been instructed never to mention the name of Christ in schools. The Secretary of State must stand up to Labour-controlled local authorities which wish to reduce parents' right to have proper religious education for their children. Too many voluntary denominational schools are being forced to close in Bolton. This is the second in my constituency this year, and a third in Bolton is threatened with a similar fate. Schools are faced with closure because of falling pupil numbers and limited financial resources. If financial resources did not count, we could have one-to-one teaching for all our children.

During the past nine years, primary pupil numbers in that part of my constituency have decreased from more than 1,400 to little more than 1,000. We all accept that something must be done to reduce excess capacity. Harwood is a popular place in which to live, and proposals have been submitted to build a further 1,000 houses in the area where the school is. Harwood historically was well served by voluntary primary schools. The three oldest schools—all voluntary—are preferred by parents. The two Church of England schools are more than fully subscribed, and the Methodist school used to be fully subscribed until the local authority built two additional primary schools close by. Those two additional schools have created the excess capacity of 1,000 desks for 500 pupils.

The council considered three schools for closure in 1981 — the two new local authority schools and the Methodist school, which had been rebuilt as an infants' school in 1964 in accordance with the council's policy then to have separate schools for infants and juniors. However, because the council changed its policy and wished to integrate infant and junior schools, it chose in 1981 to pick on the Methodist infants' school and to close it, and change its nearby junior school into a new county primary school. The council attempted to justify this bureaucratic decision in 1981 on the grounds that the Methodist school was the smallest school of the three 520 options considered and would therefore cause the least disruption. However, in terms of admissions, the infants' school is not the smallest, but the biggest school. In the age group four to seven, it has 50 per cent. of the pupils of the three schools, and this year over half total admissions.

Despite the threatened closure, parents clearly prefer this school. The council has chosen the most popular school to close, and the one whose closure will result in the smallest financial savings. Merging the Methodist infants' school with the nearby junior school will do nothing to ease the problems of the other two primary schools.

This explains the storm of protest that has arisen. Over 2,233 objections have been sent with a petition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Faced with this level of protest, and the realisation that its original choice was not in the best interests of parents, the council has retired behind a bureaucratic smokescreen, saying that there would be just as many objections if any other school were chosen for closure.

However, the danger is that a further closure might still be necessary. The chairman of the education committee told parents on 18 November last year that their objections could lead to a second school having to close.

Parents and governors of the Methodist school have repeatedly asked for the financial costings behind this decision but have been told that costing does not come into it. In a letter on 16 November 1983, I was told by the council that: Financial factors cannot be quantified at this stage. The director of education added: I intend that the relevant information on running costs will be made available"— but that— other financial factors cannot be quantified, for example possible capital receipts from the sale of site and premises. A year later, we are still wailing for all these facts. The council can only say that: There are complex legal and financial procedures in terms of evaluating and apportioning assets. Parents believe that the council would be £300,000 better off if one of the other options were chosen. The failure to disclose this information can mean only that the council is incompetent, or that it has in mind a second school closure as soon as this one is out of the way.

It was the council's decision to propose closing the Methodist school to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am disappointed that he has not found sufficient grounds to oppose the council's decision, despite the fact that the Government have disallowed 55 closure schemes out of 650 school closure proposals over the past five years.

Has my hon. Friend the Minister been given all the facts? The parents have submitted four weighty volumes of evidence to him. I have them here, and I hope that they have been read. Parents have been denied access to what the governors described as the most vital information of all—the financial costings for each option projected to next year on the latest admissions data. On what grounds has my hon. Friend made his decision? If on grounds of parental choice, or quality of education, the parents' evidence shows that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the council. Is he satisfied that he has done all that is possible. Does he consider that his powers are sufficient to see that justice is done? If the public are to have confidence in him, should not his powers be widened? if 521 he has only half the facts, should he not be empowered to ask for all the facts? Can he monitor the implementation of his decisions? For instance, will there be sufficient provision for children with special needs?

This matter goes again before the full council on 12 December. It is not too late for the council to reconsider its decision. The education committee meets on 28 November, and on this coming Monday, the chairman of the education committee meets the officers. The councillors should demand the full financial costings for all three options, and I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to use his influence to force the council to reveal the full figures. Failing that, the parents have a case for the local ombudsman.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to debate the future of this historic Methodist school. This unjustified closure proposal would unnecessarily destroy 160 years of Methodist history. It would further reduce religious educational opportunities in Bolton. It would reduce parental choice. It does not give significant financial savings. Worst of all, it does nothing to reduce the problems of excess capacity at the other two schools where the authority says that there is a danger of a closure of a second primary school in Harwood.

I urge the council to think again before it is too late to save the school. It is not too late for the council to submit a better proposal to my hon. Friend the Minister. I appeal to my hon. Friend for an urgent meeting to discuss how he can use his influence with the council, to ask for the full financial facts behind each of the options to be laid before the public. Councillors will then have no option but to oppose this disastrous decision to close unnecessarily this unique school in order that a better proposal can be put before my hon. Friend the Minister.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on his success in raising this issue, which is clearly of great concern to his constituents. I must, however, make clear to the House from the outset that the Department's letter of 6 November last said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to approve the proposals from Bolton local education authority to cease to maintain Harwood Methodist infant school and Houghfold county junior school and to establish a new county primary school in the premises of the latter. The final decision has yet to be taken because my right hon. Friend is consulting the local education authority, as he is statutorily required to do, about a modification that he has proposed to postpone the date of implementation from 1 January 1985 to 1 September 1985. That was the purpose of the Department's letter of 6 November. I understand that the authority is to discuss the proposed modification at the next meeting of its education and arts committee next Wednesday.

In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, I cannot debate with hon. Members or other objectors details of proposals which fall to my right hon. Friend to decide. It is also my right hon. Friend's practice not to provide objectors with detailed reasons for his decision where he approves proposals. Where my right hon. Friend has approved 522 proposals, it may be taken that he has generally accepted as sufficient the main arguments advanced by the proposers and has conceded that the merits of the proposals outweight the objections to them. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not seek to answer the detailed points he has raised on these particular proposals. I intend rather to consider the general issues which my right hon. Friend has to address in reaching his decision on statutory proposals.

Proposals made by local education authorities under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 fall to my right hon. Friend to decide where, as in this case, they relate to voluntary schools; where they attract statutory objectors; or where my right hon. Friend gives notice to the local education authority within two months of receiving the proposals that he wishes to decide them. For all other section 12 proposals the authority must determine whether or not it wishes to implement the proposals. My right hon. Friend considers each set of proposals which falls to him to decide on its individual merits. He has to take account of all the relevant factors including educational and financial considerations, the arguments advanced by the objectors and his own policies as set out in circulars 2/80, 2/81, 4/82 and in administrative memorandum 4/84 and to assess whether the balance of advantage lies in approval, rejection or approval with some modification of the proposals.

Educational considerations have to be a major factor and the issue which my right hon. Friend has to seek to decide is whether the proposals will lead to improved educational opportunities for the pupils involved or at least to no worsening in them; whether adequate arrangements have been made for the redeployment of teachers affected by the proposals and whether the proposed transitional arrangements will minimise the disruptive effect of the proposals on pupils' education.

Financial considerations also have to be a major factor in my right hon. Friend's decision. The number of pupils in primary schools has fallen by over a quarter since its peak in the early 1970s: a similar fall will occur in the secondary sector between now and the end of the decade. This fall in the pupil population has inevitably led to a substantial surplus of school places with its consequential drain on resources. While we recognise that some of this surplus can be put to effective use to improve the educational opportunities for pupils and that some of it should be retained against a future upturn in pupil numbers, we have in circular 2/81 encouraged local education authorities to seek the financial and educational benefits of taking surplus places out of use by the removal of temporary accommodation and the closure of whole schools.

It is vital to the Government's policy of seeking to restrain local authority expenditure and of seeking better value for money that authorities continue to seek opportunities to rationalise their provision. I should stress here that it is not simply the direct financial savings on premises expenditure, important though those are, that my right hon. Friend considers in reaching his decision on proposals, but equally important is whether the proposals will allow the available resources to be used to better effect. Small schools need more generous resourcing than the average if they are to provide their pupils with the appropriate range of curricular experiences, and, with sharply falling rolls, an increasing number of schools is 523 having to be generously resourced. Within a fixed level of resources overall, this can only be at the expense of pupils in larger schools.

Proposals, especially those which seek to amalgamate two or more schools in the premises of one of them, frequently require capital expenditure. While it might be argued that this could nullify the estimated revenue savings, it has to be recognised that in many cases the revenue savings will not be possible without some adaptation work. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, to assess whether the capital expenditure that would be involved would represent good value for money in terms of the revenue savings it would bring and the potential educational benefits to the pupils.

My right hon. Friend has, of course, to consider all the arguments advanced by those objecting to the proposals. What he has to consider is whether those arguments collectively are, or any one of them individually is, of such force as to outweigh any financial or educational merits which the proposals may have. Those objecting can and do, of course, challenge educational and financial arguments put forward by the authority in support of its proposals. My right hon. Friend having heard the arguments from both sides has to try to assess where the advantage lies.

Finally, my right hon. Friend has necessarily to consider how far the proposals are consistent with his policies as set out in circulars 2/80, 2/81 and 4/82, and administrative memorandum 4/84. One of these policies is that of maintaining the balance between county and voluntary provision; and I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend had careful regard to this, as well as to all the other matters to which I have referred—not least because the number of Methodist voluntary schools in the country is already much reduced. The circulars also 524 cover the general educational and financial considerations to which I have referred and include, in addition, evidence of parental preference, the need for adequate prior consultation, and the need for adequate time between the publication of proposals and the proposed date of implementation. This last factor is relevant to the proposals with which my hon. Friend is concerned, since in my right hon. Friend's view it would be preferable if there were to be a longer period before the proposals are implemented to allow the authority and the teachers involved more time to plan for the amalgamation.

As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend has to assess where the balance of advantage lies having considered all the factors and all the information available to him. He cannot reject proposals simply because he would have preferred alternative proposals: the responsibility for publishing proposals rests with local education authorities and the governors of voluntary schools, and not with my right hon. Friend. He cannot substitute his judgment for theirs. Even his power to modify proposals is limited and is most commonly used, as in this case, to defer the date of implementation. Any modification he proposes must leave the proposals substantially unchanged, otherwise he would incur the risk of successful legal challenge in the courts.

I recognise the strength of feeling of those objecting to the proposals to close Harwood Methodist infants school, and which has prompted my hon. Friend to raise this issue in the House. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept that my right hon. Friend has reached his view on the proposals only after the most careful consideration of the factors and has not simply ignored the arguments of the objectors.