Mr. Ray Honeyford (Hansard, 16 April 1985)

§ Mr. Marcus Fox (Shipley)
This Adjournment debate is concerned with Mr. Ray Honeyford, the headmaster of Drummond Road Middle School, Bradford. Just a few of my constituents send their children there. This matter has become a national issue—not from Mr. Honeyford's choice. Its consequences go beyond the issue of race relations or, indeed, of education. They strike at the very root of our democracy and what we cherish in this House above all—the freedom of speech.
One man writing an article in a small-circulation publication has brought down a holocaust on his head. To my mind, this was a breath of fresh air in the polluted area of race relations. He was not in conflict with the Secretary of State or indeed with his education authority. I quote from the chairman of the council's education committee: It is clear that Mr. Honeyford is not and has not acted in any way to be labelled a racist. Council documents show that he has implemented the authority's policy. Indeed, because the chairman of that committee is a Conservative, to show how unbiased they are, the principal middle school officer, Mr. Donald Thompson—not to be confused with the Whip of that name—said in the Telegraph and Argus on 20 March 1984: Mr. Honeyford was unquestionably very able. We have had no complaints about him at all. All this controversy has stemmed from the publication of an unfortunate article. He has always done well by all the pupils at the school. How, then, did all this business start, we may well ask, and I hope to enlighten the House? What did Mr. Honeyford say in his article in the Salisbury Review? He dared to suggest that in a classroom dominated by coloured children white children suffer educationally. Mr. Honeyford should know, because in his school 92 per cent. of the children are of Asian origin. If he had commented the other way round, that in a school with 92 per cent. white children the 8 per cent. coloured children were at a disadvantage, he would have been praised by his present detractors, not vilified.

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
Not so.

§ Mr. Fox
It is all right the hon. Gentleman saying "Not so". Let him just listen to what I have to say.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
I have listened.

§ Mr. Fox
The hon. Gentleman has not heard half yet. In practice Mr. Honeyford is trying to rectify the situation in his school by emphasing that all his children are British—I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees; that is hopeful—and that English should be their mother tongue. How on earth will they be integrated in our society if they are not fluent in our language? He is not saying that other cultures or languages should not be respected. He points out that most of the children get these all the time outside school. This is inevitable. Something like only 10 per cent. of their parents speak English and only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. write it. So it is obvious what language the children get at home.
Mr. Honeyford believes that schools must place British culture and history at the forefront of the curriculum for all pupils, black and white. It is a fact that the parents of 236 the children in question chose to come and live here of their own free will, were given British citizenship and therefore must accept that our British educational system is the best possible for their families.
This is not a new policy. Over the decades other minorities from many countries have accepted this. In my own constituency there are Jews and people from eastern Europe who have accepted this without question. And I believe that the vast majority of the parents of children at Mr. Honeyford's school know this and want their children to do well through the sort of teaching that he has given. One would think that somehow in this day and age it was racist to teach English.
What are Mr. Honeyford's qualifications? He has taught at that school for four years. He has a first-class record. There are 540 children at the school, and it is oversubscribed for the next school year. Obviously, he has the confidence of the majority of the school governors —[Interruption.] I hear those rumblings, but only a few days ago in the Telegraph and Argus of 7 April, Mr. Ernest Kinder, chairman of the school governers, said: I have received many letters of support from parents and, as far as the board is concerned Mr. Honeyford is the right man for the job at Drummond Road. We feel that every individual is entitled to voice his opinions and therefore we do not want to discuss the matter. I am sure that the majority of parents support Mr. Honeyford. Not one child has been withdrawn from that school in spite of the vicious campaign that has been orchestrated against him over the past 12 months. The vitriolic attacks on him must have had an enormous effect in terms of undermining his authority and teaching. It is to the shame of those people that they have never given any thought to the effect on the children. The staff support him. I defy anyone who has visited the school—perhaps the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would like to say something about this, if he has visited the school—to dispute the fact that it is a good school where discipline and authority are maintained, and the children are happy and are being educated in a good environment. No racist could control such a well-run school, with dedicated students learning and speaking English. [Interruption.] I hope that people outside the House will be noting the noises made by the only Liberal Member present in the house, the hon. Member for Leeds. West (Mr. Meadowcroft). Mr. Honeyford's enemies have deliberately exaggerated the article that he wrote for their own ends. I remind the House of what the Secretary of State said in a speech to the chamber of commerce in Reading: To emphasise racial differences could create untold damage to race relations. He has also said: The Government is committed to the principle that all children of whatever race or colour should have an equal opportunity to benefit from education. At the same time they should also be able to feel that they belong in a true sense to Britain. It is right to uphold family traditions and values and to have pride in our ancestry, but we are also full members of British society, whatever our origins.
Who are Mr. Honeyford's detractors? Who are the people who have persecuted him? They have one thing in common—theyare all on the Left of British politics. The Marxists and the Trots are here in full force. We only have to look at their tactics, and all the signs are there. Without a shred of evidence, Mr. Honeyford has been vilified as a racist. Innuendos and lies have been the order 237 of the day. He has been criticised continuously through the media, yet most of the time he has been barred from defending himself and denied the right to answer those allegations by order of the education authority. The mob has taken to the streets to harass him out of his job. Some 150 demonstrators marched from the school to the education offices in Bradford.
After that rent-a-mob besieged his office, the director of education, in a blue funk, announced a major review. Ten educational advisers descended on Mr. Honeyford's school to investigate it. A few paltry recommendations were made, one being that he should improve relations with the parents—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members should listen. As the vast majority of the parents do not speak English and do not come to the school as normal parents would do, he sought to meet them. He wrote to all the parents in Urdu and English explaining his intentions and, along with an experienced education welfare officer, who, by the way, comes from the new Commonwealth and knows all about those problems, he went to their homes. It was a worthwhile task. At every house that he visited he was greeted with respect and pleasure. What happened after Mr. Honeyford visited 40 or 50 families? A leading figure behind the parent action group made objections to the director of education, and the exercise was stopped. That is hardly an exercise in democracy. On the one hand Mr. Honeyford was asked to do just that, and on the other those who saw the success of it stopped him. So much for the council's claim that its race relations policy was based on encouragement, tolerance and concern. The officers showed cowardice. They could have dealt firmly with the Left-wing agitators months ago.
The same people visited the parents and, although the majority of parents cannot speak or write English, 200 similar letters arrived on the desk of the director of education asking for Mr. Honeyford's dismissal—I am justifying the Trots and Marxists being involved. Last October, a governors meeting at city hall — [Interruption.]—I hope that the Liberal party would not indulge in this sort of business.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
If the hon. Gentleman will let me——

§ Mr. Fox
I have no intention of doing so.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
I know.

§ Mr. Fox
I give way.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
The hon. Gentleman may be doing himself a disservice. Will he accept that I came to listen to him because I may have more sympathy with what he is trying to say than he thinks? For example, I do not believe that the thought police have a place in our democracy. What I read and what I am advised by my Liberalcolleagues is basically that whatever the writing on the paper, there is a feeling that Mr. Honeyford has not conformed with the spirit of multi-cultural education. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest should be done to resolve the problem, rather than to exacerbate it, as he is doing tonight?

§ Mr. Fox
From the minute when the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber he has disguised from me the fact that he is in sympathy with my remarks. I shall come to his point shortly.
Last October a governors meeting at city hall was interrupted by the most incredible scenes which sought to influence them. It was well reported in the various newspapers. Those people are out to destroy the career of a person who has spent a lifetime in teaching. Recently, they formed an alternative school. I remind the House that some people in the area wanted a separate Moslim school in the first place. Therefore, it was not difficult to get the bandwagon rolling. The children were picked up off the streets in minibuses which took them to the illegal school. Environmental health officers were not permitted to monitor the food being transported from local cafes to the school. Even the chief executive of the council was refused admission. So much for anxiety for the children. They were obviously being used.
The matter culminated in a six hour meeting, at which the vote was eight to seven. I now understand why the hon. Member for Leeds, West is present. It was the vote of the Liberal leader of Bradford city council that resulted in the suspension of Mr. Honeyford. She has since virtually retracted her comments. It all boils down to the fact that there is deep public anxiety at this injustice. The council and its officers have lost public support over the issue. I have a petition which a constituent collected in 20 hours, on which there are 6,000 signatures. I shall give it to the Minister before I leave.
The race relations bullies may have got their way so far, but the silent majority of decent people have had enough. The classic intolerance was when some employees of the council stopped Mr. Honeyford from attending a race relations course, where he would supposedly learn the error of his ways, which was the council's policy. They said that he could not attend because he was a racist. The employees, not Mr. Honeyford, were opposing the council's policy. That confirmed my worst fear about those courses. I knew exactly the sort of people who would be running them, and the racist policies that they would adopt.
The matter has reached the point where the morale of headteachers in our area has never been so low. One headteacher claims that 40 have taken early retirement. Although the council may make a generous offer, that seems to be a coincidence.
I think Bradford is a very sick authority because it is ruled by those political zealots who are on the race lobby bandwagon. She touches a chord there. The authority of head teachers has been undermined. If Mr. Honeyford is ultimately dismissed, where will it all stop? The withdrawal of the right to free speech from this one man could have enormous consequences and the totalitarian forces ranged against him will have succeeded. This is not the only attempt that has been made in Bradford to stop the conduct of public affairs by other than normal means. It cannot and must not be allowed to succeed.
There is no doubt that the parents are distressed, but the school could soon return to normal under Mr. Honeyford. There is enormous public support for him. I hope that the lord mayor elect of Bradford will reconsider his own position. If he wishes to improve race relations in the city during his year of office he should not forget that he needs the good will of the majority. A little magnanimity from him would be most welcome. A previous Labour lord 239 mayor, Councillor Norman Free, who opposed me and lost in two general elections, is now a friend of mine. He is as appalled as I am at the treatment that Mr. Honeyford is receiving. There is grave public disquiet at the behaviour of local education chiefs and the involvement of political extremists and at the fact that a matter of such great public concern was decided by a subcommittee and not by a full meeting of the council. It is feared that even if the school governors support reinstatement at their next meeting they may be overruled.
The staff are behind Mr. Honeyford, as are the majority of the governors, and thousands of people have signed petitions. His union, the National Association of Head Teachers, supports him and both local newspapers—the Yorkshire and North Humberside Times and the Telegraph and Argus—have published editorials saying how wrong the suspension is. Even a leading article in The Times has stated that Mr. Honeyford deserves to keep his job. It concludes: Mr. Honeyford is a heretic and his fate deserves the widest possible attention. It is not too late to take action. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will monitor the situation extremely carefully.
A number of my hon. Friends have asked to express their support in the remining few minutes. Obviously, I must give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), as Mr. Honeyford is his constituent.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Honeyford may be a constituent of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), but the vast majority of the parents are my constituents. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) has referred to me in the debate and when I had an Adjournment debate some months ago I readily gave way to him. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that there is a fair balance of views in this short debate and to allow me to intervene in it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
I have listened carefully to the point of order and 1 must put the record straight. An Adjournment debate is personal to the Member who is successful in the ballot, but it is not for that Member to decide who shall be called next. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) may give way to an intervention, but he must not try to tell the occupant of the Chair who is to speak next.

§ Mr. Fox
I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West the opportunity to intervene earlier in the debate, but he did not seek to do so. He has not written to me asking to take part, as my two colleagues have. I shall therefore give way to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller).

§ Mr. Madden
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that more than half the time allocated for the debate has already been taken. I am sure that the House wishes to hear the Minister's response, although that, of course, is for him to decide.

§ Mr. Madden
Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the hon. Member for Shipley asking to speak in this debate. I also wrote to the Minister asking if I might speak. The supporters of Mr. Honeyford are zealous in claiming the right of free speech to express their point of view. They are equally zealous in trying to 240 stop those who oppose them from expressing their point of veiw. It is clear that they are trying to do that in this debate. The parents who have lost confidence in Mr. Honeyford are overwhelmingly my constituents—the school is in my constituency—and I therefore ask for the right to speak on their behalf in this short debate to express a point of view which is contrary to that of the hon. Member for Shipley—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must follow the procedures of the House, which provide that the Adjournment debate is personal to the hon. Member who has been successful in the ballot. It is also the practice to hear the Minister's reply, and we have already taken more than half of the time allocated to the debate.

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
I am grateful to——

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not unfair to the House that an hon. Member should raise a matter that concerns another's constituency, refer to that hon. Member, implying that he will be able to put the record straight and answer all of the abuse, and for that hon. Member then not to be given an opportunity to speak?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is for the occupant of the Chair to follow the procedures. It is for the Minister to decide whether time should be taken out of the last 10 minutes available by another hon. Member. An Adjournment debate is a personal matter for the hon. Member successful in the ballot. It is for the Minister to decide.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) informed me that he had been approached by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), and I accepted that. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) presented me with a note about half an hour before the debate started. I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the debate is entirely the prerogative of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

§ Mr. Sumberg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend——

§ Mr. Madden
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must protest again that this is most curious. I have not been aware, during my eight years in the House, that an Adjournment debate is the personal property of an hon. Member, especially when the debate is about a school in another hon. Member's constituency, the person named in the motion is not a constituent of the hon. Member who has been granted the debate and when that hon. Member refuses to give another hon. Member, who is mentioned during the debate, an opportunity to reply to grossly misleading information.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I must inform the House that the Adjournment debate is a personal matter for the hon. Member successful in the ballot. That has long precedent. An hon. Member, whatever his interest in the debate, must reach an agreement with the hon. Member successful in the ballot and the Minister. I am honour bound to accept the procedures.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not clear that there is a convention in the House that if an hon. Member discusses matters in another's constituency, especially when he makes allegations such as have been made today, he gives that hon. Member an opportunity to at least express a point of view? Just as our procedures allow an hon. Member to have control over an Adjournment debate, so he should have regard to the conventions which allow fair speech. On an issue such as this, it is a grave abuse for an hon. Member to make allegations about a school in another's constituency and not allow that hon. Member to make at least a brief speech.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Those may well be the merits of the case, but I am bound by the procedures. The Adjournment debate is personal to the hon. Member who has been successful in the ballot. Any other hon. Member must seek the agreement of the Minister and the hon. Member concerned.

§ Mr. Madden
Further to my previous point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that when I raised my initial point of order I referred to the fact that I had an Adjournment debate some months ago concerning the closure of a hospital in my constituency. In the course of my remarks I referred to a hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Shipley. He did not at any time seek my agreement, but he spoke immediately after I did in that debate, and I readily allowed him to speak. He tonight is denying me the opportunity to speak that I gave him some months ago. This is an abuse of the House——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind hon. Gentlemen that there is no injury time. Points of order are part of the Adjournment debate. All I say is that it is for the hon. Member concerned to decide, and I am trying to follow that procedure.

§ Mr. Sumberg
I want to make one single point. I am speaking in the House on behalf of my constituent. By the conduct of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) I have been prevented from doing so.Iam here to defend my constituent's interest. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for allowing me to do so. My constituent has not had the sort of freedom of speech that the hon. Member for Bradford, West has tried to deny to me. I shall sit down in the hope that the Minister may have five minutes to reply to the debate.

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

§ Mr. Madden
rose——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) must resume his seat.

§ Mr. Dunn
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank——

§ Mr. Madden
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In June of last year I was in extensive correspondence with the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the school which is the subject of this debate——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This is an Adjournment debate. There are certain rules that apply to Adjournment debates. Unless the hon. Gentleman is contradicting what I am saying about the procedures, he must not delay the debate. We are almost at the end of the Adjournment anyway. I am sure that the House wants to hear the Minister's reply.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention of the House is that there is an opportunity for Members to express their point of view. The hon. Member for Shiply (Mr. Fox) who introduced the Adjournment debate, has broken the convention of the House by denying——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the convention is for each hon. Member to be responsible for his own conduct and his own speech.

§ Mr. Bennett
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It cannot be further to a point of order which I decided was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Bennett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention of the House is that an hon. Member should have an opportunity to express a constituency point of view. If an hon. Member denies that, it is not surprising that hon. Members on this side feel aggrieved about the matter. He has not had the opportunity——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. One may feel aggrieved on many occasions. My job is to protect the proceedings of the House.

§ Mr. Dunn
For the third time, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for obtaining this Adjournment debate——

§ Mr. Madden
He misled the House on every conceivable aspect.

§ Mr. Dunn
I wish to reply to the Adjournment debate in the minute or two that remains.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
The Minister should blame his hon. Friend. It is his fault.

§ Mr. Dunn
We have come here tonight to listen to the point of view placed on the record by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

§ Mr. Madden
It is a huge pack of lies.

§ Mr. Dunn
I wish to observe the convention of the House and respond——

§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has described the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) as a pack of lies. Is that in conformity with the traditions of the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I did not hear the hon. Member making a personal allegation. It was a general comment. I think that we had better hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

§ Mr. Dunn
The Minister, too, would like to make some points to place on the record. Let me say at the outset that I do not see it as my task to interpret events in Bradford, nor to respond to the calls that I have heard to 243 intervene in the matter. I do not believe that I have available to me information on which that could be based. I must, therefore, restrict my comments to some of the general principles that have been raised——