BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 21 October 1986)

§ Mr. Fatchett
Time and again in the previous debate reference was made to freedom of choice, parental choice and the notion of decentralisation. In this debate, exactly the opposite has been proposed. The hon. Member for Stirling wished to take the responsibility for managing and funding schools away from the local authorities and ultimately away from parents. He wishes to vest that power in the Department of Education and Science.

§ Mr. Forsyth
rose—

§ Mr. Fatchett
I will explain why, and the hon. Gentleman may reply to that in his wind-up speech, when he may sort out his contradictions and confusions.
The hon. Member for Stirling wishes to vest that power in the Department because he wants to allow that Department to set the level of resources for each school. He does not wish to vest the power with the local authorities or with parents.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the level of funding, the hon. Gentleman ran away from that point and dismissed it as irrelevant. Those who have been involved with the education system will know that the level of funding is not irrelevant. The hon. Member for Stirling dismissed it as such because he realised that, if he put a figure on the level of funding, that would underpin my contention that he is a centraliser rather than a decentraliser.
We have had much talk about parental choice. This new clause shows that the previous discussion was a lot of hypocrisy. If the schools, as promulgated in the new clause, are established, the reality will be that the parents and those who run the school — the governors—will 1048 invoke a process of selection to keep out children from the local catchment areas. These will be selection schools; they will not be parental choice schools.

Several Hon. Members
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Fatchett
Hon. Members may nod, but they should think it through. In reality, parents in a particular school will define their selection boundaries. They will be based not on the geographical catchment area but on other criteria—the criteria of selection. The hon. Member for Stirling, by his argument, has proved that he is a centraliser and that he has little regard for parental choice. He wishes to bring back selection to education and he wants to strengthen what is, in some respects, an already too elitist system. That is why we shall oppose the new clause.

§ Mr. Dunn
May I correct one thing? Earlier, I said to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that he was almost like one of them. I did not say that he was like one of us. If he is, that is his business.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) on his excellent speech. It is clear from the debate—mainly from contributions by hon. Friends—that we have a radical and major contribution to make to the future of education in Britain. It is significant that the ideas come from the Conservative Benches. In the seven years that I have been a Member of the House, not one idea, improvement, benefit or dynamism has come from the Opposition.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling that the Government will have to think long and hard before they accept a scheme which has been outlined in the new clause. The issues are significant, far-reaching and undoubtedly controversial—that was probably the intention of my hon. Friend. Some of the ideas in the clause are fascinating and interesting. In my view, they are not the kind of changes which can be simply enacted by an amendment at this stage. With as much conviction as I can muster in a brief response, I invite my hon. Friend not to press his proposal.

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not spend much time on what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said. It is interesting that it should be central as his party is the party of centralists. I thought it significant that the hon. Gentleman spent the whole of his speech labelling me with concepts which are nothing to do with the spirit of the new clause rather than stating why he opposes the principle behind it.
The hon. Member's principal argument, in so far as it related to new clause 27, was about the method of funding. That shows that the extent of his research and consideration had not gone beyond the first line as he will find that subsection (2) of the new clause sets out the basis of funding.
I had not expected my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the new clause tonight. I am encouraged by what he said. He said that he needs to think long and hard about this matter and that there are many aspects of it which he finds attrative. I invite him to think long and hard. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.