Inner London Education Authority

HC Deb 17 February 1988 vol 127 cc1000-82

5.5 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

I beg to move, That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

I should also tell the House that Mr. Speaker intends to give some preference during the debate to hon. Members representing seats in the Inner London education authority area.

Finally, Mr. Speaker has particularly asked me to appeal for brief contributions, as many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Baker

The need to improve the quality of education in inner London is urgent. The contrast between ILEA's levels of expenditure and its mediocre performance is frankly scandalous, and ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters. There has been a growing view that our objective to raise standards in inner London would be best achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions. For that reason, on 4 February I announced the Government's intention to table amendments to wind up ILEA and to transfer education responsibilities to the inner London boroughs and the City of London from 1 April 1990; and I tabled those amendments yesterday.

The authority is so large, and its lines of responsibility so attenuated, that it has been very difficult to start the process of change in the classroom which is so necessary. In addition, those in control of the authority have been too intent on fighting battles peculiar to the London Labour party to get on with the job of improving education. The head teachers of inner London have not been given the support they need. ILEA lost one in seven of its head teachers in 1986. One of them said: Most of us fought like dogs to save the ILEA. We wouldn't cross the street to save it now.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose—

Mr. Baker

I have just started; I shall give way later.

There has been weak political management, coupled with culpable extravagance. Let me remind the House of the levels of ILEA's spending in terms of unit costs. In the primary school, teaching staff costs for metropolitan districts average about £530 per child, for the outer-London boroughs, £590 and for ILEA £730. For primary support staff, the average for the metropolitan districts is £110, for the outer-London boroughs, £130, and for ILEA, £230. As for secondary school support staff costs, the average for the metropolitan districts is £120 per pupil, for the outer-London boroughs, £160, and for ILEA, more than twice that sum—£370. Or take central administration and inspection costs. The average for the metropolitan districts is £13 per head of population. The corresponding figure for the outer-London boroughs is £17. The figure for ILEA is £36.

How can one be happy with an education service in the capital city of our country in which the level of truancy has got worse over the past decade? In the final year of compulsory education, the truancy rate is almost 30 per cent. across ILEA as a whole, and much worse in some schools. More than 20 per cent. of young people leave school without any qualifications. Barely 15 per cent. of school leavers achieve five or more O-levels, or equivalent, and Her Majesty's inspectorate's assessment is that about 40 per cent. of classes in secondary schools are unsatisfactory or poor. I can do no better than quote the ILEA chairman, Neil Fletcher, who said in 1987: We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year. Many would accept these criticisms, but argue that there should be more time for ILEA to turn the corner. That is a triumph of hope over experience. ILEA has had seven years in which to reform itself since my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Carlisle, demanded that it set its house in order. It has not done so. Many of those outside ILEA's charmed circle believe that it is incapable of doing so. That is why the time has come for a new beginning, to rebuild the education service in inner London. I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Tony Banks

I cannot remember what I wanted to ask.

Mr. Baker

I am delighted that the hon. Member has been convinced by the argument.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Redditch)

The Secretary of State made great play about the cost of ancillary support in ILEA schools. Is it better to have a school secretary or a teacher typing out and duplicating material?

Mr. Baker

That is a daft intervention. By any standard, ILEA, in terms of both central administration and support staff, is extravagant. That is almost beyond debate. It is accepted.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

I can perhaps make the intervention that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) sought to make. The Secretary of State said that head teachers were worried about the state of ILEA. Is he aware of the recent statement made by the London Head Teachers Association, a branch of the National Association of Head Teachers? It said: It is absolutely essential to emphasise … the need for a unified education service in Inner London. How does he square that with what he said?

Mr. Baker

I am delighted that the hon. Member can at least speak for one person in the House other than himself, although I find the idea of him speaking for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West extraordinary. I have asked to see the various head teacher associations about this matter because they have expressed their views, and later I shall be sending out other invitations. I can square what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said with what I have said. Many individual head teachers in London have clearly expressed the view that they do not wish to continue under ILEA.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker

Let me continue my speech. I will try to give way to as many Opposition Members as I can.

In our manifesto, we signalled the end of the unitary authority for the education service in inner London. As councils have taken advantage of the opportunity presented by that policy, many have also argued that it would be more sensible to have an orderly transfer of educational responsibilities, and this we have now accepted.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

The Secretary of State said that in the manifesto the Government signalled the end of ILEA. He knows that not to be the case. Why was it that he and other members of the Cabinet rejected the proposition from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that ILEA should be abolished? Why was that not included in the manifesto?

Mr. Baker

I answered that point a fortnight ago, but I am happy to answer it again. In the manifesto we clearly signalled the end of a unitary authority in London because we allowed London boroughs to opt out if they wished to do so. Because three London boroughs have already decided to do so and two others have also shown their interest in doing so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Both boroughs have seen me about this. I am not including any of the Labour boroughs, but one happens to know through the gossip net — I never pay attention to the gossip net, and never adduce it as support for our policy — that certain other discussions have taken place and interest has been shown by some of the Labour boroughs. However, I do not wish to give credence to the gossip net.

Yesterday, we tabled amendments to the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker

No. I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Yesterday we tabled amendments. Some are arguing that constitutionally a new Bill is needed. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has argued this point. I have looked into this and there are precedents for what we are doing. For example, with the Labour Government's Industry Bill in 1975, which was under the guillotine, there was a supplementary timetable because an important part of it had to be redrafted to accommodate a major change in policy. On that occasion, the Government did not provide an extra day on the Floor of the House. When the amending guillotine motion was moved, the new clauses and amendments were not available to the House. It is absurd to claim that the Education Reform Bill, which clearly envisaged from the start the end of the unitary authority, should not be amended in this way.

Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)

As one of those who was responsible for drafting the Industry Bill in Government, I would be obliged to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks the substantive part of that Bill concerned.

Mr. Baker

The Bill, as it was presented to the House, set out a voluntary process by which companies provided information to their employees, and the Government in which the hon. Gentleman served — or was he a civil servant at that time?

Mr. Holland

A civil servant.

Mr. Baker

The Government which the hon. Gentleman served in that capacity decided that voluntary powers were no longer necessary and changed them to compulsory powers. Therefore, there is a precedent for this procedure.

Mr. Holland

There is no comparison between those provisions of the Industry Bill and what the Minister is doing. A comparison would be if the Government, after introducing a Bill that did not include a major national holding company such as the National Enterprise Board, then sought to do so.

Mr. Baker

I regret that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a change from companies voluntarily providing information to the Government compelling them to do so is a minor matter. That view is not shared by the Conservative party.

In clause 115 of the Education Reform Bill, we set out the need for a residuary body in the circumstances of ILEA's abolition. We made it clear that that residuary body would be modelled upon the one that was set up for the abolition of the GLC. Thus, the principle of abolition was clearly envisaged in the Bill as it was presented to the House. What we are doing in the amendments introduced yesterday is specifying in more detail how this should be done.

Twenty-five clauses were added yesterday and nine have been dropped from the earlier Bill, so there is a net addition of 16. Of those 16, half relate to the London residuary body and the other half to the arrangements for the transfer of staff. It would have been irresponsible not to have specified in detail the arrangements we propose.

I come now to the details of the new clauses that will be before the Committee. In new clause 61 we shall require the inner-London councils to publish development plans. Each plan will provide a basis for local consultation and will offer local people an opportunity to comment to their councils.

I intend to issue statutory guidance as soon as possible after Royal Assent making clear the ground to be covered in those plans — for example, the boroughs' proposals for organising the transfer of responsibilities and the way they would implement them for primary, secondary, special and further education, including adult and continuing education, and for services such as the careers service and the youth service. We shall wish to pay particular attention to the administrative structure and arrangements for senior appointments. We intend to issue a draft of this guidance while the Bill is before Parliament so that we may take fully into account the views of interested organisations. I shall shortly be inviting ILEA and the leaders of all the inner-London boroughs to meetings with me and the unit that I have established in the Department to deal with this process.

One important aspect of these plans will be the property which the boroughs will need to inherit from ILEA to run their education service. The duties of the London residuary body will be extended to allow it to function as the residuary body for ILEA. It will have the task of disposing of assets which remain unallocated to local councils, and will be able to use the proceeds of these disposals for the purpose of paying staff compensation. It is our intention that part of the proceeds of the sale of county hall should be available for this purpose. The clause I have tabled will ensure that a proper distinction is made between the London residuary body's functions arising from the abolition of the GLC and those arising from the abolition of ILEA.

Mr. Tony Banks

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker

In a moment.

The hon. Members who are familiar with the arrangements following the GLC abolition will know that the London residuary body has taken on certain functions of the GLC to allow time for other arrangements to be made. A similar provision is included in the new clauses I tabled yesterday. I remind hon. Members that we propose to extend the life of the London residuary body to three years beyond the abolition of ILEA. This will allow sufficient time for any appropriate arrangements to be made.

Mr. Banks

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and no doubt he is grateful to me that he can now have a drink of water. He answered one point about the extension of the life of the LRB. Is he aware that the LRB was aiming to wind itself up 12 months earlier than the statutory limit set down in the abolition Bill, and that, in anticipation, it has been getting rid of its staff? What will he do about getting more staff for it now that he plans to extend its life?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely. The LRB has conducted its affairs exceptionally efficiently. The new clauses give it the additional functions of winding up the residual functions of ILEA. I have seen the chairman of the LRI3, Sir Godfrey Taylor, this morning and he is content with that particular role.

Mr. Banks

I am not surprised.

Mr. Baker

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to resign and offer his services in various capacities in inner London, I am sure that many will at least consider him, if not offer him something.

Eight of the clauses tabled yesterday relate to staff transfer and follow closely those arrangements established for the abolition of the GLC. They are designed to prevent any disruption to the education of children. [Interruption.] For that reason all ILEA staff working at individual schools and colleges at the date of abolition will transfer by order to the employment of the borough concerned. Those block transfer arrangements will cover well over 80 per cent. of ILEA staff.

For all recent local government reorganisations a staff commission has been set up. The work of the staff commission was greatly valued at the time of the abolition of the GLC. The clauses that I have tabled will provide for a staff commission with the same terms of reference as the one for the GLC.

The particular concern of the staff commission will be in relation to staff who are not transferred by order, namely those not linked to particular schools or colleges. Those include the staff in county hall and divisional offices, the direct labour organisation and the supplies organisation, as well as groups such as inspectors, youth and community personnel, educational psychologists, educational welfare officers and drivers. It may be that some of these staff will be transferred by order with the agreement of the relevant borough. In any event, individual boroughs will need to recruit staff in order to carry out their responsibilities as education authorities. The staff commission will give guidance to authorities about their arrangements for the recruitment of staff, encouraging them in the first instance to consider staff from ILEA. We want to ensure, so far as possible, that the store of experience which is available within the authority's staff continues to be used for the benefit of the education service in inner London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

rose—

Mr. Baker

I will give way in a moment.

Redundancy compensation will be available for those staff who are not offered a post by one of the boroughs, and detriment compensation will also be available, where appropriate, on the generous terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

Mr. Spearing

The Secretary of State has touched on a matter which runs contrary to what he said earlier. He talked about schools and colleges, but did he not say that there would be special arrangements for special schools and the whole of the 500,000 adult education structure? In what he has just said he is implying that the boroughs will be the prime employer. How does that square with what he said earlier?

Mr. Baker

In some cases the boroughs will want to take on the responsibilities exclusively, for example, on special education. In other areas they may wish to do so on a co-operative basis with the neighbouring borough. That is why I am inviting the leaders and chief executives of the London boroughs and ILEA to see me. What may be appropriate for one borough may not be appropriate for another.

The detriment arrangements will provide compensation for those who are recruited directly by local government employers but on lower salaries than they had been paid by the ILEA. The detriment compensation would offset the salary loss up to a maximum of £5,000 a year for up to seven years. Redundancy payments will be based on length of employment, with a special weighting for those over the age of 41.

Mr. Tony Banks

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker

No; I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks

Only once.

Mr. Baker

Twice. The hon. Gentleman missed his other chance.

Let me make it clear that the fundamental principle of our proposals is that each borough should become the LEA for its area. Under the Education Act 1944 I have the power to require authorities to set up joint education committees for particular aspects of their service, where I believe that this would be of benefit. Less formal cooperative arrangements are also available. The Government have not decided which, if any, aspects of the education service in inner London might need to be treated in this way. We shall naturally be looking carefully at this question, but we believe that this is a matter on which the views of the inner-London boroughs and of organisations and others with an interest in education should be taken fully into account.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

If consultative arrangements did not produce an agreement to share resources, can the Secretary of State honestly say to the House now that he is satisfied that boroughs which he has often criticised, such as mine in Southwark, are competent to run education for the children of Southwark? That has never been his view. Is it now his view?

Mr. Baker

I find it extraordinary that a Liberal Member makes that point. A closely neighbouring borough, Tower Hamlets, where the Liberals are in charge, has expressed considerable interest in running its education authority. What is right for the Liberals in Tower Hamlets does not seem right for the Labour party in the rest of inner London.

To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, there are various safeguards. There is the whole process of publishing the development plans and all the discussions that go into that. We shall be particularly concerned with the administrative structure that will be set up by each borough to administer the local education service. There is the possibility of co-operative arrangements and already there are signs of interest in them in certain areas. There are safeguards in the Education Reform Bill in that while this will be happening we shall introduce the national curriculum, so it will not be possible to distort the curriculum for political reasons. There will be more open enrolment. The Liberal party broadly supports all of those. There will be a greater choice for parents. There will be improvements in financial delegation and heads will have much greater authority. There will be the opportunity for schools to opt out. The ultimate safeguard, which will no doubt please the hon. Gentleman because he is a democrat in all these matters, is that there will be borough elections in May 1990. Local councils will have to go to their electorate with their proposals for the education service in their area and by then they will be independent LEAs.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Until I was elected in June 1 was an education officer with an outer-London borough. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had good inter-borough relationships with other boroughs and with the shire counties for special education? Clearly, individual boroughs cannot provide the complete range of special education that is necessary.

Mr. Baker

I am glad of my hon. Friend's confirmation of that. There is a great deal of co-operation on special education within inner London and between inner London and the rest of London. It is likely that there will be a large amount of that in future. The services cannot always be duplicated.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

rose—

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

rose—

Mr. Baker

Many hon. Members wish to speak, including those who represent inner-London constituencies, so I must press ahead.

Mr. Fatchett

rose—

Mr. Baker

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue. He will have his chance later if he wishes to speak.

I should like to say something about the financial implications of our proposals. Opposition Members continue to spread scare stories about the rich boroughs gaining and the poorer boroughs being left destitute, but that simply fails to recognise the effect of the new arrangements for local government finance from 1990. Under the new financing arrangements each inner-London borough will get a standard share of the unified business rate and a revenue support grant based on an assessment of its need. That assessment will include allowance for socio-economic factors. It will take account of special needs and deprivation. The balance of funding will come from the community charge, although in the early years there will be dual running with domestic rates and safety net arrangements to assist the transition for community charge payers in the inner-London boroughs.

From 1 April 1990, therefore, all inner-London boroughs will get a needs grant which will take account of their individual circumstances. Part of that grant will be based on an assessment of education need, including such factors as the number of pupils and students and a measure of additional educational needs reflecting the socio-economic circumstances of the area. The Government will naturally be consulting on the detailed arrangements with the local authority associations.

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

rose—

Mr. Baker

No, I will not give way.

The result will be to allocate resources to boroughs according to their needs, which is what ILEA claims that it does currently with the resources that it distributes centrally. The Government recognise that the boroughs are likely to inherit high-cost provision from ILEA because it is such a high-spending authority.

There are powers in the Local Government Finance Bill, currently before the House, to cap community charges. Those powers will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to distinguish between different categories of authority when determining the criteria for selection. The inner-London boroughs will form one of those categories and this will enable my right hon. Friend to consider their particular circumstances. In addition, we are considering whether any special transitional measures for community charge capping might be desirable in the case of the inner-London boroughs. That means that, by the time of the borough elections in May 1990, each inner-London borough will have assumed education responsibilities.

Their education policies will be a central part of those elections and that is how it should be. Behind all the arrangements, supporting and buttressing them, will be the Government's radical proposals to improve the quality of education throughout the country. All the policies which I have already mentioned and which are part of the Education Reform Bill—the national curriculum, open enrolment, financial delegation and the power of schools to opt out—will, of course, apply to inner London.

We now have an opportunity for a new beginning. The leaders of the Labour councils in inner London, for all their huffing and puffing, recognise that. In a letter to The Independent on 9 February they wrote: The uncertainty has now come to an end. I welcome that recognition. I remember only too well that false hopes about what would happen in the House of Lords over the Greater London council abolition Bill meant that the Labour boroughs started very late in the day to plan for transfer. That delay was damaging for them. Three boroughs are now well advanced in their planning. Westminster has already appointed a shadow chief education officer—a former senior official of ILEA. Preliminary work and discussions have taken place in another two boroughs. It is in the best interests of everybody, for ILEA and the Labour boroughs, to cooperate now in planning the transfer. I hope that all the boroughs will use the two years available to the full and that they will enter into discussions jointly with my Department to achieve orderly and beneficial change in the interests of parents, staff and children—particularly the children.

What we are doing is to give local councils and local people the opportunity to improve London's education service, and to create schools and colleges of which we can be proud. I commend the motion to the House.

5.32 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I beg to move, to leave out from "notes" to the end of the Question and tc add instead thereof: that successive reviews under the present Administration have concluded that the educational needs of inner London are best served by a unitary authority; salutes the Inner London Education Authority for its achievements in maintaining and improving educational standards and opportunities; and condemns Her Majesty's Government's about-turn in deciding to break up the Inner London Education Authority, a decision without mandate or popular support and one which will put educational standards and provision in inner London at serious risk. The Government are led by a Prime Minister who has made an obsession of constancy and never turning back or turning round. This afternoon's motion asks us to approve a Government U-turn that is so complete that it wholly contradicts what was said by Ministers on Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill. Indeed, the U-turn is so sudden that it contradicts the settled line taken by the Government as late as the end of January. It is so hasty that the crucial detail of what we are being asked to approve was not tabled until last night, in 23 clauses and a host of amendments, in what amounts to a medium-sized new Bill.

In his speech this afternoon, as in his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State has stretched credibility to breaking point by asking us to believe that there is no significant difference between the policy that we are now invited to approve and that which the House approved on Second Reading on 1 December 1987. The Government's new policy is to break up ILEA. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that that was the same policy on which the election was fought, by which ILEA was to be retained. He claims that it is all part of the same continuum or, to put it in the Secretary of State's words, that the U-turn for the destruction of ILEA was somehow "signalled" or "flagged" in the election manifesto in June 1987, which explicitly provided for ILEA's continuance.

If the Secretary of State knows what was in the June 1987 manifesto, he must know that his current claim is sheer baloney. There is not a word, dot or comma in that manifesto about the abolition of ILEA. All that was said about ILEA concerned allowing boroughs, in strictly defined circumstances, to opt out of ILEA. The manifesto said: In the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils"— one assumes that that means that it is the unanimous view of a borough council— wish to become independent of the ILEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries. That pledge was contained in the Bill, debated on Second Reading less than 11 weeks ago, and in the speeches made by Ministers on that occasion. On Second Reading the Secretary of State went out of his way to play down any disruption that might follow in the wake of any individual borough applying to opt out. He said: I shall need to be satisfied that the borough has a full plan covering every aspect of the education service for its area … no borough can opt out of ILEA without specific parliamentary approval. As ever, it is to the Secretary of State's deputy, the Minister of State, to whom we are truly indebted. When she replied to the debate, she went much further. She went out of her way to distinguish between the Government's proposals, which, at most, would have ensured that no more than four boroughs would have opted out leaving the majority of ILEA intact, and the policy that was then being urged upon the Government by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In answer to those two right hon. Gentlemen specifically the Minister, with the Secretary of State at her side, said: the Government's aim is to improve both the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."— [Official Report,l December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 780–856.]

That was the clear view of the Secretary of State and of the Minister. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell me how that view is consistent with the view that he has now enunciated to the House. I defy him to do so.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

rose—

Mr. Straw

Ah! The real Secretary of State is here, the man who makes the decisions. Of course I will give way to him.

Mr. Heseltine

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that my right hon. Friend belongs to the listening party? Having listened to the arguments, he has come to the right judgment.

Mr. Straw

I recognise only too well that the right hon. Member for Henley has rolled over the Secretary of State and forced the U-turn upon the Government. I am extremely glad of his confirmation of that, but it was not the line adopted by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State would have us believe that there is no difference between the decision adopted on 1 December and that adopted today. How odd it is that today the Secretary of State made no reference, at any stage, to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford or the early-day motion to which those right hon. Gentlemen were such proud signatories and which was the only cause of the subsequent policy change.

Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the steps that the Government have taken are so wrong, how does he square that with the views of the immediate past chief education officer of ILEA and a former deputy education officer of that authority, that if four boroughs were allowed to opt out it would be better to abolish ILEA now?

Mr. Straw

I square that by giving the view of Mr. Stubbs who believes that ILEA should never be abolished either by allowing individual boroughs to opt out or by its complete dismemberment.

The settled policy of the Government was based not only on the policy enunciated on 1 December. In a detailed press notice issued on 21 January 1988—less than two weeks before the Secretary of State's statement today—the Home Secretary set out the new electoral arrangements for the Inner London education authority. That set out in detail the new arrangements that would be operated for the ILEA elections to take place in 1990. Yet, less than two weeks later, the Secretary of State had to stand on his head and tell the House and the country that improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London would, after all, be achieved by imposing education responsibilities upon unwilling boroughs—the exact opposite of what the House was told just 11 weeks ago.

For such an extraordinary change in policy—that is what it manifestly is — we might be forgiven for expecting a clear or detailed explanation to be offered by the Secretary of State, but, as we heard from his tawdry, lacklustre speech, none whatever was forthcoming—

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

It says it here.

Mr. Straw

No, it does not say that at all.

The real explanation has nothing to do with the needs of London's children and everything to do with the private enterprise of the right hon. Member for Henley and his Siamese twin the right hon. Member for Chingford. Where is the right hon. Member for Chingford, given the close interest that he has claimed to take in the future of London's education and given the articles that he has written excoriating inner London education?

Mr. Dobson

He is mending telephones for BT.

Mr. Straw

I think that I do both the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford no disservice if I say that, in the past, neither has been known as a byword for educational enlightenment. In fairness to both right hon. Members, we can say that in the past their ignorance of ILEA and its work has been matched by a humble public silence. For instance, the right hon. Member for Henley wrote a book fewer than 10 months ago entitled, "Where There's a Will." I understand that the right hon. Member for Chingford is not here because he is earning an honest copper writing a slim volume for British Telecom entitled, "Telephone Boxes in Working Order."

Mr. Corbyn

Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny that the book written by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is already remaindered at Waterloo station?

Mr. Straw

If the section on education is anything to go by, which is the only chapter that I managed to read, I am not surprised.

The right hon. Member for Henley devoted a Fabian-leaning chapter in "Where There's a Will" to "Education, Investing in the Future." But in the whole of that chapter —and in the whole book—there is not a single word about the abolition of ILEA. That is the issue that the right hon. Gentleman now regards as of paramount importance above all others in British politics, yet 10 months ago he wrote not a single word about it in his book, which offered the most detailed prescriptions for all the country's woes, and many that we did not even know were woes at all.

As was all too apparent in the statement two weeks ago, for the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford the issue of ILEA's future is all a bit of a lark—an occasion, as the right hon. Member for Henley described it, for a "couple of likely lads" — the right hon. Gentleman's words, not mine—to mess about with the education of 270,000 pupils as if it were an expendable plaything.

The ignorance and irresponsibility of those two right hon. Members may just be excusable as neither of them holds high office any longer; but, if there is any excuse for them, there can be no excuse for the ignorance and irresponsibility of the Secretary of State. By his supine decision to roll over and order the break-up of ILEA, he has shown himself to be an unworthy guardian of the needs and interests of London's children and students and to be blind to inner London's achievements.

I am not surprised about the Secretary of State's ignorance. He has been Secretary of State for nearly two years; yet, according to an answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in the whole of that time he has managed to visit just one ILEA school, which was a voluntarily-aided Roman Catholic school. In the whole time that the right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State, he has not visited a single county primary, voluntary-aided primary, voluntary-controlled primary or county secondary school in the whole of ILEA. Yet, on the basis of total ignorance, he believes that he can make judgments on the future of 270,000 pupils and students, about which he knows virtually nothing.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

My hon. Friend might remember that in Committee the other day I was talking about visiting schools, and the Secretary of State lectured me, telling me that it was about time I visited a few schools. He said that, having visited just one Catholic school in ILEA. What a nerve!

Mr. Straw

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It proves the point that the Secretary of State has never been willing to allow the facts to interfere with his ignorance about ILEA.

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that ILEA has been a great educational success?

Mr. Straw

Yes; and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I shall quote from a report by Her Majesty's inspectors, which the Secretary of State has sought to suppress from the House.

During the statement two weeks ago, the Secretary of State made much play with selective quotations from reports on ILEA schools by the inspectorate. I asked him from which reports he was quoting, to which the Secretary of State replied: These are very recent reports. I shall make them available."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1182.] I asked the right hon. Gentleman what reports he was referring to and whether he would specify all the reports that had been written on ILEA. The right hon. Gentleman fudged the issue. I have checked in the Library which reports he made available. No report on ILEA has been made available since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. Indeed, the most recent report that has been made available was in respect of an inspection on Clapton school for girls, dated 28 October to 1 November 1985 —two and a half years ago.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

The hon. Gentleman referred to the published reports on ILEA by the HMI. All the reports are now published and made publicly available. When I quoted, I quoted from publicly available reports. I shall take no lectures from any member of the Labour party about the publication of reports because, while the Labour Government were in office, they did not publish one report.

Mr. Straw

The decision to publish HMI reports was taken by the then Sir Keith Joseph—a decision that we applaud—and no thanks to the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to preen himself on his record of publication, perhaps he will say why, in the answer that he gave me, he made no reference to the report by his senior chief inspector on the future of ILEA, dated 2 February. It was sent to me by a well-wisher. It gives a completely different picture from that which the Secretary of State has tried to paint.

Today the Secretary of State said: ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters. The motion describes ILEA as a profligate overspender with a persistent failure to raise standards of education".

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw

I shall give way in a moment.

Let me read to the Secretary of State what the report says about the authority that has apparently failed to raise standards. On primary education, it says: The ILEA's provision for the under-fives is among the best in the country". On primary, post-nursery education, the report says: overall the quality of ILEA's primary schools is similar to that found generally in the country. On non-advanced further education, the report says: Standards of provision and work are generally good and in some cases excellent. In our recent national survey on non-advanced further education, the proportion of good work seen in ILEA's colleges was significantly higher than that of the country as a whole. Is that an example of an authority with a persistent failure to raise standards of education?

Mr. John Marshall

rose—

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

rose—

Mr. Straw

I shall give way in a moment.

On adult and continuing education, the report says: overall ILEA's adult education is a first-rate service in every respect … Most of the work seen is judged excellent or good". On youth service, the report states: Overall the quality of youth work and provision is good but there are examples of poor standards in practice … That said youth work in the ILEA has to deal with some of the most difficult situations in the country: in Brixton, in Tower Hamlets and in Soho and the West End where it is concerned with homeless drifting young people, not only from London —often involved with drugs. On special education, the report states: The ILEA makes complex and extensive provision for the full range of special needs and puts particular emphasis on catering for special needs in ordinary schools". The report is critical of ILEA's secondary schools. It says: Secondary education in the ILEA is generally rather poor though there are a few schools of high quality, mainly in the voluntary sector … Pupils taking public examinations at 16 in the ILEA do less well in absolute terms than do their counterparts from maintained schools in England as a whole". Her Majesty's senior chief inspector wrote to the Secretary of State: When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations. Just to deal with the central part of the case that was made by the Secretary of State, which is that ILEA has been incapable of improving itself and that it has persistently failed to raise educational standards, I shall quote paragraph 6 on page 8 of the senior chief inspector's report. It states: Whatever its"— ILEA's— previous shortcomings, over the past two or three years there has been a marked move towards the improvement of quality, notably through an increase in inspection and in school improvement strategies arising from the findings of inspection as well as from the policies of the authority. In fact there are clear signs that the findings of inspection are beginning to have an influence on the formulation of policy in the Inner London Education Authority. Of seven services analysed in the report, four are described as good, two are described as average, and one is described as poor. The one that is described as poor is also described as getting a great deal better. I ask the Secretary of State whether the report was made available to the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee when the Cabinet decided to dismember ILEA, as the right hon. Member for Henley has wished.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

It is not a report; it is a confidential minute to me from the senior chief inspector. In the course of each month, I receive many such reports on a variety of different matters. The hon. Gentleman said that it came into his hands through a well-wisher. We should like to know who the well-wisher is, because it is a leaked document. The paper that is attached to it is not a separate report; it is a summary of all the independent reports that have been published. They are public documents and are available. The hon. Gentleman quoted selectively from it. I remind him of the grave concern about secondary education that that minute conveyed to me. The hon. Gentleman said that secondary education is a matter of concern. It is a matter of grave concern when the figures come out and 40 per cent. of lessons are judged to be unsatisfactory or poor.

Mr. Straw

I quoted from that document, but the Secretary of State knows that I quoted the next paragraph also, saying: When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations". Above all, I quoted from the section showing that, according to the senior chief inspector, standards in ILEA are rising and the authority has been doing a great deal to ensure an increase in standards.

Mr. John Marshall

How does the hon. Gentleman square his comment about ILEA with those of Mr. Neil Fletcher a year ago? Writing to members of his own Labour group, he said: We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year. Prior to that, he said: Parents believe the schools are now out of control. Their heads have largely adopted a bunker mentality, believing things are going to get worse before they get better. Surely Mr. Neil Fletcher knows the facts of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman should accept them.

Mr. Straw

The hon. Gentleman does well to read from the Conservative Central Office brief a quotation that the Secretary of State has used about three times. The important thing about that quotation, as Mr. Neil Fletcher has made clear in a long letter to the Secretary of State this afternoon, is that it was taken completely out of context.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

On the point about secondary schools, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, within ILEA, there are facts showing that there are 83 totally empty secondary school classrooms, that 20 per cent. more pupils are leaving the ILEA area and 20 per cent. fewer are going into it? Parents are particularly concerned about secondary education. That is the crux of the matter. The hon. Gentleman does the House a disservice by ignoring it.

Mr. Straw

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Every day there is a net importation into ILEA of 3,000 pupils, including 300 from Barnet.

Mr. Marlow

rose—

Mr. Straw

I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must get on and finish my speech.

It is not only the inspectorate that has praised the performance of ILEA, but, for example, the Confederation of British Industry and leading industrial-ists. One of the many good things that ILEA has done has been to establish the London business compact. According to The Times Educational Supplement, Some of Britain's top industrialists are praising the authority for breaking new ground in collaboration with employers. Sir David Steel, former BP chairman, says that the scheme is a long-term policy for the good of the country. The Secretary of State mutters under his breath that that will continue, but he is placing at serious risk all the good things that ILEA has done.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman has launched a full-frontal assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad, but not surprised, that my right hon. Friend is totally undamaged by it. Having launched his assault, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is the policy of the Labour party to reinstate ILEA at a later stage?

Mr. Straw

It is the policy of the Labour party to fight for the continuance of ILEA and to ensure that this obnoxious proposal is overturned in the House of Lords when it is debated there. Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour party has democratic procedures for deciding the future of its manifesto. It will not be written on the back of an envelope and then torn up a few weeks later.

The Secretary of State referred to ILEA's examination results. A great attempt has been made by Conservative Members to use crude examination figures, suggesting that ILEA is near the bottom of the league table. The right hon. Member for Henley may well try to do that, but, as he will know, that is as absurd as seeking to compare the examination results of Eton college with those of an inner-urban school in adjacent Slough. Her Majesty's inspectors accept, as does anyone who studies the matter, that examination results must be offset by reference to pupils' socio-economic backgrounds. When that is done, ILEA's performance turns out to be average or above average. It was above average—almost exactly the same as for Oxfordshire and well above that for the right hon. Member for Chingford's Waltham Forest—when it was controlled by the alliance of Liberals and Conservatives. According to the Sheffield university league table, ILEA came 56th. According to the Department of Education and Science's own statistical bulletin, No. 13 of 1984, ILEA was placed 45th—somewhere below Oxfordshire, but miles above Waltham Forest at 86th.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his reference to exam results, on the undoctored results, ILEA comes bottom of the list. I would not quote those figures. When the list was published, it came close to the bottom. It was 86th. I shall not base my argument upon that. The hon. Gentleman said that if we allow for socio-economic factors, it comes about halfway down the list—about 56th or so. I accept that if we allow for socio-economic factors. I have always said that, and I have said it repeatedly. But the point is that ILEA comes halfway down the list. When we consider education results and costs, it is number one. It is the cost-effectiveness of ILEA that is the gravest indictment against it.

Mr. Straw

I was about to refer to costs. Ten authorities were below ILEA. It was not bottom of the league. It is typical of the Secretary of State not to have the details at his fingertips, to make a point, and then to say that he is not making that point. It is absolutely typical of the shoddy way in which he seeks to treat the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the adjusted results of two analyses, the Conservative-controlled boroughs of Bexley and Bromley had worse examination results than ILEA in the Sheffield university study and the Department of Education and Science's own analysis of examination results, adjusted for socio-economic factors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will abolish Bexley and Bromley because their results are worse than ILEA's?

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend has made a crucial point. As ILEA is by no means the least cost-effective authority, will the Secretary of State use his axe on other authorities, including many Conservative authorities, and say that, if they fall below a particular standard, they, too, will be abolished, or that their educational responsibilities will be handed over to authorities which have no mandate for them and do not want them?

I shall now deal with the issue of costs, which the Secretary of State has just raised. First, there will be higher costs for running any service in the centre of a capital city, but the Secretary of State tries to close his eyes to that argument. All capital city services cost more— indeed, that is true of private sector organisations such as banks and insurance companies. That is why so many have moved their administrations out of the capital. Evidently, that would not be available to a London-based service. That fact is also true of the Health Service and of social services. Per head the social services costs of Westminster city council, which is Conservative-controlled, are three times those of boroughs outside London, and in many cases Westminster's costs are much higher than those of other inner-London boroughs.

Above all, that fact is true of the Metropolitan police —[HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the figures, Jack."] Indeed, I shall give the figures. Of course, the Metropolitan police force—any city police force—has responsibilities for terrorism, diplomatic protection and fraud simply by being a capital city and such responsibilities are not encountered elsewhere. If those are taken into account, a malign Secretary of State could easily say of the Metropolitan police force, "Here we have a police:Force which has continued profligate overspending and shown a persistent failure to raise standards."

The crime rate of the Metropolitan police area is only marginally above that of the Greater Manchester police and Merseyside areas. However, the clear-up rate for the Metropolitan police is one third that of Merseyside or Greater Manchester. For every 12 crimes that are cleared up per police officer in Greater Manchester and every 13 that are cleared up in Merseyside, only four crimes are cleared up per police officer in London.

When we consider overall costs, those of the Metropolitan police are more than twice as high as those of other authorities. The cost per police officer in the Metropolitan area, at £35,000, is 1.4 times higher than that for England as a whole; the cost of civilians is 3.2 times higher; the cost of premises is twice as high; and the cost of catering four times as high. Will the Secretary of State use those figures to tell us that, on the basis of that persistent failure to improve standards, the Metropolitan police should be handed over to the London boroughs, because that is the clear conclusion of that argument?

Secondly, ILEA has had to pay heavily for a stable teacher force. This afternoon the Secretary of State tried to make much of the fact that one in seven head teachers has left the service in the past year. That argument was completely confounded when it was pointed out to the Secretary of State that both the Secondary Heads Association and the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers have completely damned his proposals for dismembering ILEA.

It is a self-evident truth that the cost of living in London is much greater than the cost of living elsewhere. The response of private sector employers is to pay what the market will allow, but, because of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, that option is not available to any individual education authority. Therefore, what ILEA has had to do—and what it has done over the past 14 years —is to improve the conditions of service facing teachers in its schools. It has reduced pupil-teacher ratios to make a more congenial working environment. It has greatly expanded in-service training and support. It has increased non-teaching assistance. It has used its ability as a unitary authority to move teachers to the least popular areas— for example, Tower Hamlets and Hackney—and to give teachers in those areas support which they could not possibly achieve in an individual borough.

Moreover, ILEA's high level of spending has benefited the outer-London boroughs in terms of training, support, curriculum and development. ILEA has subsidised the outer-London boroughs and the rest of the country. Indeed, my third point relates to the volume of provision. ILEA covers 5 per cent. of the population, but accounts for 18 per cent. of all adult education provision and 25 per cent. of this country's youth provision. That is a question not of profligacy but of democratic choice by the electors of London. London, and London alone, has paid for that choice, and for five years not a penny has been forthcoming from central Government. Those decisions have been made by Londoners for Londoners, and the Government have not paid a single penny for them.

The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that provision to be cut. Conservative Members should say whether they want that because their electors, living in the rest of the south-east, often make great use of adult education provision that is paid for by the inner-London ratepayers. Their electors benefit from the youth service provisions. The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that youth provision cut. He should also say whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis wants that provision cut, with all its consequences for the crime rate. He should say whether he wants adult education provision cut because, if he does not, he will never achieve the level of savings that he is now seeking.

As I said on Second Reading, it is not easy to bring the charge of consistency against the Secretary of State. However, as he admitted on "Newsnight" two weeks ago, he can claim an unremitting hostility to ILEA ever since the authority closed the St. Marylebone grammar school for boys in 1977. Like all hon. Members, I understand the strong feelings that school closures engender. There is no doubt about the Secretary of State's feelings about that closure, even though ILEA, the then Secretary of State and the governors of the school, who proposed not a closure but a reorganisation and a merger with another school, would have a different story to tell. Whatever the merits of that decision, anger about it is a wholly inadequate reason, 11 years later, for running a vendetta against ILEA and for placing London's education service at such serious risk.

The case for a single unitary authority has been examined with considerable thoroughness four times during the past 10 years. Lord Marshall, then vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry —[Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford regards this issue as so important that an hour into the debate he has deigned to show his presence.

Lord Marshall, then the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry in 1978 and concluded in favour of a single authority. His comments on the flimsy recommendations of the Secretary of State when, as a Back Bencher, he produced a report on an ILEA break-up were: The physical and financial difficulties in setting up new local education authorities in the inner London boroughs would be so severe that in my submission only a fool would attempt it. The Secretary of State's 1980 views were rejected root and branch by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, as they were later by his successor, Sir Keith Joseph. In his statement to the House on 5 April 1984, Sir Keith Joseph stated: Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, 5 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 1124.] On Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, in December 1984, Sir Keith Joseph explained his reasons: We came to that conclusion"— the conclusion to have a single unitary authority— because there is so much movement across borough boundaries by London children and students that to break up ILEA would mean a very big departure indeed from current practice. We therefore decided to keep a unitary authority" —[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 127.] I ask the Secretary of State again: have those movements across borough boundaries suddenly ceased in the past four weeks? Of course not. In the most densely populated part of Britain, the case for a single unitary education authority remains as strong as ever. It was that case that persuaded Lord Whitelaw, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to reject the proposals of the right hon. Member for Chingford when he was chairman of the Conservative party in the run-up to the election and to keep the core of ILEA intact.

As a single unitary authority, ILEA has been able to take resources from where they were most available—the City, Westminster and the southern part of Camden and to use them where they were most needed—in many parts of inner London. ILEA has been the single most important agency for equalising opportunities across our great city. That, plus the fact that the electors have consistently placed their confidence in the Labour party to deliver that service, is what lies behind the desperation of the Conservative party now to abolish the authority—an act which The Financial Times of 8 February 1988 described as one of "political spite." In his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State said that the Government attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1179.] Given the Government's record on ILEA and its prospects, those words will be regarded as unctuous and hollow by those who run London's education service and by those who use it. Given the personal assault that the Secretary of State has made upon London's education service, the wonder is not that standards could be better, but that the service has survived at all. The authority has been rate-capped for the past three years with the Secretary of State in complete control of is budget and, if he chose to exercise it, of its manpower.

It does not lie with the Secretary of State to complain about profligacy or overspending. The Secretary of State has set the budget and he has had the power to set the manpower for ILEA for each of the past three years. This year, the Secretary of State, who claims to be so concerned about education standards in London, is seeking to ensure that there is a cut of £100 million in ILEA's budget. ILEA is to be evicted from the headquarters that it has occupied since 1922. In an act wilfully designed to destabilise the authority, and demoralise the staff, the Secretary of State engineered to poach ILEA's chief officer for a position for which Parliament had not even given approval. Now, in the interests—as he says—of higher standards, the Secretary of State is to dismantle the London service and pass it over to individual boroughs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) explained, in the exchanges on the statement, that it is a supreme irony that the Government, after years of mindless abuse of London boroughs, should hold up the councils as paradigms of administrative virtue, ready and willing to do the Secretary of State's bidding.

I have made it clear that the Labour party, unlike this Government, will not play politics with other people's children—[Interruption.] Every decision that we make will be taken with only one interest in mind—that of London's children. The simple reality is that London boroughs face social and economic problems on a scale almost without parallel in the rest of the United Kingdom. The boroughs in greatest need are rate-capped. No council has a mandate to run education, and all the councils will face, as the Secretary of State made clear, additional upheaval that will coincide with the transfers involved in the Secretary of State's other inventions—namely, the introduction of the poll tax and the uniform business rate.

Is it any wonder that the morale of staff in schools, colleges or administration will plummet? Is it any wonder that good people—possibly the best people—will follow the example set by the Secretary of State and Mr. Stubbs and seek to further their careers elsewhere? Is it any wonder that the positive progress to raise standards, which has followed the Hargreave and Thomas reports and which was well documented in the minute from the senior chief inspector, may be stopped in its tracks and that the view of many sober observers is that London will be lucky if standards of education and administration remain intact between now and any transfer in 1990?

No wonder the HMI report to the Secretary of State damned the policy. It stated that the question whether the shift to the boroughs would lead to higher or lower standards was "an open question." Is it any wonder that the respected editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Mr. Stuart Maclure, believes that education standards may be damaged for five years or that the Conservative Education Association has dismissed the proposals as "essentially spiteful and negative"?

The Secretary of State is taking a massive gamble with the education of other people's children through his decision to abolish ILEA. He would not take that gamble with his own children. If the education of 270,000 children is put at risk and damaged, the responsibility will lie not with the parents, the boroughs, the teachers or ILEA, but with the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State sought today, as he did on 4 February, to take comfort from the relative ease, as he claimed, with which the transfer of the GLC to other bodies took place two years ago. On 4 February he said: when I was dealing with the abolition of the GLC I was constantly told that the London boroughs could not do it." —[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1184.] Again the Secretary of State re-writes history. The fact is that the London boroughs did not do it. The abolition of the GLC involved only minimal devolution of services to the boroughs. The overwhelming majority were kept intact. Only the administrative arrangements for overall political control were changed.

The Secretary of State deludes himself if he believes that the abolition of the GLC provides any easy parallel for the problems that he is forcing on the boroughs. For example, London Transport was not split up and handed over to the boroughs. It was nationalised and placed under central control. The fire service was not handed over to the boroughs. It was kept intact and made subject to a joint board. Arts provision was transferred to the South Bank board and the Arts Council. Indeed, ILEA took on many central services at considerable expense. For example, it took on architects and the provision of supplies that it had previously obtained from the GLC. Of the 42 major functions that were transferred, 32 —or 75 per cent.—were not transferred to the boroughs. All the major services were transferred to joint boards or quangos.

Once the GLC had lost housing and transport, it did not run any personal service. There is no more direct or personal service than education. The parallel with the abolition of the GLC, as the Secretary of State is aware, is nonsense. In his statement on 4 February and in his speech today, he betrayed his own nervousness and lack of conviction that what he is doing is right when, by his own admission, he said that many of ILEA's services, including perhaps adult further special education, cannot be run properly by the boroughs and will need cross-borough joint board arrangements. I am sure that he will discover that such arrangements will be needed for schools in many of the boroughs.

No Education Minister in recent years has made more of the rhetoric of parent power than the Secretary of State. We were told that great consultations were held on the details of his education proposals, including proposals for the future of ILEA. There were promises that the Government would only proceed by "broad agreement". However, the proposals that we are considering today have not been submitted to any test of popular will. They have not been tested by a general election, borough election or by-election. If the Secretary of State means what he says about parent power, will he back the London Parent Governors' suggestion for a consultative ballot on the proposals? Or is the truth that, like everything else the Secretary of State professes to believing, his subscription to parent power is just skin deep and that the clear views of parents are to be cast aside whenever they get in the way of the leviathan of the Secretary of State?

Unless the Secretary of State is very lucky or very careful—or both—the only political epitaph that he will earn is "this man wrecked London's education". The proposals are without a mandate, without popular support and without reason. They will place the education of 270,000 children seriously at risk. The proposals must be opposed in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the first of the Back-Bench speakers, may I say that there is great pressure on this debate. When we previously debated this subject, many hon. Members were disappointed because of the length of speeches. I appeal for brief speeches today.

6.16 pm

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

Everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will have recognised a fluency of delivery, a recollection of statistics and a reference to quotation that one would expect from someone so deeply immersed in the subject. That is what we would expect from a former deputy leader of ILEA. He has covered the ground thoroughly from the point of view that he represents. His right hon. and hon. Friends would acknowledge that he has made a formidable and even overwhelming and unanswerable case. However, there is a small lacuna in his argument. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked whether the logic of the overwhelming case was that ILEA would be restored by the Labour party if it ever came to government, there was no answer.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

The reality is known to us all. We know that many people behind the hon. Member for Blackburn in the Labour party know that the Government's decision is right and—

Ms. Armstrong

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break up—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. He has only just started to speak.

Mr. Heseltine

They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break-up of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. There is no way in which the Labour party will restore ILEA, the GLC or the metropolitan counties because Labour Members know that power concentrated in unitary authorities in urban districts is the most effective way to achieve accountability and the effective management of services.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. Gentleman knows, for the reasons that I have explained, that it is impossible to give a commitment about what will be contained in a Labour party manifesto four years before a general election. However, if it is any comfort to him, I believe that the case for a unitary education authority for inner London is unassailable and I will argue that with great conviction when we come to discuss what should be in the manifesto.

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party is making commitments left, right and centre about all manner of national policy without let or hindrance. Yet when it comes to a real decision about real education, Labour Members cannot make up their minds what to do.

Ms. Armstrong

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

No, I shall not give way.

No one participating in a debate about the education of London's children disputes the gravity of the problem. The issue is not about the scale of the problem; it is about the right way to address the solution. I hope to argue that, in getting rid of ILEA—a move on which, naturally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend—the Government have a unique opportunity that will not only provide a framework within which to address the educational problems of inner London but, equally important, lay the foundations for a far more relevant and effective framework for London's inner administrative local government services.

I share, as must everyone, my right hon. Friend's judgments about the overspending and misuse of ILEA's resources, and about the inadequacy of results. I must add, however, that in urging the end of ILEA I recognise—as did my right hon. Friend—the value of much of the contribution that has been, and is being, made by those who work for ILEA, Whichever route my right hon. Friend adopts, as he has made clear, the majority of teachers and administrators who work in the new structure will in practice be the same as those currently employed by ILEA. In all that we do and discuss in the House, it would be as well to remember that. There is no great untapped reservoir of talent to which we can turn to man London's education system.

Mr. Tony Banks

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many teachers are attracted into ILEA because of the resources available and the professional standards, and that they will not necessarily be interested in going into the boroughs and will therefore go elsewhere?

Mr. Heseltine

I understand the argument about teachers being attracted in, but I am equally aware of the larger argument about their being attracted out. That is the heart of the problem. Part of the difficulty that we face is the crisis of recruitment and retention of good teachers in inner London, and a huge trans-London authority, which, far from providing a means to an easier solution, has actually made the solution more difficult.

Mr. Ashdown

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

No. Mr. Speaker has clearly asked us not to take longer than is necessary. There has been a huge number of interruptions, and time has gone very fast; so, if the House will forgive me, I shall not give way.

ILEA's policy of trying to attract teachers by widening the support services for them has neither solved the shortage nor improved the education standards. Having said that, however, I do not believe that education standards will be addressed as long as a small minority of teachers can hold back the efforts of the large majority by hiding behind the virtual impossibility of removing teachers from posts for which they are not suited. That, of course, is a problem that affects our education service nationally, and not just in London.

In approaching the issue of ILEA, the first question we must deal with is the proper role of central Government. No one in the House seeks to transfer to central Government all responsibility for the day-to-day running of state sector schools, but what is at the heart of my right hon. Friend's legislation—and rightly so—is the belief that central Government must recognise, openly and more directly, their responsibility for the standards of education. That is not in any way inconsistent with a delegation of wider responsibility and choice to parents, teachers and governors locally. They should play—[Interruption.]

Mr. Holland

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

No. [Interruption] I have made it quite clear that I shall not give way.

The essence of the Government's case, which I strongly support, is that all the people involved locally —teachers, governors and parents—should play a bigger role in the provision of education, while the Secretary of State plays a bigger role in insisting on the standards of education. The Opposition ignore at their peril the wide demand in the nation for people locally to play a much bigger part in the life that they lead and the services that they enjoy. It is at the heart of the Government's policy to build on that instinct.

Mr. Corbyn

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, throughout ILEA, every parents' organisation is opposed to the break-up? Polls of every school show that parents are opposed to it, and to the effect that it will have on their particular schools. Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to abide by the results of the parents' poll, which will almost certainly show an overwhelming majority against the break-up of ILEA?

Mr. Heseltine

I find it fascinating that, if there is such overwhelming public support, the party that is prepared to adopt any issue with a populist ring about it is not even prepared to give a commitment to restore ILEA when it has the chance.

The essential difference between the two sides of the House is that Conservative Members are trying to remove power from the centre and to put it into the hands of the people of this country. To make that possible, the Government are rightly insisting on the need for a basic curriculum, with much tougher testing and inspection. But teachers and heads will take over the management of their schools, and governors, and especially parents, will take on new responsibilities. There will be a greater variety of provision, within the state sector. The prospects now exist—as it is very desirable that they should—for city technology colleges, opted-out state schools and open enrolment, all of which will increase the discretion and accountability of parents for the education of their children. That educational provison will take place in a far more rigorously monitored and competitive environment.

I believe that the House will overwhelmingly support my right hon. Friend in seeing this as the right balance between a range of choice in the provision of education driven by local authority power, parental power, industrial power and teacher power and the workings, in partnership with those interests, of a central Government who see it as their duty to insist on and promote higher standards. Central Government should not—and our Government do not seek to—administer the institutions themselves, but they point to the need to place the power as close as possible to the people, and they argue the need to create local authority organisations that are effective and accountable.

The next stage of the debate must be to discuss the role of local government. It is as much the responsibility of central Government to ensure that local authorities are able to carry out their responsibilities effectively as it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend to insist on proper education standards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend cannot properly carry out his specific education responsibility if the Government of whom he is a member fail to ensure that local authorities are capable of administering all the other local authority services.

That brings us to the heart of the ILEA debate. I have always been appalled by the argument that ILEA is essential because the inner London boroughs are not capable of administering an education service. If they are not capable—[Interruption.] It has been widely said, and is one of the most significant arguments used to defend ILEA, that the inner London boroughs cannot be trusted. I find that argument wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Tracey

Does my right hon. Friend find it interesting that the one report that the Labour party does not mention, the report by the only independent commission on London's government, the Herbert Commission, said quite categorically that education should be in the hands of the inner London boroughs and not in the hands of a unitary authority?

Mr. Heseltine

My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly.

There has been wide debate about ILEA for a long time, and one of the arguments always produced to defend it is that one cannot trust the inner London boroughs. That is a totally unacceptable argument. If those inner London boroughs are too small, too badly managed, too short of resources and too politically extreme, the logic is that we should not tolerate the mismanagement of inner London's housing, planning, refuse collection, social services, urban regeneration and a host of other services. That is the logic of the argument that says that the inner London boroughs are not up to being education authorities.

Within a year we shall face exactly the same debate that is now taking place over ILEA when, one hopes, the Griffiths report recommends the transfer of large parts of community care from the central Health Service to local government. Again we shall have to face the problem that these same London boroughs will be deemed inadequate for their widened opportunities.

In working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to persuade the Government to go down the path that we are debating, I attach considerable priority to the need to persuade the Government not just to end ILEA but, more important, to address the issue of the fundamental weakness of some of the inner London boroughs. Those boroughs are not unimportant or incidental to our national life. They have too much power, affect the lives of too many people, determine the quality of too many public services, operate too ineffectively and waste too much public money for it to be any longer tolerable for central Government to wash their hands of the quality of the services that those boroughs provide.

Central Government should insist upon three fundamental changes. First, they should insist on the break-up of ILEA and the Griffiths report should be seen as a unique opportunity to establish powerful and effective local authorities in inner London. To achieve this, central Government must positively assert their determination as a partner in the endeavour, both by insisting on quality within the services and by demanding value for money for the taxpayers' funds upon which those authorities totally depend.

The Government must address the arguments about the size of these authorities. If they are too small and too weak they should be joined together, not by joint boards that will simply gloss over the structural weakness, but by the fusion of two or more of the authorities.

Next, central Government should insist that each authority has a proper management structure and that the posts within the structure are filled. For example, it is quite unacceptable that today neither Camden nor Lambeth have directors of finance. I see no objection in principle to legislature changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those of central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials.

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a Second Reading debate, but a debate on a motion that refers exclusively to the Inner London education authority. Many Opposition Members wonder whether it is in order for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to crowd them out by taking up the time that they want to devote to talking about inner London's children. Rather, we are having to listen to speeches that are clearly bids for the leadership of the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker

I called the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and it is in order for any hon. Member to speak if he is called by the Chair. But he might bear in mind that time is getting on.

Mr. Heseltine

It is perfectly legitimate to be sure, when one is taking a major stand by breaking up the Inner London education authority, that one is responsible in speaking about the authorities to which its powers are to be transferred. It is not enough for the House simply to say that it will break up that education authority and leave a range of weak authorities to which it will be transferred. It is at the heart of our responsibility to ensure that we do this job effectively.

As I have said, I see no objection in principle to legislative changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those in central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials. It would be a simple step for the Audit Commission to have to satisfy itself that the proper steps to ensure the recruitment of the appropriate officials had been taken. No central Government Minister can ignore the power of the accounting officers in his Department, the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt that if we brought into line the responsibilities of local government to fill the posts upon which adequate services depend, it would be a significant change.

I realise the problems of recruiting people to inner London boroughs, and I see no objection at all to making arrangements for specific grants from central Government to help underprivileged authorities in the recruitment of appropriate, experienced staff. It follows that the local authorities cannot be permitted to frustrate the proper appointment of executives of quality and experience in order to conform to the whim of serried ranks of committees that examine the qualities of people applying for official jobs against a whole range of standards about their approach to racism or sexism or whatever it may be, but which have nothing whatever to do with their ability to keep the financial records of the authorities.

Finally, we must make it clear to the handful of local authorities seeking confrontation that central Government is not without alternatives in this matter. Increasingly, central Government, waking up to their latent responsibilities, are insisting on a wider choice of instruments for the provision of public services. The housing associations now provide competition for local authority housing departments. Urban development corporations can provide a rival means of securing urban regeneration. The need for local authorities to put their services out to competitive tender ensures a much more thrusting quest for value for money.

In all these things, local authorities are finding that central Government are insisting upon quality of service. There is no reason why, in coming to arrangements for the distribution of taxpayers' funds, central Government should not insist upon a specific agreement with individual local authorities about the way in which those funds will be used and the quality of services that will be delivered. There is no question that if central Government took a more positive role in the distribution of funds, many authorities would queue up to get a larger share of the available resources. Local authorities have a perfectly legitimate choice. They can decide whether they want to administer the funds that the taxpayer contributes or whether they are content to see central Government distribute those funds to other agencies that will deliver the quality and the value for money for which the Secretary of State is calling.

The essence of the debate is that the House has to make a simple judgment. It is whether we are prepared to place our trust in the concept of powerful inner-London authorities. Frankly, very few of those authorities merit such trust. Year after year the House has diverted taxpayers' funds to those authorities without insisting upon the quality of the services that they should deliver. That is an abdication of the responsibility of Parliament. If the Government now grasp the opportunities to create powerful and responsible authorities, the demise of ILEA will be viewed with as little concern as the demise of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.

6.39 pm

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

It was right that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should be called early in the debate because he is the co-architect and author of this proposal to abolish ILEA. It was interesting to contrast the assurance of his speech, which was based on ignorance, with the diffidence of the Secretary of State, whose speech was based on some knowledge. Clearly, one cannot afford to be so cavalier if one knows something about the needs of inner London and the problems with which the children and people there are faced.

The right hon. Member tried to turn the debate and this vandalistic proposal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described it, into a defence of local democracy. I must say I find that rich. If the right hon. Gentleman had any faith in democracy, he would have backed the proposal for a test of democratic opinion before ILEA was abolished. As he must know, ILEA is unique among education authorities because it is composed of directly elected members who have no other function. They are there because people have voted for them to conduct ILEA's affairs. So much for the advance of democracy.

What the right hon. Gentleman said about strengthening the functions and capabilities of small inner-London boroughs so that they can take on these functions was impertinent. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he did more than anyone else to weaken and undermine the resources available to inner-London boroughs. He began the process of taking away major planning functions from London boroughs. That was most evident in the docklands area, where he set up the London Docklands development corporation to take power away from the boroughs that he so deeply distrusted. That same right hon. Gentleman reduced, almost to desperation, the funds available for housing programmes and other services in inner London. We do not need to take the right hon. Gentleman very seriously.

We must confront the arguments and proposals put forward by the Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber and run for cover. He has failed to produce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) showed, a serious or argued case for the demolition of ILEA or for the transfer of its functions to 12 inner-London boroughs. I do not think that he even tried. He seems to be content in the knowledge that he has more troops than us, even though the strength of his vote in the Lobby will be in inverse ratio to the strength of the argument that he advanced.

As an inner-London Member of Parliament, what fills me with disgust—my hon. Friends will share these feelings—is that the educational future and life chances of 280,000 children have been put at risk. Until what is being done can be undone, they and succeeding cohorts of the young will be grievously disadvantaged by what the Government are doing.

The Government have sought to base their case, as they did last Wednesday, on what they call—the motion says this in so many words— the persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools and the alleged "profligate overspending" of ILEA. To advance that case, the Secretary of State has done a hatchet job on ILEA. When he quoted the only piece of evidence available to him—that ILEA ranks 86th among LEAs in the league table—he had not even the basic intellectual honesty—he knows better than to use crude examination statistics to prove a point—to place it in the context of the other serious adjusted studies of educational performance that have been published twice by Sheffield university and which are available from other sources.

I know of no serious educationist who would claim that crude examination results are a valid test of the value and quality of an education service. The fact that the borough of Harrow performs two or three times better than ILEA says more about the social background and class composition of the Harrow population than it does about the quality of education in that borough.

It is simply illiterate to attempt to judge one authority against another by examination results without taking into account the social background of its pupils. I am particularly aware of that—I wish that the Secretary of State was present to hear this—as no fewer than 44 per cent. of pupils attending schools in Tower Hamlets are from Bengali families. Bengali is their mother tongue, and a substantial proportion of pupils in schools in that borough came to the United Kingdom only in the past 10 years. It is not serious to make a comparison between examination results at 0-level of pupils in my borough with those who are resident in Harrow, Bromley, Bexley or elsewhere.

The Secretary of State knows very well—we willingly concede this point—that ILEA's performance, while certainly capable of improvement, does not justify its annihilation. The Guardian was good enough to inform us that the Secretary of State received a 12-page report less than a fortnight ago, from which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted earlier, from Mr. Eric Bolton, who is his senior chief inspector. The burden of what the chief inspector said has been put to the House, but I shall quote two points because they are relevant to the argument that I am advancing that a case against ILEA cannot be based on crude examination results.

Mr. Bolton said: The ILEA, covering as it does the whole of Central London, has to confront a range of social problems, including large-scale homelessness, whose concentration and severity make for what is generally accepted as a unique combination of difficulties. He notes—this is directly relevant to the Secretary of State's use of crude examination statistics—that when ILEA's examination results at 16 years are statistically adjusted for socio-economic factors, it appears to perform up to expectation. If that is a case for getting rid of ILEA, I cannot recognise it in the language and report of the Secretary of State's senior inspector.

The Secretary of State put forward a second and equally spurious reason for getting rid of ILEA the high cost of education in inner London. I need make only two points because my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave the House the truth of the matter when he drew attention to the obvious high cost of all services in inner London—not only those in the public sector, but those in the private sector. Many institutions and companies have had to leave inner London because the costs are so high or because they have difficulty in recruiting people of adequate capability to perform the services that they require.

When the Minister, on 4 February, first presented his statement of intent to abolish ILEA I asked him how he could possibly justify the transfer of education to inner-London boroughs when he and all his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, have nothing but contempt for the administrative capacity and political judgment of the authorities concerned. The Government have decided that inner-London authorities are not competent to run their housing services—hence the Housing Bill. Many other services must be compulsorily put out to tender in the private sector because councils are not thought to be capable of running them properly. The Government have decided that rates decisions should be taken out of their hands—in many cases by rate capping—and decided by ministerial order.

In reply to my question, the Secretary of State made the simple debating point that he was surprised that I and other inner-London Members had so little confidence in our local Labour councils. The answer to that is twofold. First, it is not Labour Members of Parliament but Ministers who have shown their complete lack of confidence in and their contempt for inner-London councils. Secondly, the progressive and massive cuts in Government grant aid for local government services and for housing in the inner-London boroughs have resulted in falling standards of service and increasing inefficiency in administration.

It is against this background of continued stringency that the Government propose in just over two years that each of the inner London boroughs should set up a separate administration for the provision of education services. Apart from the fact that we are to have 12 mini education administrations where only one existed previously—anyone who thinks that will be cheaper will have another think coming—the crucial factor will be the amount of money that is made available to the individual boroughs.

Under the inner-London equalisation scheme, the rich boroughs—the City of Westminster, the City of London, Camden, Kensington and Chelsea —contributed heavily to education expenditure in the poor boroughs such as Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith, Greenwich and the rest. Just how important that cross-subsidisation is can be illustrated by my borough of Tower Hamlets. We contribute £40 million in precept to ILEA. We receive in ILEA expenditure some £70 million. Even today, in spite of the substantial pooling of resources that ILEA can undertake, we are nearing crisis in the shortage of teachers and in the lack of primary school places in Tower Hamlets. We are short of 100 primary teachers. We are in the middle of a population explosion, which will mean that the school population will have virtually doubled between 1982 and 1992. A large-scale £16 million building programme for new primary schools is under way. I do not believe that Tower Hamlets will receive from the Secretary of State direct funding of its education service on the scale that it undoubtedly needs.

No doubt the Secretary of State will consider that our special needs are simply evidence of extravagance and overspending, because that has been the Government's whole approach to the question of need and expenditure from the moment they took office. Wherever they have seen above-average expenditure, they have assumed that the cause is profligacy and waste, whereas we have always assumed, rightly, that it is an indicator of greater need. All the social studies that have been made illustrate that we are right and they are not.

In Tower Hamlets, we have not a Labour but a Liberal council. Among its other innovations, in a period of enormous financial stringency it is pushing through a programme of far-reaching decentralisation. Nearly all the borough services will soon be provided, not from the town hall in Patriot square, but from several mini town halls which are being constructed and serviced at great cost. They out-democrat even the right hon. Member for Henley. The chaos in our borough is such that it is literally inconceivable that an adequate education service can be established in two years' time. All this must be well known to the Secretary of State. If not, he should have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will brief him on the state of administration in Tower Hamlets.

Let me read to the House the views of one of our headmistresses, Sue Gilman, who runs the Cannon Barnet primary school in Spitalfields, where all but one of the 300-odd children are Bengali: It is already difficult persuading young teachers to stay in Tower Hamlets because of high rents and house prices. But many are attracted by the range of facilities, the scope for promotion, the in-service training that only an organisation the size of ILEA can offer. Children suffer terribly when there is a high turnover of staff and I fear the problem will get much worse if Tower Hamlets is left to recruit its own teachers. The House and the country should know that the abolition of ILEA has nothing to do with the alleged quest for higher standards of education, for improved administration or for the necessary reduction of over-costly education services. It was not in the Government's manifesto. It was explicitly rejected by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph. It has not been recommended by any serious impartial group of educationists or academics. It is solely the result of Back-Bench Conservative pressure, led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the right hon. Member for Henley. Neither of them has had any experience in ILEA. Both are motivated by a crude political desire to punish what they consider to be a wayward, Left authority.

To give in to such pressure is not the way to make serious decisions about the educational future of 280,000 London schoolchildren. It is indeed a recipe for chaos and a disaster for the young people of Tower Hamlets and many young people in other London boroughs.

6.55 pm

Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)

What is interesting about the two speeches from the Opposition Benches so far is that one would think there was nothing wrong with education in inner London. Apart from a passing reference by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to a little problem with secondary education, as though that was a peripheral activity of ILEA, one would have thought that there was nothing wrong with it.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that the Secretary of State was putting at risk the life chances of the 280,000 children in ILEA. If those children's life chances have been put at risk over the last two years, it has been, first, by the obsession of ILEA with politics, and, secondly, by the incessant strikes which have been promoted, encouraged and comforted at every turn by his party. If anything has damaged the children's chances, it is the strikes that have been taking place in the schools over the last few years.

I will not try to pretend that everything about ILEA is bad. It is not. There are some good things about ILEA.—[Interruption.] It would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman had confessed some of the bad things. There are certainly some good things about ILEA. There has been a good deal of deathbed repentance in the last year since its continued existence has been under threat and its leadership has changed.

However, there are many bad things to do with the standards that have been achieved, the expectations that are made of children and the amount of money that has been spent on achieving relatively little. Today I received a letter from a constituent whose daughter is at an ILEA primary school in the constituency. She says: I am seriously thinking of putting my 74½-year-old daughter into private education. In the 2½ years that she has been in school she has not learnt anything. She learnt more in the private kindergarten when she was aged between 2½ and 4½. [Interruption.] May I make my speech? Opposition Members will get an opportunity to speak later.

Among the quotations by the hon. Member for Blackburn it would have been interesting to hear him mention Mr. Neil Fletcher, the leader of ILEA, who said that the education service was in chaos and had achieved nothing in educational terms. It would have been interesting to hear a quote from the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate, which said that, after attending 200 ILEA science lessons, the inspectorate rated 40 per cent. as less than satisfactory and 15 per cent. as appallingly bad. It would have been interesting to hear the hon. Member compare the unit cost of pupil-teacher ratios with Brent. I agree that it is not fair to compare ILEA with Harrow or Barnet, but I think it is reasonable to compare it with Brent. There are similar social conditions; the pupil-teacher ratios are almost the same. Brent achieved slightly better unadjusted examination results. The ILEA unit cost of educating a child at secondary school is one third more than the unit cost in Brent, and it does not even succeed in achieving as much.

The Sheffield study has been widely quoted. For all the money that it has spent, ILEA comes at No. 56 out of 96, after adjustment for social factors. That is hardly the sort of performance that one would have thought was justified by the expenditure. The Sheffield study makes two noticeable points, the first being that there is a substantial correlation between the socio-economic background and examination results. That is undoubtedly true, but it is in danger of becoming an alibi for low expectations. While it is certainly a factor in achievement, Opposition Members should recognise the danger that this has become an excuse and an alibi. As a result, in school less is expected of children from poor homes and working-class backgrounds than of other children.

The second point that emerges from the Sheffield study is that there is no statistical correlation between adjusted examination results and the spending of additional money. That is surely interesting in the context of the fact that ILEA spends so much more.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

The hon. Gentleman has made much of the comparison between ILEA and Brent and told us that in the Sheffield study ILEA came 56th. Where did Brent come?

Mr. Maples

It did not do very well either.

Mr. Smith

Give us the number.

Mr. Maples

I will make my own speech. In citing Brent, I sought to make the point that Brent has similar social conditions and the same pupil-teacher ratio, yet spends one third less than ILEA. If I ran ILEA, I would say to myself, "I wonder whether I can achieve the same with one third less."

The acid test is the unit cost of educating a child in a secondary school. In ILEA schools, it is £2,650. The London average is £1,700. But in the average inner-London independent school it is £2,535—less than in ILEA schools. Do Opposition Members think that the average parent of a child in an ILEA school, if given £2,650 and told that he or she could spend it on education where he or she chose, would put the child back into the ILEA school? Would they not opt for one of the independent schools?

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples

No. I shall finish my speech. The hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for education, and he is interfering in the debate.

Many very good independent schools in inner London charge considerably less than ILEA. I should have thought that, given the choice, the average parent would take it.

My second point on unit costs is that, if the average head teacher of an inner-London school were given £2,650 for every pupil in his school, I would wager a substantial amount that he would achieve considerably more than ILEA achieves.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Maples

No, I will not give way.

I suspect that doing something about education in inner London is the same as doing something about what is wrong with education in the country as a whole. The national reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes are perhaps even more relevant in London than elsewhere. They have nothing to do with who runs education in London; they have much to do with the national curriculum, opting out and financial delegation. My right hon. Friend's proposals on the national curriculum and testing will do just as much, if not more, for standards in inner London as for standards elsewhere. The proposals for financial delegation and opting out will do an enormous amount in inner London, because they will provide diversity and choice and a far more efficient use of resources. Both the national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes and the structure are crucial to the reform of education in inner London.

I simply cannot accept the argument that inner-London boroughs are not appropriate vehicles for providing education services. Outer-London boroughs do it perfectly satisfactorily—some better than others and some extremely well. The top two areas in the Sheffield study, which Opposition Members are using as their alibi today, are Harrow and Barnet— two outer-London boroughs which provide education services. No doubt some will do it better than others. Some may do it better than ILEA and some not as well. But the fact that they can do it is borne out by the experience of the outer-London boroughs. The boroughs will be closer to the schools and the people involved, the decision-making machinery will be closer to the action, and the authorities, being smaller, should be able to run a more efficient and less bureaucratic service.

One or two points have to be taken into account in making the substantial change from a Londonwide authority to arrangements under which the inner-London boroughs run their own affairs. The first relates to cross-borough services, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred—adult education, special schools and the youth service, music and computer centres and so on. When boroughs were to be allowed to opt out of ILEA, it was fair to assume that they would make the necessary voluntary arrangements to provide such services. However, if we are to break up ILEA, we must ensure that the arrangements are in place and that if we are not satisfied with the voluntary arrangements that the boroughs make there is a mechanism to allow us to insist that the necessary cross-borough arrangements are made.

Secondly, whatever is wrong with ILEA is doubly wrong with one or two London boroughs. ILEA may be profligate and heavily politicised, but the London boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth are more so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lewisham."] Lewisham comes close. There is concern that some children will be taken out of the frying pan and put into the fire. People question whether their education will be better dealt with by boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that one of the remedies that the schools have at their hands is to opt out. No doubt some schools will do that, but others will not be able to do so, for perfectly good reasons. Some will be too small and for some it will be inappropriate to act as an opted-out service. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he has, or will have, the power to take the necessary action if that happens and he finds that the education plan of an inner-London borough is inadequate, or inadequately put into effect?

When the Bill is enacted and the smoke has settled and the Labour leaders of inner London boroughs who now say that they will defend ILEA to the death come round to the idea that they would quite like to run education in their boroughs after all, it will be important to turn them into willing partners in this exercise. There will be nearly two years left before their responsibilities are put into effect; during that time it will be important to turn them into willing partners.

I make one point specifically relating to my constituency, which contains the Horniman museum. It was given to the people of London—originally to the London county council, then to the Greater London council and then to ILEA. It performs a valuable educational function and it would be totally wrong to transfer it to the borough concerned. There is a good deal of support for the idea that the museum should become a national institution, nationally financed and with nationally appointed trustees so that it can continue to provide an education service to children in schools in the south-east.

The most important ingredient in the improvement of education standards in inner London is the programme of national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes the national curriculum, testing, opting out, financial delegation, grant-maintained schools and so on. A few factors need to be taken into account. If they are, I believe that we shall end up with a considerably better education service than we have now in most London boroughs. I hope that that will be the outcome.

7.6 pm

Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich)

We are considering the proposals at a time when children in our schools have had to bear the malign effects of conflict and cuts for far too long. Children in London—especially at secondary level —have suffered more than most from industrial action and political interference from all sides. The introduction of the GCSE—too quickly and with inadequate resources—is adding to their problems. As has already been said, teachers' morale is at an all-time low and the better teachers are decamping in droves, both for financial reasons and because of the political interference in their work. At a time when matters could be starting to stabilise somewhat, our children are being threatened with a further change and a potentially catastrophic period of instability.

I would be the first to agree that ILEA needs reforming, but to abolish it is going too far. It should be replaced with a unitary body for London to provide the high-quality cost-effective education to which our children are entitled. Let us consider what ILEA has done in recent years. We have heard the statistics for the cost per child. Where does the money go? ILEA's own budget document shows that only about 40 per cent. goes on teaching staff; it is nearer to 60 per cent. in most authorities. Administrative costs have risen catastrophically, at a time when the number of pupils and teachers is declining.

I shall quote the words of one of the Government's well-respected chief inspectors, Hargreaves, not from the Hargreaves report but from his recent document on quality: Within a national context, ILEA secondary schools, when account is taken of intake, perform as a whole at an average level; but the level of resources is higher than anywhere else in the country … Moreover, is an average performance in national terms good enough in the light of the Authority's equal opportunities policy? Hargreaves continued: Recently, and by coincidence, I had separate conversations with a member, an inspector and an ILEA head on the same theme. All four of us"— I share this— had one common element in our histories: we were working class and attended grammar or direct grant schools. Our parents had limited formal education and no special educational ambitions for us. Our schools however had high expectations for us and pressured us to work hard, raising our aspirations so that we found our way to university. How high was our confidence, we wondered, that our educational histories would be the same had we attended an ILEA comprehensive school of today? Hon. Members should note that that section was removed before the paper was made public.

This is not a record of which to be proud. I constantly cite the fact that commuter trains into London are full of youngsters from the surrounding shire counties who come in to take those plum jobs that our inner-London children should get. Let us not underestimate the considerable areas of excellence that ILEA has fostered over the years.

As a parent of a child with special needs, I have great reason to be grateful for the provision that my son has as a partially hearing boy. He would have had that provision nowhere else in the country—in fact, nowhere else in the world. There has been a boy in my son's school from a wealthy Nigerian family who were looking for private provision anywhere at any price for their son when he lost his hearing through meningitis. He ended up in the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, because there was nowhere better. Although I will criticise ILEA for what it has not done well, I will give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Tracey

I have often listened with interest to what the hon. Lady has said about education, especially reflecting on what happens in her borough. Does she think, on reflection, that Greenwich could work better as a separate education authority than the monster of the ILEA?

Mrs. Barnes

I do not. I shall come to that point.

To pay tribute to another area of excellence, this morning I visited the Thamesside adult education institute, one of 18 in ILEA, offering services during the day and evening. The institute attracts 12,500 people a year, almost two thirds of whom are retired, unemployed, in receipt of benefit or on literacy or English-as-a-second-language courses. Seventy-four per cent. of them are women and 500 children are enrolled in the creches there. The total cost of the institute is £.1.6 million. Of that, less than a quarter comes from Greenwich rates. The institute provides a valuable service, which I suspect will be severely threatened if ILEA's responsibilities are entirely devolved to the boroughs. I am sure that this non-statutory provision will suffer.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I was pleased to hear the hon. Lady pay tribute to the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, for which I had responsibility for seven years. Does she agree—it is important for the Government to realise this—that that unit and others like it must continue and that, as part of the special education provision for London, they will need to continue to take children from other boroughs?

Mrs. Barnes

That is important. Although I live in Greenwich, which is division 6, my son is at school in Lewisham, which is division 7, because of his hearing difficulties. Children from a wide catchment area in London go to the three remaining partial hearing units within ILEA.

Why am I protesting about the break-up of ILEA, in spite of my reservations about it? As a London Member, with first-hand experience of how the boroughs have coped with services of such critical importance to people's lives as housing, I am totally dismayed at the prospect of them having control of my children's education. What happened when housing benefit was transferred? Some boroughs are still dealing with the vast backlog of several years ago, with what was a fairly simple procedure compared with transferring the whole of an eduction service. The prospects of inefficiency, bureaucracy and politicisation are frightening. There is no evidence that children will receive a better standard of education within the control of the London boroughs than they would within a unitary authority. If anyone thinks that children might, they should spend some time in the boroughs and see what happens.

I am not the only one who has reservations about the London boroughs. One of the Minister's closest colleagues, the Secretary of State for the Environment, recently said: Labour's loony left Council leaders are behaving like Eastern Bloc Commissars, ruling people by fear.

Mr. Holland

Do not spoil it. It was a good speech.

Mrs. Barnes

I shall put this straight. The right hon. Gentleman said: Town Halls founded on civic dignity have become an arena for aggressive political posing, disruption, wild accusations, threats and fear". If a Government have in their inner echelons someone with those beliefs, how can that same Government think that those boroughs can improve education standards?

Let us take a more impartial view, from the Audit Commission's document "The Management of London Authorities: Preventing the Breakdown of Services", in January 1987: large parts of London appear set on precisely the course which will lead to financial and management breakdown. The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to eliminate what they see as the profligacy and irresponsibility of ILEA, yet by their own arguments they are handing education straight to the local authorities which the Government have so readily and so consistently condemned. Giving control of education to those councils which are already mishandling and mismanaging housing and social services is an absurd triumph of myopic dogmatism over the consumers' interests. They are the people with whom we must be concerned—the children, the young people and the adults who are in receipt of education provided by London.

Education will not be improved by being kicked around from one authority to another. The Government should look at how the management of a London unitary education authority can be improved, and how it should be made more representative. There is ultimately only one way to make local authorities more representative—proportional representation. The case for it is, if anything, stronger at local level than at national level. It would end extremism at a stroke.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Does my hon. Friend and political neighbour accept that, if the Government and ILEA had adopted proportional representation before, ILEA would not be facing abolition now?

Mrs. Barnes

I agree with that absolutely. If standards and quality are what the debate is about—and I applaud that—let us consider what the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers recommends. It recommends an expert task force under an independent chairman to decide on the format of a unitary body. The association defends the idea of a unitary body in its document, not ILEA as it is now. There is a strong suggestion that the 58-person committee of politicians has been inept and indecisive, and perhaps, in some ways, that is not a bad thing. Had they been able to make decisions, we might have been in an even worse mess.

Let us also consider the idea floated in The Economist, which is not usually a bastion of Left-wing thought. It suggests a I2-member board, with each member being elected for four years on a staggered basis so that there is some continuity. I am making suggestions about how a unitary body, quite different from ILEA, could be conceived. All I ask is that we give proper thought to what will improve standards and quality of education, and that we do not jump, as we are doing now, from the frying pan into the fire.

7.21 pm

Mr. William Shelton (Streatham)

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the power to do as she suggested, if he so wished, under the 1944 Act. He could appoint a committee comprising a non-political group of people—including most of his friends, I hope—to run education. However, I do not think that is likely.

Either ILEA must stay or it must go. I want to refute the notion that we keep hearing to the effect that this is a political attack. I was the chief whip of ILEA 20 years ago. Then I moved across the river to the House, and even then, in 1970, my first machinations and discussions were directed to seeing how we could get rid of ILEA. It was a far better organisation in those days than it is today, but I wanted to get rid of it then because I thought that it was too big and remote. The William Tyndale school would never have come about if it had been run by local councils. Indeed, hon. Members may recall some discussion about breaking ILEA into four.

I shall not conceal from the House the fact that, in the run-up to the 1983 election, when there was some discussion about including the break-up of ILEA in the manifesto, my valour was tempered by the thought of facing my Streatham constituents and telling them that Mr. Ted Knight would be controlling the education of their children.

Mr. Holland

What did the hon. Gentleman decide to do?

Mr. Shelton

The question did not arise, as it was not included in the election manifesto, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

How is it that I can now support my right hon. Friend's proposals wholeheartedly?

Mr. Simon Hughes

Just to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is fair when comparing his views in 1983 with his views now, can he tell his constituents now that he is happy that education in Lambeth will be run by Miss Linda Bellos and her colleagues, which is what the Government propose?

Mr. Shelton

That is going to be the burden of part of my speech.

I shall give four reasons why I am now perfectly happy that ILEA should be abolished. The first will be understood by men of good sense, and by the Opposition. It is clear that at least three, and probably four or five or more, boroughs would have opted out of ILEA, so there is no way in which ILEA could have proceeded. That must be common sense to anyone who lives in London and knows ILEA's education service. From that point of view, there is no choice. So this is a sensible decision.

Secondly, as I said a moment ago, ILEA is a far worse organisation now than it was when I was its chief whip. I do not want to go through all the figures on spending again, but ILEA spends considerably more per capita than places such as Bradford, Manchester and Sheffield. Some hon. Members asked about private schools. ILEA spends considerably more than Putney high school and James Allen's school for girls, which are both good schools. Hon. Members can take it from me that ILEA has been letting down London's children, who are at risk under ILEA. It has also been ripping off London's ratepayers—

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Mr. Shelton

If I may proceed a moment longer, the hon. Gentleman may be fortunate later.

The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned administration. I understand that ILEA spends £55 per pupil on administration, while Bradford spends only £15.

Mr. Holland

Bradford has only one-sixth of the density.

Mr. Shelton

Two years ago I was reading through CIPFA, which makes excellent reading for anyone interested in education. I have always had a fondness for ILEA, and I was delighted to see that it spent more than any other authority in the country on school meals. I thought, "At least, they get a jolly good lunch." In the small print I discovered that ILEA spent almost the least in the country on food and by far the most on administration. So perhaps ILEA's pupils are being well served, but they are not getting much to eat.

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Mr. Shelton

I shall not go through the exam results figures again, except to say that, even after they have been massaged, ILEA, which spends the most, comes out only halfway up the academic list, so something is wrong somewhere.

As for ILEA's loony policies, that business about non-competitive sport was nonsense— a fact that has now been recognised. But how long did it continue before it was recognised?

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about Lambeth. The Education Reform Bill has certain safeguards that did not exist in 1983, and they have been listed already. They include a national curriculum, more open enrolment, financial delegation and opting out if it becomes necessary, and if the parents vote so to do; and Lambeth will give the local service that I wanted 20 years ago for London's education. It will have local councillors, for many of whom I have a high regard. I have a high regard for officials in division 9. I know them well. That acquaintance, together with the safeguards in the Bill, reassures me.

It is true that one must be wary of Lambeth—especially of its leadership. Lambeth was described in an editorial in The Times a week or two ago as being—among other boroughs—a by-word for political extremism, bloody-mindedness, incompetence. That may well be true. Three Lambeth councillors were elected to ILEA, all of whom were disqualified and surcharged under the reign of Mr. Knight for making an illegal rate. So the differences between ILEA and Lambeth are very small.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), with whose speech I agreed, I want to make a few pleas to my right hon. Friend. First, I ask that the boroughs in 1990 should not inherit any of the vast overhead costs of ILEA, because, if they have to accept responsibility for the redundancies, or the rent for county hall, they will do badly. They must start with a clean sheet, and the residuary body must have enough funding to take care of the backlog of expenses.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend should give continuing thought to the fact that certain Labour boroughs may not co-operate much. I do not know to what extent he can seek some sort of compulsory timetable and specify particular positions in local authorities and place responsibilities on them. I fear that, unless he does that, he may not get the co-operation that is so much needed.

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, the cross-borough boundary traffic—adult and further education, youth, career and special needs—is vital. I have little concern about primary education, and secondary education can only be improved; but ILEA does well for the non-statutory bodies. We must look after them carefully, because it is essential to maintain and foster them.

There has been a campaign, which I strongly support, to regularise the position of Morley college. That must be done. Lambeth has three excellent special schools which feed a large area, including outer London, and adult education is shifting more and more into job training, which is important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers, should it become necessary, to set up joint education committees to look after such cross-borough traffic and to avoid duplication, maintain the organisations and soothe ruffled feelings in the various boroughs involved. It will be difficult for a borough to run only one further education college without cross-borough help.

Mr. Spearing

This is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I wholly agree. Did he notice that, in respect of the 500,000 London citizens who go to further education colleges and the many pupils who go to special schools, whereas in the first statement the Secretary of State said that he would do just what the hon. Gentleman is asking for, and which I would like, today he carefully avoided any such reference?

Mr. Shelton

My right hon. Friend is a sensible and farseeing man. I am sure that he will accept both my advice and that given by the hon. Gentleman.

My next point is technical, but important. It concerns recoupment of these non-statutory bodies. It is now done on national average costs. It would be better if this were done on actual costs, but it would not be possible because so many people are involved and there would have to be massive computers working it out, which would waste time and money. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider establishing an inner London average cost on which recoupment can be based when there is cross-borough boundary trade on adult, special or any other provisions. The inner London average would avoid certain boroughs planning to build walls against that trade because they are not receiving sufficient to cover the costs of the services that they are giving. I am thinking especially of Wandsworth which provides services for adult education in Lambeth. I would hate Wandsworth to discriminate against Lambeth residents because they did not carry with them adequate costs when they used a service in Wandsworth.

After 20 years of mixed feelings about ILEA, although I have always liked and had regard for it, I am glad that it will soon be abolished.

7.34 pm

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

If the terms of this motion are implemented in the Education Reform Bill, they will put the educational future of over 250,000 of London's children into limbo, and limbo is possibly the most positive thing that I can foresee. We do not know what will happen to the infant schools, to the secondary schools, to the non-statutory services such as evening classes, access classes or polytechnics, nursery classes, discretionary grants, career services or youth work, as a result of the Government's move.

Why are we being asked to put the future of so many children at risk? First, there is no doubt that abolishing ILEA will save money for businesses, because 73 per cent. of ILEA's funding comes from business ratepayers, over half of them in the City.

Mr. John Marshall

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott

With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that I have only just begun. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument.

If one cuts through all the cant from the Secretary of State and Conservative Members, one sees that abolishing ILEA will save their friends in the City money. For over 118 years, London businesses have helped to fund a unified education service in London. That honourable tradition, whereby business and wealthy areas provide a decent education for all our children, is being broken.

Secondly, the abolition of ILEA is of a piece with the holy war that the Government are conducting against any democratic institution which happens to be controlled by the Labour party. Their claims of principle and about parental choice, the consumer and the interests of children go out the window when they are presented with the opportunity to smash an institution whose electors vote in a Labour majority time after time.

The third reason for this extraordinary gamble is a sordid reason, so I will mention it only briefly. It is that the future of Hackney's children and over 250,000 children in inner London has become caught up in a nasty, squalid battle for political success in the Conservative party. It is a disgrace that, because of some temporary manoeuvring, shuffling, alliances and misalliances between the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the Secretary of State, the educational future of children in London is put in jeopardy.

Conservative Members have referred to ILEA's flaws and problems. However, I put this to the Secretary of State. If his ministerial car developed a fault, would he take a sledgehammer to it and smash it up? The answer to the problems in ILEA is not to dismantle it in this way, which runs contrary to professional, educational and parental opinion and to the interests of the children.

We have heard, and no doubt will hear all evening, about the costs of ILEA to London. Conservative Members refuse to accept that everything in London is more expensive. The Metropolitan police force costs twice as much as comparative police forces. That is because London is sui generis. One cannot compare the costs of running a London institution, whether it is education, the police, or social services, to costs in areas outside London. There are the costs of living, housing and transport. Those financial comparisons are fundamentally tendentious and dishonest, and they do a great disservice to Conservative Members.

Hackney parents are asking me questions which I shall now put to the Secretary of State. They are asking when they will be asked for their view. They say, "We heard in the election campaign and we hear week in and week out about parental choice, but when will we be asked about our choice?" They do not believe that their children's future should rest on the whim of the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley; they want a say. This measure was never in the manifesto. The Tories could not have won seats in inner London with this in the manifesto. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) is just one Conservative Member who will lose his seat —[Interruption.] I will see only some hon. Gentlemen in four years' time. Hackney parents ask me, "What is all this about parental choice? When will we have a say?"

Hackney parents are also saying, "We understand that Hackney pays £33 million into ILEA and that it receives £93 million from ILEA. Where will the missing £60 million come from?" It is one thing to talk about parental choice, giving power to parents and ILEA failing children, but how will my borough manage with a £60 million shortfall? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that poor boroughs such as mine will not be a penny worse off as a result of abolition? We in Hackney want to know where our £60 million will come from. Is the Secretary of State content to see Hackney's children's future go down the drain because of intra-party manoeuvring between himself, the right hon. Member for Chingford and the right hon. Member for Henley?

I have listened to the debate with great interest. and two things are clear. My borough is one of the poorest in London and will be one of the worst hit by abolition. It also has a high proportion of young people. Conservative Members tell us about the value of accountancy. We hear about unit costs, cost-effectiveness, cash flows, and balancing books, but we hear little about the values that should underlie a decent national education service, about keeping faith with parents, about the historic role of ILEA as an engine of social equality and about giving poor children like mine in Hackney a chance. We hear all about the values of accountancy and ledger books, and nothing about social and community values, continuity, and keeping faith with parents and children. First and foremost, it is clear that this measure is all about the value of accountancy.

The second thing that has been made clear this afternoon from speeches and remarks of Conservative Members and the Secretary of State—and it was clear when the Secretary of State made his original statement—is the fathomless contempt that they have for the people of inner London and their children. That is based on ignorance. The Secretary of State has never been to an inner-London school, he will not visit them, he does not send his children there and nor do his friends. Theirs is fathomless contempt based on ignorance.

I put it to the House that the Government will pay dearly for playing ducks and drakes with the future of the children of inner London. Unless the Government give an absolute commitment that the poor boroughs will not lose financially, the hollowness of their talk about parental choice, standards and caring for children will be made clear. Without the money which time out of mind has been redistributed from the wealthy to the poor in inner London, what are my children in Hackney to look forward to and what are boroughs such as Hackney to do? I urge the House to oppose this motion.

7.45 pm

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North)

I shall be brief, which is more than some other hon. Members have been, so that as many hon. Members as possible can speak.

I worked for 13 years as a headmaster in ILEA. The old London school board was well respected throughout the world and the old LCC education committee was well respected throughout England. Indeed, when I started teaching, if one got a London first appointment, which was called an LF A— —[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will listen, they might learn something to their advantage. The LCC education committee gave LFAs, which meant that one could come from the length and breadth of the country. At that time, people from all over the world came to see, not just the schools, but the standard of education in London. I worked for four years under the old LCC education committee with no political interference and in high standard schools, until we came under ILEA.

It must be said that ILEA has never won the reputation that the LCC education committee had. —[Interruption.] It has not. It is clear from seeing it, from what people say and from where applications come from.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

rose—

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson

No, I am not giving way, not even to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for whom I have great respect. I sometimes wonder why, but I always finish up with the same respect for him. I am answering some of the questions that have been raised.

At that time, applications to the old LCC came from all over the country, but since ILEA there has been a shortage of teachers, despite good conditions and pay. [Interruption.] Obviously, what I am saying is hurting, but the truth always hurts. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order.

Sir Rhodes Boyson

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I felt chastened under the attack.

There are three reasons why ILEA has fallen apart and why this measure can pass today, ILEA will disappear and in five years' time people will see it as the remnants of history.

The first reason is the teacher militancy which swept in from 1968. Even last week, despite the desire of the chairman of ILEA's education committee, there was another day's strike. The rank and file—or what we call rank and rile in many cases in London—took over the NUT in 1968, to the horror of the rest of the country. Since then we have had continued militancy. I served on two committees of the NUT before that and I resigned from it because we were striking at the drop of a hat. I would not strike, but others were brought out in that way. That did untold harm.

The second reason is that many of the appointments in ILEA were not for good teaching but because people served on committees and were union officers, and so became known at county hall. Teachers were not coming in from outside; there were many incestuous appointments from inside of people who sat on committees dealing with the length of chair-legs and such great educational portents as that. Those who met regularly were appointed, not the teachers working in the schools.

The third reason is the results. Whatever Labour Members say, if they sent their children to schools where the results were 40 per cent. lower than the average in the rest of the country, they would be worried. Parents are worried because the standards of schools depend on the standards of results that can be expected. Without doctoring or massaging the results, we are aware that, in comparison with the average for the country, 40 per cent. fewer pupils in ILEA get five 0-levels or grade 1 CSEs. Such poor results are despite the fact that 40 per cent. more is spent in ILEA as opposed to the rest of the country.

I believe that there are three reasons for such poor results. First, when children are tested at the age of 11, the results are basically average. Therefore, there is a decline in pupils' educational standards in ILEA's secondary schools between the ages of 11 and 16. We should explore that failure. At the age of 11, only 1 per cent. of ILEA's pupils have an education standard lower than the general average. However, by the time those children reach the age of 16, their results are 40 per cent. lower than those for the country as a whole. Secondly, it is clear that only 1 per cent. of girls at school in ILEA are below standard, so it is the boys who do not perform well. That demonstrates that there is a lack of discipline in the schools. Girls are individualists and they work in schools where discipline is poor. However, boys run with the pack and if a school lacks discipline it affects the boys. Undoubtedly there are poor discipline standards within ILEA.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson

I can see my hon. Friend moving to give me, as always, some of his wisdom and advice. Before I allow him to do so, to the benefit of everyone—including Opposition Members—let us consider the third reason.

The poor results of ILEA cannot be blamed upon immigration. Indeed, I must pay tribute to ILEA for publishing its results and carrying out research on those results. It is clear that the average results of Indian immigrants are twice as high as those of the host community. Second to them come the Pakistanis, and African children are also above average. It is no good saying that the poor results may be blamed, in some way, on immigration. The results in London would be lower but for those immigrant groups. Therefore, there is no means for turning upon that argument.

Mr. Greenway

In common with my right hon. Friend, I was a member of ILEA and the LCC education committee for some 23 years. From his experience and knowledge of London schools, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are schools today, not far from this House, where packs of children trot around completely out of control —[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them".] That is one reason why the examination results are poor and child attainment so low. Opposition Members need to visit those schools to see what is happening. The other reason for low achievement is that little is expected of the children. Since its inception, ILEA has taken the view that children from a poor or disadvantaged background cannot be expected to achieve much. Therefore, children who formerly achieved a great deal no longer do so.

Sir Rhodes Boyson

I believe that it is important to return to smaller boroughs. I believe that, the smaller the borough, the more likely we are to achieve community involvement. It is clear from the percentage of votes recorded at elections that the bigger the borough the fewer the votes cast. If ILEA is translated into smaller boroughs, parents can be influential and there is every likelihood of an improvement in education standards. I believe that that would be a good thing.

Some of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), have referred to local government issues. I believe that, the smaller the boroughs, the nearer the people and therefore the better the government. I believe that the 1964 local government reorganisation in London was, in many cases, a disaster, and that the 1972 local government reorganisation—carried out by the Conservative party—in the rest of the country was a similar disaster. The sooner we get back to smaller units the better. We have got rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Now let us get rid of ILEA. In that way, we could transform London, including my area of Brent, into smaller areas because the big units do not work.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech.

Sir Rhodes Boyson

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sat down too soon. I intended to give way.

Mr. Banks

My feelings for the right hon. Gentleman have increased immeasurably, not merely because he happens to bear a strong resemblance to Wackford Squeers. As the right hon. Gentleman was just about to tell us about how small is beautiful, does he also believe that the shire counties should also be abolished and power given to the district councils?

Sir Rhodes Boyson

I sometimes think that some of the London schools would be better if they had some Wackford Squeerses in charge—at least the children would pass some examinations.

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the shires. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not regularly read Country Life. I do not ride and I do not know what happens in the country. I am sure that he knows more than I do, and perhaps he could give me a private lesson about what to do with the shires so that they, in common with inner London, could be improved.

7.55 pm

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

The Secretary of State has told us that it is the Government's desire to give more freedom of choice to parents, but, as a result of the decision that he is now forcing upon parents in inner London, they are to be denied the right to make such a decision on the future of education in inner London.

Not one school in my constituency—the Tooting area of the London borough of Wandsworth—supports the Government's proposals. I believe that the same could equally apply to schools in Battersea and Putney. I could name all the schools in my constituency that are totally opposed to the break-up of ILEA, but I will give just one example of a meeting that took place at Allfarthing school in the borough of Wandsworth. On 28 January a motion was put before a meeting of that school. That meeting was prior to the announcement by the Secretary of State regarding abolition, and we were then talking about opting out. The motion before the meeting read: That this meeting approves in principle of Wandsworth opting out of the Inner London Education Authority". The result of the parents' vote on that motion was six in favour, 94 against and 16 abstentions. Such an example could be quoted not only elsewhere in the London borough of Wandsworth, but in any division of ILEA where meetings have taken place with the people who matter—the parents of the youngsters.

Mr. John Marshall

rose—

Mr. Cox

No, I do not intend to give way.

One of the revealing disgraces of this debate is that we now know that the Secretary of State has visited just one school in inner London during his period of office. Yet he can tell us what is wrong with London's provision of education. Where are all the letters of complaint? Where are all the letters that the Secretary of State and his Department have received from dissatisfied parents? If parents are so dissatisfied, why are they opting, in such numbers, to seek to defend the retention of ILEA? Those parents know whether or not their children are doing well at school—they see the evidence—and they want ILEA to remain.

If there is any honesty and any true democracy left, it is about time that the Secretary of State sought to get the views of London parents as to his proposals. He most certainly does not know their views at the present time.

Many of us who represent inner-London constituencies live in our constituencies. We know the schools. We know many of the parents whose children go to schools in our constituencies. We also know about the problems.

Let me quote a report about the London borough of Wandsworth, which goes back to October 1987, four months ago. It states that more than 40 per cent. of the children who go to school in Wandsworth come from families who have incomes so low that they are able to claim free school meals; —about one in five have unemployed parents; —27 per cent. come from one-parent families; —one in five speaks a language other than English at home". The Minister of State represents a constituency that borders mine, so she cannot claim that she is unaware of what happens in inner London. She must also have some of the problems that we have in the borough where her constituency is. When we are told about how ILEA spends its money, many of us in the Opposition applaud it. We say that at least ILEA's policies bring some hope into the lives of many of the youngsters who go to schools within ILEA.

There is now a great fear that we shall see a division between schools where there are facilities and schools where there are not. Some parents who are in employment and earning a reasonable salary will have the opportunity to contribute towards the facilities that schools need; but in other schools parents will not be in that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to equalisation. We did not fully understand what the Secretary of State was saying because he never fully spelt out what he meant. However, other hon. Members have commented. In the London borough of Wandsworth, there will be a difference of £60 million. Few people in Wandsworth believe that, under the present administration, there would be any attempt to insist that present standards were maintained or, indeed, improved.

In Wandsworth we have already been told that if the borough can take over the running of education, one of the priorities will be to put education in the market place. That is the terminology that is used, and we in Wandsworth know what it means. The borough will privatise as quickly as possible as many of the present services in our schools as it can. If any hon. Member believes that that will meet with the approval of parents and that it will help to improve the morale of teaching staff, he lives in a dream world.

Mr. Tracey

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cox

I do not intend to give way.

We have fears, and we have ample reason to fear. The leader of Wandsworth council goes around speaking at meetings. When he is challenged about what he will do about the opposition at those meetings, he dismisses it and says, "They're a bunch of troublemakers. They are not parents." That is how much notice he takes of parents who go to those meetings out of interest to hear what the council is seeking to do.

There should be proper consultation by referendum, organised by a body such as the Electoral Reform Society. Such a referendum is not impossible because we know that the names and addresses of the parents of all the youngsters who go to our schools are available. Until there is a referendum, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will be fooling themselves if they think that they are acting with the authority of the people of London, because they certainly do not speak for the people of London on this vital issue.

Under the leadership of London county council and then of ILEA there have been improvements. Not one of us has said that ILEA could not be improved. The tragedy is, as with the rates debates, that when the elected members of ILEA at county hall sought discussions with Ministers, they were always turned down or they were available only on Ministers' terms. There was never free discussion or the willingness to listen to some of the problems suffered in inner London education.

Neither the Minister of State, the Secretary of State nor this Tory Government speak for the people of London on this issue. If they do not listen to what people are saying, there will be utter turmoil in our education sytem. If that is what they want, heaven help London and the children of London.

8.6 pm

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham)

The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has given us an excellent rendition of the emotional case against the abolition of ILEA. However, I am afraid that he forgets that there was a recent by-election in Southfields, in Wandsworth. He may have forgotten—he certainly did not tell the House—that the by-election was fought largely upon the opting-out of Wandsworth council, which is similar to the provisions introduced by the Secretary of State. I do not need to remind the House that the Conservatives in Wandsworth council retained the seat handsomely.

Mr. Tracey

And with an increased majority.

Mr. Carrington

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me. That gives the lie to what the hon. Member for Tooting was saying about the attitude of those in the borough.

Mr. Tracey

My hon. Friend has missed one other critical factor about that by-election. It was fought by the Labour party on the specific slogan, "Keep Wandsworth in ILEA by voting Labour."

Mr. Carrington

Indeed.

I think that it is fair to say that few tears are shed by anybody in London about the demise of ILEA. However, there are many fears about its demise, which I know many of my hon. Friends will share. They come largely from parents who have children in schools in boroughs that are run by somewhat Left-wing authorities, which, for deliberate political purposes, may go out of their way to disrupt this major change in education and try to make it not work in the efficient way in which it could work.

I believe that we shall see a campaign by certain councils. I trust that Hammersmith and Fulham council, which, unfortunately, and however temporarily, has control of my constituency, will not put the block in the way of the administrative reforms that will have to be introduced. But I am afraid that my optimism may be misplaced. My fears are shared not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) but by certain other hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when he draws up the necessary proposals.

The reforms that are contained in the Education Reform Bill, combined with the reforms in local authority finance, in the form of the community charge and the uniform business rate, will make the danger of that disruption and that political control of schools by somewhat extreme Left-wing boroughs much less. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must watch out for.

Mr. Holland

When the hon. Gentleman first raised that point, I thought that I would let it pass, but as he has come back to it, I draw it to his attention. I do not know whether he will consider the London borough of Lambeth being excluded from that category that he has suggested. I put it to him, as an hon. Member in such a borough, that I have received no such letter from any such constituent—no such representation from any such constituent.

Mr. Carrington

I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's postbag. The London borough of Lambeth has a reputation along the lines that I have described. I am talking specifically about my own council's attitudes and expected reactions. I suspect that the cap will fit in certain other parts of London.

It has been made clear that ILEA's problem relates to secondary education. The low standard of ILEA secondary schools is criticised by parents, teachers, head teachers, and people who pay for education in London. However we measure it, the standard is mediocre to bad. The Sheffield university report, which has frequently been quoted, made the point that if one wants high standards from secondary schools, one does not go to ILEA schools. Their performance is based on the low standard measurements in the report.

According to statistics, secondary schools are bad. Some secondary headmasters will blame poor performance at primary schools, the standards at which children are sent to secondary schools, and their inability to be able to cope. But we are not talking about statistics. Education is not about statistics. We are talking about the standard of teaching and the qualifications that pupils—boys and girls—get from schools.

Some ILEA schools are excellent. Some schools in my constituency are excellent. The tragedy is that if one takes out the excellent schools, those that are left are even worse than those that are shown in the statistics. The interesting thing about division 1 schools—that is, Kensington, Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham —is that the ones that perform well are almost exclusively voluntary aided schools. I have talked to the head teachers and teachers of voluntary aided schools that are doing well. They attribute their good results to the fact that they fight ILEA. They do not do what ILEA tells them to do. Indeed, they are extensively criticised by ILEA for their teaching methods and for the standards that they insist that their pupils achieve.

If hon. Members want more than statistics for a condemnation of ILEA secondary schools, it is apparent that all over central London—it is particularly true in Fulham and generally where people have a choice in education—if people can possibly afford to send their children to schools other than ILEA schools, they choose to do so. They have been choosing to do so in increasing numbers. It is not a matter of class or socio-economic divisions. It is a matter of scrimping, saving and struggling to get a standard of education that they know they cannot achieve by sending their children to ILEA schools. Indeed, they would rather pay twice as much and get the type of education that they think will equip their children to be able to face the world after leaving school.

The solution is obvious. It must be the abolition of ILEA. It must be the removal of all the wrongs that go with ILEA. We have heard of many tonight, and I shall add one more.

For many years, I have been a governor of the polytechnic of central London. Until the passing of the Education Reform Bill, ILEA controls the polytechnic of central London. About two or three years ago, a senior ILEA education officer was present at a court of governors meeting. I shall not name him. He has gone on to bigger and better things. I am sure that he does not wish to be reminded of the pressures that he was under when he worked out of county hall. We were being pressured by the Labour group in control of ILEA to pass a political motion about a certain aspect of Government legislation, which was only tangentially related to education. [Interruption.] It was to do with overseas students and funding. It was tangential to the control that was exercised by the governors of the polytechnic of central London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are making remarks from a sedentary position. I shall answer them. The reason I said that was that, as a court of governors of a polytechnic, we were forced to make political resolutions about something relating to Government policy and which only slightly affected the polytechnic, in the sense that it affected only a small proportion of students.

The court was not minded to pass the resolution. The senior officer said, "Unless you pass the resolution, it will have a bad effect on the block grant settlement that you will get from ILEA." He confirmed it when I challenged him. Needless to say, the court took the coward's way out and decided to pass the resolution. That shows the degree of politicisation that was forced upon ILEA officers even three or four years ago. That situation is considerably worse now, and it justifies a major shake-up of ILEA.

Mr. Spearing

Without going into the rights or wrongs of what he said, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a risk of what he calls politicisation in any authority, and from the Right or the Left? As he is a business man and a representative of business, will he assure the House that the general level of support for education will not be reduced if the Bill is passed, as was stated by himself and his hon. Friends?

Mr. Carrington

I have not mentioned the financing of education in London.

Politicians on the court of governors of schools or polytechnic have a perfect right to try to get any political resolution passed. It is wrong for an officer who is there to advise and to be politically impartial to threaten the court of governors.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned financing. I was fascinated to hear some statements about the financing of education after the change to the uniform business rate and the community charge, which will coincide with the introduction of the Education Reform Bill and, therefore, the abolition of ILEA. Of course, the uniform business rate will completely change all the numbers that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

Mr. Spearing

Not the needs.

Mr. Carrington

The need-related element that will go into the financing of local education authorities will be covered by the central Government grant element, not the business rate. That is much better. High business rates destroy jobs. The hon. Gentleman would know that, as he lives in a high-rated area.

Mr. Corbyn

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carrington

No, I shall not give way. I must go on.

Mr. Corbyn

On the point about funding?

Mr. Carrington

No. The point about funding is secondary to my argument. I must get on. The hon. Gentleman may refer to that matter later. The sooner I conclude my remarks, the more rapidly the hon. Gentleman will be called.

The abolition of ILEA is essential. The imposition of the correct controls, which will come about through the Education Reform Bill, is the right solution. It will mean that our schools will be controlled by parents and teachers for the benefit of the local community, with a local education authority in the borough that will be much more attuned to the particular needs of that borough and able, therefore, to give to its schools the assistance, resources and support which at the moment they often lack.

I have given examples of voluntary schools and, indeed, the competition between the good schools and ILEA will no longer exist once we have local education authorities within our boroughs.

I should like to echo some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends about those services that ILEA provides well. Although its secondary schools are a disaster, ILEA runs certain areas well. My hon. Friends have mentioned special schools and adult education and I echo their comments. There are special schools and a special hearing unit in Fulham and I echo the view that they need to be protected and supported.

I should like to mention another type of provision, which has not been mentioned so often—nursery provision. I am a great supporter of nursery schools because I think that they lay the foundations that enable a child to develop much more rapidly. ILEA has a good provision of nursery schools which must be protected in the transition to boroughs. The boroughs should be encouraged to develop that nursery provision and to build upon what ILEA leaves behind.

ILEA will not be mourned. It has failed the children of London and it must go. Indeed, the sooner that it goes the better. My only regret about this reform is that it will take two years, not one year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.

8.21 pm

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

The abolition of the Inner London education authority means the abolition of the promise of equal opportunities for inner-London's children. It means the abolition of the hopes of every parent in my constituency who wants his or her child to get a fair share of the capital's education resources. It means the abolition of the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents—simply to satisfy Tory spite. Nothing can justify robbing a generation of children of educational opportunity in this way. I speak not from a basis of prejudice or partisanship, as do many Conservative Members, but from my own observations and experiences, both previously as a governor of a school in a shire county and now as a Member of Parliament for an inner-London constituency.

For historical reasons, the constituency of Lewisham, Deptford is faced with some of the worst problems of urban decay. We all live, travel, work and try to find some leisure in a small area of land which consequently looks, and is, over-exploited and polluted. Almost one in five of my constituents is unable to find work. Within the borough of Lewisham, 25,000 people are on a housing list for a decreasing chance of better housing. A disproportionate number of people fall sick under the mental and physical strain of living in the inner city. Therefore, it is not surprising that my mailbag and my advice surgeries are filled to overflowing with people's individual problems, and that all too many of them are tragically similar.

However, hon. Members may be surprised to know that, when it comes to education, I can remember every single case that has come to me, and the reason that I can do so is that there have been so few. There have been three out of 1,000 constituency cases and not even those parents wanted ILEA to be abolished.

The schools in my constituency are proof of the value of a unitary authority and are a vindication of ILEA's overall philosophy and performance. Through its priority area assessment, ILEA has been able to provide between one and three extra members of staff to each Deptford primary school, giving us a teacher-pupil ratio greater than 1:20. That is of benefit, judged not in monetary terms, but proportional to the needs of the area. It is a shifting of resources from the richest to the poorest. Obviously, that is a Socialist philosophy, but it is one which is approved by Londoners in general and especially by employers, who know that London is a single job market, which needs common education standards.

ILEA policy recognises that children do not all enter schools with the same potential. That is not just a matter of innate intelligence, but a function of the home, the wider environment, health, culture and language. Only a London-wide authority can possibly provide the resourcing and the development of teaching skills to deal with that diversity.

ILEA has provided Lewisham with a multi-purpose teacher centre and a maths centre, both of which have contributed enormously to improving teaching standards, pupil development and pupil performance. No one involved—teacher, parent or governor—doubts that those facilities are of great value. But equally no one expects that such resources could be provided by a single inner-city borough such as Lewisham.

As the most prestigious public schools have always claimed, education is about developing the whole person. Once again, it is ILEA that has made such a philosophy possible for the inner-city schools and that has provided the resources to ensure that every child's imagination is extended in the pursuit of art, drama and music.

Under pressure today, the Secretary of State has flatly refused to make any promises that the present levels of resourcing will be maintained. Indeed, as we know, he has already decided to cut further the funding to ILEA at the same time as his colleagues are crushing still further the rate-capped authorities such as my own. We can but assume that he intends to remove every extra resource that is aimed at greater equalisation in London's education.

That will threaten two further facilities that are available to my constituents, but that are not located in my constituency. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has already mentioned the Horniman museum. Three ILEA teachers are employed there, enabling schools in Deptford to send parties of children, from nursery to sixth form level, to a place of excellence for the study of history. Even more remarkable is the rural centre at Horton Kirby, where again the employment of ILEA staff allows my inner-city schools to make up to eight study visits per year to the Kent countryside.

The value of such facilities in extending children's experience would be taken for granted in any fee-paying school by Conservative Members, but those facilities are bitterly resented when made available to all through the ratepayers' purse.

Earlier this week, I visited an inner-city school in my constituency, as I frequently do. It is one of the less popular secondary schools, named Hatcham Wood, and is much maligned by Conservative Members. I met there, as in so many schools in Deptford, an enthusiastic and committed staff with high expectations of their pupils. I saw diligent pupils hard at work in small classes. The corridors were lined with pupils' work, as were the teachers' room and the parents' room. The school heavily involves parents, as do most ILEA schools. I also saw the school's bookshop, which sell books, to both parents and children, in 10 languages. This school takes mainly band 2 and 3 ability children, but its English results, despite the 10 languages of its children, had exceeded those of a neighbouring voluntary school with a mainly band 1 intake.

Many of the children in my constituency enter school disadvantaged. Many come from families struggling against the burdens of poverty. Many live in overcrowded conditions and one third face society's discrimination because they are black. Yet when they enter our ILEA schools, they enter an environment which does not have those disadvantages. When they enter ILEA schools, they have every expectation of access to the resources that they need for their education. When they enter ILEA schools, they are treated as equals.

No one denies that improvements could and should be made. However, no one has shown—least of all the Secretary of State—that the abolition of ILEA offers any benefits to the majority of ILEA users or its employees. I want to quote from the governors of a school in my constituency, Deptford Park primary: No case is made that a more efficient education system will result. 'Efficient' seems to mean cheap. Special Needs provision will deteriorate. Music, science and history centres will be unable to survive. The inspectorate and other Londonwide support services will he split. We care about the future of our children in Deptford. We do not feel that these proposals will work for our children now or in the future. I am confident that, in speaking in this way and opposing the motion, my colleagues and I know that we speak for the vast majority of London's parents.

8.31 pm

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made an attractive speech. Obviously she has got to know her constituency very well in the time that she has represented it, but I cannot help thinking that she has glossed over the extent of some of the problems that exist within ILEA today. However, I agree with her on one point about her part of London. I have been asked by a member of the Horniman family to stress that the Horniman museum was provided for the children and people of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the outcome of reorganisation will ensure that the admirable facilities of the museum will be available to the children of London, as they always have been. I will not tell my hon. Friend the Minister how to achieve that, but it is important that that objective is achieved.

My links with ILEA date back to the time when I was a co-opted member of the education committee of the Inner London education authority. I believe that I was a member at the only time that ILEA was controlled by the Tory party. We were led by Christopher Chataway. I thought that we were rather good, and we had quite a good opposition as well. Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have developed an affection and concern for ILEA that has stayed with me, although it has nothing to do with my constituency.

At the time to which I am referring a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends served on ILEA. They included my right hon. Friends the Members for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). Over the years we have all watched anxiously what has happened to ILEA.

In those days ILEA was quite a new authority. It had not long changed from being the London county council. It had inherited some of the very distinguished traditions of the London county council. There was a real dedication among those who worked for ILEA towards the children and students of London. There was also a width of resources that gave ILEA certain advantages.

On the other hand, I am bound to say that, as I served on ILEA, two things began to worry me. First, I believe that there was an over-confidence that ILEA was the greatest. It was not very good at asking searching questions of itself. In a sense, parents were always a little down-graded. There was something a little too paternalistic about ILEA's ethos, admirable though it was in some respects. Secondly, there was an over-commitment on the part of the Labour party and the officers to the very big, all-through comprehensive. We began to question and rethink that while we were in office, although we did not get very far. History will clearly show that the notion of the very big comprehensive was flawed. When we talk about what is recognised as being the main weakness in London's schools today—namely, the secondary stage—to some extent the origins of that problem lie in the time to which I am referring. Since then I have not had any direct concern in ILEA, but two of my children have attended ILEA schools and I have close family connections with ILEA teachers.

I believe that over the years a decline has taken place, and that is sad. I believe that the reputation and morale of ILEA have fallen. I do not want to paint a completely black picture today. There are still many people in ILEA who are totally dedicated to the task of teaching. Much good work is being done. Hon. Members have said that adult education is exceptionally good. Special education has always had a high reputation. Good work is being done in higher and further education and good work is being carried out in the schools. Indeed, good work is being carried out in difficult circumstances, which have been described by many hon. Members during the debate.

It would be unfair to give the impression that London education is a shambles. However, I think that things have gone wrong. I do not believe that ILEA has been able to cope, as it should, with the admittedly very difficult pressures and circumstances under which it has operated. We must state that ILEA's record on secondary education, on the basis of the leaked HMI reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as other evidence, is unsatisfactory. To have 40 per cent. of secondary schools classed as unsatisfactory or poor is something that we cannot simply shrug off. Something must be done about it.

We understand the problems. Bigness is a problem. When I was a member of ILEA there was a feeling that big was the right thing to be and that we could do big things. At the same time, I was, rather unusually, a member of the education authority of a small outer-London borough. Therefore, I had the chance to compare big and small directly. Over the years, the attractions of smallness have loomed larger. Of course, smallness involves a more intimate way of running an education system.

The task of assimilating children from an enormous variety of cultures has proved to be enormously difficult. I am not sure that ILEA has handled that as well as it should have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was right to state that the record shows that often children from ethnic minorities do very well judged by formal results. I am delighted at that. However, it is not simply a question of classroom results. There have been great difficulties assimilating the large number of people who come to London with different languages. Because ILEA has pursued too many red herrings and has not concentrated enough on the basic, simple task of teaching all children the three R's, and so providing the basic education which the national curriculum is designed to restore, to some extent it has failed to deal with the problem.

ILEA has played its part in what we can only regard overall as a deterioration in attitudes towards standards and discipline. Of course, the background includes a great deal of family breakdown. We cannot blame the education authority for that. However, I believe that at the heart of ILEA's philosophy—if I can generalise in these terms—there has been a failure to get to grips with what I would call the moral imperatives which must accompany education if it is to be successful.

I also believe that ILEA has not, by and large, been well served by the Inner London Teachers Association or by many of the younger and more militant teachers who have had far too much influence in inner London education. They have been egged on and backed by the other great weakness in ILEA—the excessive or irresponsible politicisation that has been shown—

Mr. Corbyn

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison

I will not give way, as I want to be brief.

In London and elsewhere there has been excessive meddling by elected representatives in what I regard to be the true domain of the professional in running education. I know that that is an unpopular thing to say in a House of elected representatives. However, that has been a serious problem to which ILEA has succumbed. All those factors have led to a loss in the intrinsic authority of the Inner London education authority. What should we do about that?

I have to confess, as does every hon. Member who describes his own part in government—if he has been in government—that in the period around 1980 I was one of those who at that time fought successfully to maintain ILEA. I thought at the time that it was the right answer, but I find it much harder to summon up enthusiasm for keeping it today. There is, in any event, a stronger case for change in certain regards. In particular, the removal of the polytechnics of higher education, as laid down in the Bill, will certainly make it easier to hand over the powers to the boroughs, because they are a major part of what might be called all-London provision.

Another point concerns our experience of the dismantling of the GLC. The enormous forebodings expressed about the impact of that abolition have not been borne out. For example, I well remember how the arts lobby, in its usual splendid, stirring, theatrical terms, said that the arts in London would be clobbered by the demise of the GLC. Nevertheless, spending on the arts in London has risen by 40 per cent. People are creating alarmist stories which are not justified by the facts.

Mr. Corbyn

Where is the evidence for that?

Mr. Raison

Of course, I acknowledge that there is bound to be a period of uncertainty. The one fact of which I am certain is that it is right to make a clean break, as these new amendments propose, rather than the slow demise that was implicit in the Education Reform Bill mark 1. That would have been the worst of all worlds, and I think that the Government have taken the right step in providing for a complete end to ILEA.

Let me say a word about the whole business of the transfer. It is, of course, essential that the good aspects of London education, which have been referred to, should not be vitiated during the transfer process. That is the particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister.

As for the mechanisms, I am sure that the residuary body will do a good job with the nuts and bolts. It has shown its capabilities already, and no doubt it will continue to do so. But the crucial decisions will be about the allocation of the major educational systems and institutions. As I understand it, the Government have decided to operate the arrangements—or, it could be said, co-ordinate them—through a unit in the Department of Education and Science. The alternative suggestion is that the task should be performed by an extension of the residuary body, led by a leading educationist. That argument proposes that the power should remain with the residuary body until it is satisfied that the different boroughs are capable of taking over or are in a position to do so.

It is possible to argue about which is the better way of doing that, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that aspect when she winds-up the debate. It is, however, crucial that the operation is carried out with tremendous sensitivity. I hope that my right hon. Friend—who is, after all, generous-spirited—will see the need, during a period in which there are bound to be all sorts of anxieties, to acknowledge the good being done by so many people. I hope that he will do so by telling London teachers—who are teaching in incredibly difficult circumstances—that he understands how difficult it is.

I know of classes in London where it is the exception for children to come from stable homes, and very unusual for a child to have two parents—certainly, two married parents. I know of classes where virtually every child—perhaps every child—receives free meals; where there are cases of incest and, occasionally, murder in the children's family background.

I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister will show that they understand the enormous burdens carried by the teachers who must deal with such problems, and will therefore do all that they can to deal with the difficulties of transition in as sympathetic and constructive a way as possible. I am sure that they will do so, because they are generous people. Moreover, I feel that they can turn this into the chance of achieving something better, by stressing over and over again that the merit of the borough approach is that is brings decision-making closer to the people.

It will sometimes be dotty decision-making, just as it has been in the past. We must recognise that. It is the risk that we run. However, the aim to bring education closer to the people should remedy to some extent what I feel has been one of the weaknesses of the ILEA regime: the failure to involve parents as they should be involved. I believe that the borough pattern offers some chance of that, and I hope that, provided that that kind of sensitivity is shown by my right hon. Friend, we can look forward to the day when London education ends its long decline and begins an upturn.

8.45 pm

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

I am not a London Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am therefore grateful to have caught your eye. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may well find that I can make a shorter speech without their interventions. I was about to say that, in deference to them and to hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall attempt to make my speech fairly short, but if they persist in interrupting me they will find that I can speak for far longer.

I have a few comments to make on behalf of my party, and, in particular, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Corbyn

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. Corbyn

I do insist. I find it very strange that, having heard a lengthy speech earlier from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who purported to represent the views of the alliance on education matters, we now have a speech from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), a constituency which, as far as I am aware, is not part of ILEA. There are not even any ILEA establishments in Yeovil. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman represents some other part of the alliance. Will he tell us what is going on, and how long he will take to tell us about it?

Mr. Ashdown

The hon. Gentleman will discover that it will take considerably less time for me to say what I have to say if I am not burdened by such ludicrous and ridiculous interventions. I am representing not only my own constituents, but my own view, and, moreover, I am the spokesman for a party with 17 Members of Parliament. I do not think that inconsiderable. I shall confine myself to a relatively short speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.

We have heard some interesting speeches from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mentioned the size of ILEA; indeed, one of the arguments frequently put forward by the Government is that ILEA is one of the largest education authorities in Europe, if not the largest. For the record, that is not the case: Strathclyde has 135 more schools, and many more pupils.

However, the most remarkable speech that we have heard came from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I suppose that the only explanation for that rather extraordinary speech was that it was intended to contribute not to this debate, but rather to a debate with a somewhat wider circle. His most remarkable comment, after a long disquisition about how ILEA had suffered from a lack of teachers, was the presumption that handing it over to such boroughs as Southwark and Camden would cause a flood of teachers to come in.

There is no doubt that I LEA needs reform; I suspect that Opposition Members would agree with that. In some areas, there has been inefficiency and political interference. I am told that not a single ILEA building has been sold for at least 10 years, despite depopulation. However, what strikes me as extraordinary is that, if in isolated instances ILEA is as bad as the Government claim, a Government who have had the power under the Local Government Act 1985 to intervene and to make amendments have never used those powers that they now use as a political pretext to bring about the abolition of ILEA.

Although the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) put the case extremely well, I do not take his view that there has been a substantial U-turn. I do not think that the long-term conclusion of the Government's original proposals—killing off ILEA by stealth—and what they are now doing in a single brutal act of dismemberment are significantly different in outcome, although I recognise that they were not broadcast, as the Secretary of State would suggest, in the manifesto. I suggest that the reasons have nothing to do with the future of 250,000 schoolchildren in London. They have everything to do with the internal squabbles and the personal ambitions in the Conservative party. That seems to have been proved beyond contradiction.

If we need changes in ILEA—and I think that we do—we should have a long-term in-depth review. The recommendations from that could deal with the question whether ILEA should be abolished. That is the way to go about these matters. Instead of a decent, measured, in-depth review we are to get a brutal hastily conducted, politically motivated and inevitably bloody and disruptive dismemberment of London's strategic body.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way. I wish to keep my speech brief because other hon. Members would like to speak.

The reasons for abolishing ILEA feature prominently in the motion which talks about profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards". The matter of overspending seems to have been coped with adequately. The reality is that, whereas ILEA spends about 1.5 times the national average, the Health Service—which is controlled not by elected representatives but by politically appointed representatives of the Government—spends about twice the national average. The police, again under Government control, spends about 3.5 times the national average.

The hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about standards. Persistently, reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate say that if we take into account the social and economic factors, ILEA comes out at about the national average in most cases. That is perfectly clearly said. 1f we look at the undoctored figures, which I looked at today, the Department of Education and Science figures for the increase in the number of pupils who gained five or more 0-levels or the equivalent between 1978 and 1985—quite an important category—we find that in that period ILEA's improvement was 15 per cent. whereas, the national average was 13 per cent. That area touches precisely ILEA's greatest weakness—the secondary sector.

If the problem is standards, how will the Government's suggestions and proposals improve them? As we have had clearly demonstrated, if anything, the poorer boroughs, where one would expect standards to be lower, where the areas of deprivation are highest and the problems greatest, will get not more resources, but massively fewer. Although the Government say that they will compensate for that, the level of compensation required will be massive. I have heard the figure of £10 million quoted by an Opposition Member. Greenwich contributes 2–68 per cent. to the ILEA budget and takes out of it 10.3 per cent. The Minister of State is to reply to this debate. If she tells the House that the Government will make good that shortfall, perhaps she has an argument. I am willing to bet anything that the hon. Lady will make no such commitment and I would bet even more that the Government will carry out no such action. Of course, the consequence of that is that the poorer, more deprived boroughs will have less money and standards will not go up; they will drop.

Evidence from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy published by Mrs. Rita Hale shows that not only will that be the case, but that the higher incidence of families with more children and fewer adults—single parents and so on—may well mean that `poorer boroughs will have to pay a significantly higher poll tax than the richer boroughs because of the costs involved. CIPFA calculates that in a borough such as Hackney that could be £50 more per annum in poll tax. Not only will the poorer boroughs suffer from having fewer education resources, but the poor people living in them will have to pay a higher poll tax.

I shall finish with the most telling point of all. The Government complain that they are doing this because of Left-wing profligacy and extremism. What do the Government do? They take the children in these boroughs, lock, stock and barrel, and commit them to the tender mercies of councils such as Southwark, Camden and Lambeth.

Ms. Harman

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future education of children in boroughs such as Southwark cannot be safeguarded when such boroughs are already struggling with growing demands for housing and social services, at a time when the resources for those services are limited? Does he not think that it is quite impossible for those boroughs to take on the task of improving education in London, which is what we want to see?

Mr. Ashdown

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her point is powerfully made in the Audit Commission's report which says precisely that Conservatives should realise that the Audit Commission predicts that if this should happen the burden on the already inadequate administration in many London boroughs could lead to a situation where some areas in London will become like the Bronx or the east of Chicago. Those are not the precise words, but that is what the Audit Commission said. That is the consequence that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is talking about. I shall give a quotation for the House to think about: Money spent in many areas is wasted. The services are demonstrably poor … it is far from being a well-run organisation. In many respects, it is on the verge of collapse". Is that a comment on ILEA? It is not. It is a comment on Southwark borough council by its leader, Mrs. Anne Matthews. The Government want to give to that borough, not only the capacity to make a mess of the other things that it now organises, but to make a mess of education as well.

When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he said that the Government want to improve standards and to bring costs under control. What will they do? They will hand over education lock, stock and barrel to a council such as Southwark which in October had a deficit of £45 million. The Secretary of State has said what the Government want to achieve. That is the way they will set about achieving it.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that Camden borough was not fit to take over Hampstead Heath. How can he now be in favour of handing over to that borough the management of its entire education system? It does not make sense. This legislation is not only dangerous but politically motivated. It will make 250,000 children the subject of the ambitions and clashes in the Conservative party. This may well have a cynical outcome. What the Government may well wish to seek by the Bill is not only the handing over of education to Conservative boroughs, but the creation of a situation in the poorer boroughs where many schools will have no alternative but to opt out and come under the direct control of the Secretary of State. So it will be that the Conservatives will take over much of London's education, whether or not they were elected to do that job. A more cynical or corrupt act cannot have been in prospect since the days of the rotten boroughs.

To take a decision to disband ILEA without any sort of review is the height of irresponsibility. To do it hard on the heels of a wholly different commitment in the Government's manifesto is unconstitutional. To do that without setting out clearly what alternative arrangements are to be made is a betrayal of the Secretary of State's office and of the future of this city's children.

8.57 pm

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich)

At the time of my birth, my mother was a teacher in the London county council education service and in one way or another I have been involved in education in inner London ever since. During that time I have been conscious of a decline in almost every aspect of the provision in our secondary schools. There has been a fall in academic standards, examination results and standards of discipline. We have seen an increasing lack of motivation among teachers. A lack of dedication has crept in because of politicisation and political interference. The saddest scandal of all is that after 10 or 11 years many children who leave school in London are unemployable. They do not have the skills to take up the jobs that are waiting to be done in inner London.

ILEA is over-ripe for reform. It would be the duty of any Government to carry out that reformation. It is right that the Government should regard it as one of their greatest priorities in trying to regenerate the inner city.

I fear that I must tell my right hon. Friend that the solution that he is proposing is not the right one. While it may improve matters for children in some boroughs, it will worsen them for children in boroughs such as Southwark. I look with horror at some of the things that I see going on in secondary schools, but that pales into insignificance when I consider the horrors that will arise from a Southwark education authority.

The borough of Southwark has many problems. It is a poor borough and there is much deprivation. Its history of tackling those problems has been one of abject failure. It has done nothing to improve housing, although there have been more than adequate resources to solve that problem. Its social service provision has been indifferent at best and at worst scandalous when one remembers incidents such as those at Nye Bevan lodge and the three other local authority homes for the elderly that are at present under investigation. I feel nothing but trepidation about the future of children of Southwark, who will have no choice other than to go to a Southwark education authority school. On that basis, I cannot give support to this proposition.

I was happy to support my right hon. Friend's first suggestion. It was, no doubt, to the advantage—and good luck to them—of boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea, who are capable of providing a better education service than that being provided by ILEA. It was right that they should be able to back their judgment, attract children and give parents a choice of school. In so doing provision should have been made for boroughs which remained but which did not have the will or competence and which deliberately avoided providing educational necessities. By allowing those in competent boroughs to opt out, there would have been an opportunity to restructure the provision for the boroughs that were left. It would have made good sense for boroughs such as Lambeth, Southwark or Greenwich and Lewisham to have formed a small unitary authority. On their own they might not have been sufficiently competent or had the expertise and professionalism necessary to run an education service, but as a small unitary authority in south-east London it could have provided a service better than that provided at present by ILEA. That possibility is not now open to the parents of Southwark. Their only choice will be to look outside the borough for a school for their children if they wish to avoid the horrors of a Southwark education service.

I fear that that is a negative reason for giving my support to this proposal. There is, however, a positive reason for my wanting a unitary authority for London to deal with certain aspects of education. I, like many Conservative Members, have focused on the defects of ILEA, but it has many good points. Those good points were not created by ILEA; they have grown up over the years. The adult education service is such an example. It was not created by ILEA; it was in place many years before that. If anything, it has been the one service that ILEA has undervalued. If ever there has been an immediate need to make a cut, ILEA has made a cut in the adult education service as the first and easiest way out.

The adult education service has been one of those interesting strategic services. It has delivered education at the point of greatest necessity and it has been adaptable in moving from building to building when required. It has adapted to social and changing needs. During the war it provided comfort and support to those who felt that there was something productive to be done together.

We have watched the adult education service develop over the years until we see it as it is today where it provides skill, occupation and hope for many who are unemployed. It offers them a second chance. For the elderly it provides social contact, productive activity and a feeling that there is still something to be learnt even though one may have retired and be over 70 or 80 years of age. I was talking to the principal of an adult education institute the other day and I asked, "What is the age range of your students?" I was told that the average age was about 46. The youngest was two months—brought by her mother to the creche—and the oldest was over 90.

The adult education provision is special and unique to London. It cannot be recreated or transplanted. My right hon. Friend has recognised the importance of AEIs and their London-wide provision. Sometimes people go not to the places which are nearest their homes but to those nearest their work. My right hon. Friend has recognised the expertise and specialism of AEIs. He has recognised the importance of such institutes as the "City Lit", the Mary Ward centre, the working men's institute and Morley college. He has recognised that they provide a London-wide service which could never be taken on by an individual borough. He has to carry out the delicate but difficult act of surgery of trying to separate the bad parts of ILEA from the good parts which may wither if they are not sustained. I welcome the fact that a unit is to he set up in the Department to ensure that the AEIs continue.

As to the importance of special education, we all know that many parents of children with learning difficulties find it hard to get assessments from ILEA. The delays are unconscionable but expertise exists to deal with them. I dread to think what would happen if it were left to the bureaucracy of Southwark council to make the necessary reference for assessment.

I am sorry that I cannot give my right hon. Friend my support for his proposals. I hope that he will be able to reassure me that some of my misgivings about the future are understood by him and can be allayed.

9.7 pm

Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)

I am glad that the Secretary of State has joined us again, especially in view of much of his misrepresentation concerning the leader of the Inner London education authority, Mr. Neil Fletcher. I have a copy of a letter sent to him today by Mr. Fletcher to which I hope he will be able to respond. I hope that he will respond especially on the matter of the quotations, which the Secretary of State has taken out of context. The first concerns a Socialist Education Association fringe meeting on 30 September. The full quotation of what Neil Fletcher said was: Let me make it absolutely clear that I have always been and remain a fervent believer in comprehensive education. I want to see a service which provides the best quality of education for all the children regardless of their class, their race, or their sex. In his letter to the Secretary of State Mr. Fletcher has said: Since I sent a copy of the speech concerned to you, I am surprised that you have allowed your colleague to indulge in such gross misrepresentation. You are perfectly well aware that my speech cannot be construed in any way as supporting any of the proposals in the Education Reform Bill. There is also the matter of selective quotations from the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate. On 4 February the Secretary of State referred in the House to Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on ILEA which "express real concern". There are other quotations from the reports which are relevant to the debate regarding ILEA's provision such as: ILEA's provision for under-fives is among the best in the country"; and Overall ILEA's adult education provision is a first-rate service in every respect". On its research and statistics provision Her Majesty's inspectorate's finding is that it has now, and has always had, a high national and international reputation. Some of its work over the years has been seminal and had an influence and importance far beyond ILEA". Again, When (exam) results are adjusted for socio-economic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations. Several Conservative Members have criticised the London borough of Lambeth. It is the second most deprived borough in London. It has the highest proportion of single-parent families and a very high proportion of children with special needs. It is a multilingual borough. One fifth of all schoolchildren speak a language other than English at home—mainly Bengali, Chinese or Urdu. Thirteen ILEA schools in Lambeth are special schools catering for children with a wide range of disabilities — including visual and hearing impairment and motor disability — as well as emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. Children from all over London attend those schools. In addition, children with special needs are now being supported in mainstream primary and secondary schools.

A further problem facing Lambeth is that, while secondary school rolls are falling, primary school rolls are increasing, with a 12 per cent. rise projected by 1992 demonstrating the need for additional resources to meet the increasing demand for primary places.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not with us. He said earlier that he could not think of a single way in which the abolition of the GLC had made anything worse. I put it to him that the abolition of the strategic housing role of the GLC has meant that thousands of families and individuals who would have been moved to outer London have not been moved there. As a result, since 1982 the birth rate has risen in inner London, placing increased pressure on the schools. I regret to note that the Secretary of State is involved in conversation and is not paying attention to the argument. No doubt his officials will draw my remarks to his attention when they appear in Hansard.

Inner-London boroughs have a higher proportion of older school buildings than outer-London boroughs. They have not been the beneficiaries of modern building programmes to the same extent as outer London boroughs.

Some 5,000 Lambeth children cross borough boundaries to attend secondary schools elsewhere — for example, in Pimlico. How is that cross-borough transfer to be funded? Perhaps the Minister of State will reply to that question. Will it stop? Do the Government intend to slam the door on the inner-city in education as they have in housing?

Other centres of excellence, such as Morley college, have been referred to by Conservative Members. Morley college is a centre of excellence for music classes and unique foreign language classes. Lambeth and Southwark together—there are facilities in both boroughs—could not possibly afford such funding.

I come to nursery education and stress once more that the birth rate is now rising in inner London boroughs such as Lambeth. The Lambeth nursery education group advises me that only 23 per cent. of three and four-year-olds enjoy nursery education, as compared with 100 per cent. in France and Belgium. ILEA has the best record in the United Kingdom, with provision for up to 40 per cent. Nursery education is non-statutory. [Interruption.] I have just been made an offer that I shall refuse reluctantly as representations were made to me on a range of issues at a special meeting last Saturday lasting more than four hours. I urge Conservative Members to address those issues. There is a nursery school within walking distance—a few hundred yards—of the House. Ninety-three per cent. of the children who attend that school live in council housing and more than 50 per cent. are from one-parent families. The children in that school alone speak 14 different languages. As the headmaster of that school made plain to me, the house will fall if the foundations are inadequate. It is clear from Scandinavian evidence that primary and infant teaching greatly facilitate the achievement of literacy.

Another point, which has not been raised in the debate, has been put to me by the chair of the governors of Heathbrook primary school. A unanimous resolution was passed by those governers saying that the abolition of ILEA would destroy the balance between the boroughs and their facilities and learning resources. More than that, the governors want to be concerned with education. School governors do not wish to have to take over ILEA's administrative functions. They do not want the responsibility of hiring and firing ancillary staff. They do not want to be concerned with executive management. Heads of schools do not want to become executive managers. They want to be able to teach.

On adult education, it was reported directly to me that, of the 30,000 students in the London borough of Wandsworth attending three institutes, 12,700 filled in answers to a referendum within a week, and 92 per cent. said, "Leave us alone."

I submit that on a range of grounds the Education Reform Bill is an abomination. It should not have been introduced. It will not only decimate resources and demoralise staff but do damage to the education of our children.

9.15 pm

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)

I have been amazed at the Opposition's speeches during the four hours for which I have sat here and listened with great interest. The rosy pictures which they painted bore no relation to the position in inner-London schools. One would never believe from listening to them that good schools have been destroyed over the past 20 years, that subjects have been removed from the curriculum in many schools, that lack of discipline and truancy are problems and that examination results, especially in secondary schools, are so poor.

Of course ILEA has some good points. It has been innovative in many ways and especially good in nursery provision and further education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) told us. It will not do to hear half-truths and half the story. All of us who have been involved in education in London over many years know the true position — the deterioration in schools and standards in inner London. ILEA should have been abolished when the late and unlamented Greater London council was finally laid to rest. Just like the GLC in its day, ILEA is remote and bureaucratic. It performs functions that could he dealt with by boroughs, just as many other functions are.

I have a twofold involvement in ILEA. First, I was a governor and manager in Hackney schools in the late 1970s. I was appalled by what I found in my many visits to schools there. I have continued to keep in contact with people in Hackney, and I believe that the position is far worse now in 1988 than it was in 1979. Children in Hackney used to have good grammar schools, which gave them a passport to the future, to a good career and a better life. Unfortunately, today they do not have that opportunity.

Secondly, because my constituency is in the outer London borough of Bexley, it borders the Greenwich boundary of ILEA. The Opposition may tell us that parents do not object to the continuation of ILEA and that they want to continue to be part of it, but my postbag is heavy with mail from people from Thamesmead on the Greenwich side who want their children to go to schools in Bexley because the standards there are far better and the opportunities greater, and they want the best for their children. In the past few months, many parents have written to me in connection with the borough boundary review.

Mr. Ashdown

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evennett

I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who would not give way earlier to me. Time is short.

Many parents from both sides of the border boundary have written to me fearful that a change in the boundary will put them into ILEA, with all the consequences that that will have for their children's education.

We do not need the opinion polls. We have letters from parents who are worried about being in ILEA. Parents may not take this matter up with all their representatives on the Opposition Benches, because they know that they will not get sympathy. They know that dogma will rule in these cases.

In places such as Thamesmead, there is real concern on the part of parents for their children's education. They want better standards and welcome the provisions of the Government's Education Reform Bill which will raise standards and set a curriculum for the schools. We must look forward to the future of the children of London—a future that has been regrettably neglected by large areas of ILEA in the past decade or so. We cannot sit back and allow that to happen. It is not acceptable for the parents, the children, the ratepayers or the taxpayers. We must never forget that the standards we want from those who educate our children will be such as to provide them with a passport for the future. They have not been offered that in the recent past in inner London. The only way forward must be reform. I welcome the abolition of ILEA; the sooner it comes the better.

9.20 pm

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

We have had a lively and interesting debate — interesting in the sense that every Conservative Member representing a constituency in inner London who has spoken has expressed reservations about the Secretary of State's proposals. We may not see that reflected in the Division Lobby tonight, but we shall hear their fears echoed in every house in inner London. The views expressed by Conservative Members will, I am sure, be reproduced by many other people. The Secretary of State does not have the support of his inner-London colleagues who have deigned to turn up and participate in the debate.

We have witnessed a couple of sideshows, too. There was the sideshow about who represents the militant centre of British politics. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on winning that battle. I do not know whether it was a precursor of other events, but I understand that she recently refused to share a platform with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). If so, she has at least had the opportunity tonight to speak first, rather than looking for an alternative platform, as she did on that occasion. It is lovely to see the forces of moderation working so closely together.

The other sideshow has been the battle for the leadership of the Conservative party. Some were offering odds before tonight's debate — I notice that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has walked in on cue—on who would succeed the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister as the next leader of the Conservative party. Two of the three contestants have spoken in tonight's debate. The right hon. Member for Henley and the Secretary of State are now offered odds that are much more favourable than before; and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is now regarded by the bookmakers as more of a potential favourite, merely because he had the good sense—unlike the other two—not to utter a word tonight and to be happy that he got the outcome that he wanted. If I may offer a word of advice to the Secretary of State—

Mr. Straw

Do that.

Mr. Fatchett

As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in the right hon. Gentleman's career. I notice that, recently, he has had to make one or two concessions first to his right hon. Friends, and then yesterday to my hon. Friends in the Committee on the subject of higher education. Perhaps those concessions were also made to the world of higher education outside. I suspect that, if the right hon. Gentleman's campaign for the Conservative leadership continues in this way, he will become the political equivalent of Eddie Edwards in the winter Olympics: he will not take off, but he will get considerable publicity in the process.

Conservative hon. Members have advanced two main arguments this evening. First, they have said that ILEA has failed to provide a good education service; and, secondly, that it has failed to provide it at an acceptable cost. My hon. Friends have already discussed those arguments, and I want to examine them in detail. They may be viewed in general terms, but it is crucial that we also examine them in an historical context that goes back a number of years. It goes back particularly to 1985, when the noble Lord Joseph decided that we should have an elected Inner London education authority. The right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley were members of that Cabinet and supported that decision, so we have to ask whether ILEA, against those two criteria, has deteriorated substantially during the past three years.

One could come even closer than April 1985, to 1 December 1987, when the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, in the Second Reading debate on the Education Reform Bill, did not argue for the abolition of ILEA. In one of the flourishes of rhetoric for which the Minister has become so well known, she described ILEA as a model authority. She clearly believes in model building but also, eight weeks later, in model destruction. It might be useful to hear what has happened to the Minister of State to cause such a substantial change of mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that the Secretary of State could not be accused of consistency, but nor can the Minister of State when she shifts her ground so noticeably in such a short time.

We have to look at the general facts, and at the changes. Virtually every Conservative Member used examination results in ILEA as the only criterion against which to judge a good education service. There was no reference to primary education, nursery education, special needs or adult education, and on all those services ILEA does well, or better than average. However, let us look at the examination results figures. If those figures are weighted for socio-economic factors, ILEA does not come 86th out of 94 or, as the Secretary of State cheaply tried to say earlier, bottom. It comes higher.

The Sheffield university figures produced in 1987 show ILEA alongside average performing local education authorities. It compares with Oxfordshire and Hampshire and, although we do not have the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) — here, it compares with Kent. We have not heard an argument for the abolition of those authorities. ILEA also compares favourably with Bromley and Bexley. I understand why the Conservative party might argue for certain parts of the Bexley borough to be abolished, but I have never heard an argument for the abolition of Bexley local education authority. In later Sheffield figures, a third of the authorities are deemed to be efficient in examination terms, and that third includes ILEA.

These further figures have not been referred to, so I shall go into them in some detail. Since 1964, ILEA has been testing 11-year-olds in maths, English and verbal reasoning. Those results have been calculated by the National Foundation of Educational Research. They show that in the mid-1960s ILEA achieved a rating of 102, which is well above the national average. In 1970, that figure had fallen to 95. By 1980, it had again increased to 100 and it has stayed above that figure ever since. There has been no change or deterioration since the decision was taken in April 1985 to continue with ILEA. On the statistics, ILEA is not an under-performing authority. When that is taken alongside the provision in primary, nursery, adult and youth services, ILEA has a record of which it can be proud.

The other argument used by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends is that ILEA is expensive. But they do not say and cannot argue that the overall costs have become more expensive since the Joseph decision to maintain ILEA. The figures from the beginning of this decade show that expenditure on ILEA has increased less than that on the metropolitan districts and shire counties. If the Government base their case on the figures from the early 1980s, it is not only ILEA but the shire counties and metropolitan districts that should be abolished. But one must be careful when using that sort of logic with this Government because the next Bill will abolish those districts and shire counties.

Figures also show that provision in London — a capital city with its attendant problems—will be much more expensive. We have seen that in terms of social services and the police, and we know it to be true for educational provision because of demographic reasons.

The Government give figures of costs per child. I am not surprised by the cost per child in inner London, nor am I embarrassed by it. We believe in investing in education and in our children. With all the social disadvantages that exist in a large capital city, the social policy that provides equality of opportunity is one which invests in the education of those youngsters. We are not embarrassed about that; we are proud. If we have opened up opportunities for youngsters in London, we can say, "We have achieved that and Conservative Members have resisted it."

When Conservative Members talk to us about the cost per child and say that it is too much, many London parents recognise that for the humbug that it is. That comes from a party which, almost without exception, decided on the opt-out principle in practice many years ago. Conservative Members opted out of the state system and sent their children to private schools. The sums that they spend on their children's education are much greater than those spent in inner London.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

What about assisted places?

Mr. Fatchett

My hon. Friend mentions the assisted places scheme, and the figures prove his point. We are not embarrassed by the cost of inner-London education. If it has provided greater opportunities, we applaud and welcome it, and we will continue to fight for it.

With those two arguments, the Government's case has been threadbare. There could have been a third argument. There could have been a queue of people going to Elizabeth house, knocking on the door and saying to the Secretary of State, "We want ILEA abolished." Parents would have to do it that way because the Secretary of State does not visit inner-London schools. He has three junior Ministers and they have visited six inner-London schools in the period when he has visited one. Ministers have visited six out of 1,000 schools, so parents would have to trek to Elizabeth house to see the Secretary of State and put their argument. But there is no demand from parents that ILEA should be abolished.

Individual parents were the largest single group to respond to the consultative process, accounting for 41 per cent. of the total. How many parents objected to the Government's plans to change educational provision in inner London? The answer is 99.8 per cent. Even this Government could not rig a ballot and say that that is not a substantial majority. There are, of course, other figures. An opinion poll from Wandsworth shows that 76 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the educational provision.

Last week we debated the rate capping of ILEA. I always believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of Conservative Members when they talk about the costs of inner-London education to the taxpayers. They have stopped the taxpayer from contributing to children's education in London.

In the course of that debate, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said: the Government will have a political problem on their hands in trying to convince some London parents." —[Official Report, 10 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 469.] I believe that that is something of an understatement, but it is a move in the right direction. The Government will have a political problem on their hands when they try to convince a majority of parents in London that they should favour the abolition of ILEA. In this context, some equals most.

The Government talk about parent power. When are they going to consult inner London parents and when are they going to give those parents a right to a ballot on this decision? I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Buckingham will be confirmed by such a ballot and that he will support such a confirmation.

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham)

I think that it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to quote my conclusion without quoting my premises. I said that there was educational apathy in inner London and my premise was that that apathy had been encouraged by the Labour party and by ILEA. My other premise was that the low expectations of ILEA are, unfortunately, reflected in the socially low expectations among the parents. For those reasons, plus the fact that ILEA is used as a gigantic propaganda machine, I believe that it is possible that the Government will have political problems. Let us stick to the premises as well as the conclusion.

Mr. Fatchett

The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating an arrogance towards inner-London parents. If he is fearful of apathy, why does he not allow apathy the opportunity to show itself in the ballot box? If that opportunity is provided, the hon. Gentleman knows that inner-London parents will vote for ILEA.

Mr. John Marshall

rose—

Mr. Fatchett

No, time is short and I must allow the Minister time to reply.

London parents are worried that there will not be a strategic authority to provide and plan for education in inner London. There is also the fear in all the poorer boroughs of inner London about the redistributive impact of abolishing ILEA. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) expressed that fear earlier and also convincingly argued that the Secretary of State only talked about a formula for future grant allocation. The Secretary of State did not give a commitment — the Minister of State must give that commitment tonight—on whether the poorer boroughs will be made poorer as a result of the abolition of ILEA. The Government's record leads to one conclusion: they will take further money out of Hackney and the other poorer inner-London boroughs.

If all else fails — all else has failed in the Government's intellectual argument — the Government fall back on the simple arrogance of mandate. They say, "We have a majority and we are going to drive it through." They may try to drive it through, but they have no moral authority for the decision that they are taking. That authority is not contained in their manifesto because it contained no reference to the total abolition of ILEA. Indeed, there was no reference in the consultative document or in the Bill to total abolition. Thai absence was noted by the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford, who launched a campaign for the total abolition of ILEA. If the Bill had allowed for total abolition in the simple form, their campaign would have been unnecessary.

It is totally hypocritical and misleading of the Government to argue that they had a mandate for abolition in the first place. They have no such mandate and they have no popular support for the decision that they are taking.

There is no mandate for abolition. There are no sound educational arguments. There is certainly no blueprint for future provision at borough level— parents are being forced, without any say whatever, to accept a leap in the dark. When The Economist said on 30 January that the plan to emasculate ILEA smacks more of political spite than educational strategy", it was right. The measure represents yet another defeat for the Secretary of State—about that we shed no tears—but, more importantly, the measure represents a defeat for the orderly provision of education in inner London. It is those children and their parents who will be the losers. To protect their interests, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government's proposal.

9.40 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his farsightedness and reliability, and his consistent view that education should be devolved to the boroughs in inner London. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I am a convert to that view. Like them, I believed that ILEA, in the face of a Government who could so successfully return the powers of the Greater London council to the boroughs, would take heed and mend its ways, but sadly it did not. Seven years later, we have exactly the same failings in the Inner London education authority that we had in the years when some of us thought that it could mend its ways.

I should like to read two quotations. Mr. Steven Cowan, now the ILEA member for Westminster, North but a prospective member at the time, said, according to London Labour Briefing of May 1986: The ILEA is the most bureaucratic LEA in the country because of its double layer of officials at County Hall and at Divisional Offices … all too often it leads to the erection of a professional barrier between the community and elected politicians". Those are the words of a current member of I LEA. I should also like to quote, as many other hon. Members have done, the leader of ILEA, Mr. Neil Fletcher, who told the Socialist Education Association on 30 September 1987: Does our system let down these children? For too many of them, if we are honest, the answer is yes. Why are working class children still not doing as well as their middle class peers? I am doubtful as to how far we should take socio-economic background as a determinant excuse". Those are the words of the people who are currently running ILEA.

Mr. Straw

As the Minister is quoting various people, will she quote her own words in the House on 1 December? She said: The Government's aim is to improve both the quality and the cost-effectiveness of education in inner london. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 856.] What change was there between 1 December and 4 February?

Mrs. Rumbold

A clear sign that other boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea were making plans to become independent education authorities, so they would destabilise the current ILEA. I had serious concerns about the effect of that upon the remaining authorities. I should like to refer —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Give the hon. Lady a chance.

Mrs. Rumbold

I should like to refer—

Mr. Fatchett

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold

No. I should like to answer the debate. I do not have much time.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made the point that we need to ensure efficiency of borough administration and administrative structures. The development plans that boroughs will be required to publish will have to set out the proposed administrative organisation. We share my right hon. Friend's view of the importance of the matter. I assure him that we shall devote carefull attention to that aspect of boroughs' plans.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) stated that 44 per cent. of pupils in Tower Hamlets are from Bangladeshi families. We accept that boroughs will need to continue to make provision for children whose first language is not English. That is one of the subjects that we shall discuss with the boroughs concerned.

I remind hon. Members that much of the Inner London education authority's existing provision is funded by the section 11 grant. Of course, that grant will continue to be available to boroughs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) mentioned his concern about the Horniman museum. Obviously, we recognise the quality of that museum and of the Geffrye museum, which the Inner London education authority also maintained. We shall most certainly consider the arrangements that will be most appropriate for securing the future of those museums.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, in relation to the unit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned that he will set up, that the London residuary body would need to have some additional education experts seconded to it. We have established a special unit within our Department to take forward the necessary discussions and arrangements as quickly as possible. In doing that, we wish to seek the views of all those with experience in the range of education provision. We certainly look to local professionals, above all the head teachers and other teachers in the boroughs, to contribute to and to comment on the development plans that boroughs will be required to produce.

The Inner London education authority's difficulties are not of a wholly different order from those of other inner-city areas, but it still continues to spend 45 per cent. more per pupil than Manchester spends, and 83 per cent. more per pupil than Birmingham spends. Is all that money going on education in the classroom? Eased by the extent to which ILEA can achieve economies of scale that are not possible in smaller authorities, of course it is not.

Why else does ILEA have to employ two and a half administrators for every one administrator employed by the average local education authority? The quotation that I gave from Mr. Steven Cowan goes some way towards explaining that. As for devolution of education to boroughs, many educational divisions of the Inner London education authority are mirrored by boroughs. Of course, there are 10 divisions, and only three share more than two boroughs. Most of them are equal and conterminous with the divisions of the Inner London education authority.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talked about the Metropolitan police. He said that, because of the capital city's difficulties, it is impossible to compare the costs of the Inner London education authority. He prayed in aid the argument that the Metropolitan police are much more expensive. Hon. Members should note that London's policing problems are different from those in the rest of the country. The London area has about 45 per cent. of all registered drug addicts, about 50 per cent. of robberies, and 75 per cent. of all armed robberies. On 1985–86 estimates, costs per police officer are about 38 per cent. more than the England average. The Inner London education authority is spending about 50 per cent. more per secondary pupil than the outer-London borough average. The Inner London education authority is still failing disastrously.

If overspending had been the only charge against ILEA, it would have been grave enough, but, above all, that extravagance pays no significant dividends in the classroom. That means that a better way must be found.

Opposition Members have had a great deal of fun adducing all sorts of things from the advice provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate. They appear to rely more for their judgments on the newspapers than on the hard evidence of published HMI reports. Certain phrases toll like a bell through HMI reports on ILEA's schools—for example, despite a generous staffing establishment and no apparent shortages of suitable apparatus and equipment", Or in spite of good provision in terms of staffing, accommodation, ancillary support and equipment, materials and books, and of the offer of an extensive in-service programme". All too frequently the reports go on to reveal serious shortcomings about what goes on both inside and outside the classroom. Only last summer, there was a report of an absolute fiasco that took place because of the poor organisation of a recent Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea park. It was set up—

Mr. Fatchett

The Minister has quoted selectively from an HMI report. Will she now publish that report and allow the country to see what it said about primary education, the youth service, special needs provision and adult education — indeed, what it said about all that ILEA does well in relation to research and provision? Will she publish that report and allow the full picture to come out, or will she continue to quote selectively as she has done already?

Mrs. Rumbold

Everything that I have quoted from HMI reports has been published. However, the hon. Gentleman quoted from a confidential summary of a selection of reports sent to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not choose to quote from that. I choose to quote from the recent experience of the children—

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

No—this is an ILEA debate, not a Scottish debate.

Mr. Maxton

rose—

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

rose—

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

rose—

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham)

rose—

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members are interrupting from a sedentary position and it is difficult to hear.

Mr. Foulkes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maxton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

What is the point of order?

Mr. Maxton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I remind you that you constantly remind us at Scottish Question Time that this is a British Parliament —[Interruption.] We rather resent being told that this is an ILEA debate and not a Scottish debate.

Secondly, for the Minister to say that the report is confidential, but then to quote from it is surely—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Order Paper, which says that this is an ILEA debate.

Mrs. Rumbold

I am sure that Scottish Members will enjoy the—

Mr. Home Robertson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It has been a good-natured debate so far.

Mrs. Rumbold

I shall continue with my story — [HON. MEMBERS: "Fairy story"] It is not a fairy story; it is a fact. I am talking about what happened at the Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea, where it is reported: Children were left sitting around for hours and could not see the displays. Aimed at stimulating multi-cultural awareness, it may have had the reverse effect, leaving youngsters dispirited and bored, the authority has been told. `It seemed to us that the only well-organised part of the festival was the tent dispensing free wine and food to invited guests,' teachers, parents, and other staff from one school, Cardwell primary, Woolwich, have protested to the ILEA. `Children worked hard for several weeks preparing their puppets and rehearsing for what should have been the exciting climax to their labours.' I do not deny that there is much good provision within the Inner London education authority's vast empire. Hon. Members have talked about adult education, and further education. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) talked about her experiences as a parent of a child with special education needs. Of course, we shall look at that provision. Every local education authority is under a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Every local education authority in the country meets that duty by co-operating with other authorities, as the hon. Member for Greenwich said.

Even the Inner London education authority does not and cannot make every form of specialised provision for every form of handicap. The practice in inner-London boroughs will reflect what happens in outer London. We regard that as a particularly important matter which we will discuss with all the boroughs and which we will expect to see dealt with in some detail in the boroughs' development plans.

I must tell Opposition Members that, in the area of crucial concern to employers and parents — the secondary age group — ILEA's provision is admittedly generally poor. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that examination results are not everything and must be interpreted with great care. However, they are an important indicator for parents and employers. I can tell the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that not long ago, when Lambeth council considered the provisions that ILEA was planning for Lambeth, a report to council members stated: Over one third of Lambeth's children are educated outside the Borough. The Council believes that these proposals could perpetuate the denial of accessible secondary education to large sections of Lambeth's community if steps are not taken to improve local education.

Mr. Ashdown

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Holland

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold

That authority is clearly looking after the interests of its children. I have more sympathy with my hon. Friends who are concerned about authorities that may be too irresponsible to be entrusted with children's education. However, I can tell my hon. Friends that they should remember that some powerful safeguards are included in the Education Reform Bill. It includes the national curriculum and wider parental choice.

Mr. Ashdown

Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold

No. The hon. Gentleman continually comes into the Chamber in the middle of debates and always wants to intervene. I am glad to say that the lion. Member for Greenwich took advantage of his gallantry and spoke first—and about time, too.

The delegation of powers to governing bodies, heads and the right to opt out are also included in the Bill.

I want to quote again from that wonderful Mr. Steven Cowan, member of ILEA. Indeed, this is even more important, as it appears in London Labour Briefing. He said: Progress needs to be made to reduce the proportion of school places under the control of the Church. Their presence and practices are racist and segregationist. We should aim to achieve a secular comprehensive and community-based education in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] If you cannot hear, it is because you are not listening—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should like to be able to hear.

Mrs. Rumbold

I apologise. Obviously you were listening, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Members to whom I was referring were not.

I want to address a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). I understand his concern that some boroughs may not be capable of providing an effective education service. My hon. Friend said that he remained in favour of opting out as the basis for a transfer of educational responsibilities. However, where opting out proposals are likely to receive support from a significant number of boroughs, the case for a single, clean break must become unanswerable. A rump ILEA or my hon. Friend's suggestion of some form of mini-ILEA would leave matters in a state of uncertainty and would not provide the basis for improvement that he agrees is needed. In the development plans that we are expecting, we will want to consider management structure and the nature of some of the senior appointments.

Opposition Members referred to parent power and parents' wishes. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that we should ask the parents and take their views on board. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the fortnight since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals, we have received about 200 letters.

Mr. Holland

rose—

Mrs. Rumbold

We received 200 letters objecting to my right hon. Friend's proposals. The Southfields by-election in Wandsworth not long ago was fought entirely on the matter of education in London. At the time, the slogans were "Labour for education". What happened? The Conservatives won, and we doubled our majority.

The crucial point is that action should be taken as swiftly as possible to establish clear responsibilities for inner London's education service among the boroughs. That is why the Government's proposals are right, and why I ask the House to support them.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The original Question was the motion on the Inner London education authority—

9.59 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

This has nothing to do with the educational interests of the people of London. It is all to do with a couple of political shysters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 339.

Division No. 185]	[10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Battle, John
Allen, Graham	Beckett, Margaret
Alton, David	Beith, A. J.
Anderson, Donald	Bell, Stuart
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Armstrong, Hilary	Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Ashdown, Paddy	Bermingham, Gerald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Bidwell, Sydney
Ashton, Joe	Blair, Tony
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Boyes, Roland
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Bradley, Keith

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hood, Jimmy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Howells, Geraint
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Hoyle, Doug
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Buckley, George J.	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Callaghan, Jim	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Ingram, Adam
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Janner, Greville
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	John, Brynmor
Canavan, Dennis	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Cartwright, John	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Kirkwood, Archy
Clay, Bob	Lambie, David
Clelland, David	Lamond, James
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Leadbitter, Ted
Cohen, Harry	Leighton, Ron
Coleman, Donald	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Lewis, Terry
Corbyn, Jeremy	Litherland, Robert
Cousins, Jim	Livingstone, Ken
Cox, Tom	Livsey, Richard
Crowther, Stan	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cryer, Bob	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cummings, John	McAllion, John
Cunlitfe, Lawrence	McAvoy, Thomas
Cunningham, Dr John	McCartney, Ian
Dalyell, Tarn	Macdonald, Calum A.
Darling, Alistair	McFall, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McKelvey, William
Dewar, Donald	McLeish, Henry
Dixon, Don	McNamara, Kevin
Dobson, Frank	McTaggart, Bob
Doran, Frank	McWilliam, John
Douglas, Dick	Madden, Max
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Marek, Dr John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Eadie, Alexander	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Eastham, Ken	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Maxton, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Meale, Alan
Fatchett, Derek	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fearn, Ronald	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fisher, Mark	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Flannery, Martin	Morgan, Rhodri
Flynn, Paul	Morley, Elliott
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foster, Derek	Mowlam, Marjorie
Foulkes, George	Mullin, Chris
Fraser, John	Murphy, Paul
Fyfe, Maria	Nellist, Dave
Galbraith, Sam	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Galloway, George	O'Neill, Martin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Parry, Robert
George, Bruce	Patchett, Terry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Pendry, Tom
Golding, Mrs Llin	Pike, Peter L.
Gordon, Mildred	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Graham, Thomas	Prescott, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Primarolo, Dawn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Grocott, Bruce	Radice, Giles
Harman, Ms Harriet	Randall, Stuart
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Haynes, Frank	Reid, Dr John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Richardson, Jo
Heffer, Eric S.	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Henderson, Doug	Robertson, George
Hinchliffe, David	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Rogers, Allan
Holland, Stuart	Rooker, Jeff
Home Robertson, John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Rowlands, Ted	Turner, Dennis
Ruddock, Joan	Vaz, Keith
Sedgemore, Brian	Wall, Pat
Sheerman, Barry	Walley, Joan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wareing, Robert N.
Skinner, Dennis	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wigley, Dafydd
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)	Wilson, Brian
Snape, Peter	Winnick, David
Soley, Clive	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Spearing, Nigel	Worthington, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry	Wray, Jimmy
Stott, Roger	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Straw, Jack
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Mr. Alun Michael and
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis	Mr. Frank Cook.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
NOES
Adley, Robert	Chope, Christopher
Aitken, Jonathan	Churchill, Mr
Alexander, Richard	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Amess, David	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Amos, Alan	Colvin, Michael
Arbuthnot, James	Conway, Derek
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Ashby, David	Cope, John
Aspinwall, Jack	Cormack, Patrick
Atkins, Robert	Couchman, James
Atkinson, David	Cran, James
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Critchley, Julian
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Baldry, Tony	Curry, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Batiste, Spencer	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Day, Stephen
Bellingham, Henry	Devlin, Tim
Bendall, Vivian	Dicks, Terry
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Dorrell, Stephen
Benyon, W.	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bevan, David Gilroy	Dover, Den
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Dunn, Bob
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Durant, Tony
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Dykes, Hugh
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Emery, Sir Peter
Body, Sir Richard	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Evennett, David
Boswell, Tim	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bottomley, Peter	Fallon, Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Farr, Sir John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Favell, Tony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Brazier, Julian	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bright, Graham	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Forman, Nigel
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Forth, Eric
Browne, John (Winchester)	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Franks, Cecil
Buck, Sir Antony	Freeman, Roger
Budgen, Nicholas	French, Douglas
Burt, Alistair	Fry, Peter
Butcher, John	Gale, Roger
Butler, Chris	Gardiner, George
Butterfill, John	Gill, Christopher
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Carrington, Matthew	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Carttiss, Michael	Goodlad, Alastair
Cash, William	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Gorst, John
Chapman, Sydney	Gow, Ian

Gower, Sir Raymond	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Maclean, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Gregory, Conal	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Madel, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Major, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian	Malins, Humfrey
Ground, Patrick	Mans, Keith
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Maples, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Marland, Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Marlow, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Hanley, Jeremy	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hannam, John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Mates, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Maude, Hon Francis
Harris, David	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Haselhurst, Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Hawkins, Christopher	Mellor, David
Hayes, Jerry	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Miller, Hal
Hayward, Robert	Mills, Iain
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Miscampbell, Norman
Heddle, John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Moate, Roger
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Monro, Sir Hector
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hill, James	Moore, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Holt, Richard	Moss, Malcolm
Hordern, Sir Peter	Mudd, David
Howard, Michael	Neale, Gerrard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Neubert, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Nicholls, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hunter, Andrew	Page, Richard
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Paice, James
Irvine, Michael	Patnick, Irvine
Irving, Charles	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Jack, Michael	Pawsey, James
Jackson, Robert	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Janman, Tim	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Jessel, Toby	Porter, David (Waveney)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Portillo, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Price, Sir David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Rathbone, Tim
Key, Robert	Redwood, John
Kilfedder, James	Renton, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Rhodes James, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Knapman, Roger	Riddick, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Knowles, Michael	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Knox, David	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Lang, Ian	Rost, Peter
Latham, Michael	Rowe, Andrew
Lawrence, Ivan	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lee, John (Pendle)	Ryder, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Scott, Nicholas
Lightbown, David	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lilley, Peter	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lord, Michael	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McCrindle, Robert	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Shersby, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor	Twinn, Dr Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Walden, George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Squire, Robin	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Stanbrook, Ivor	Waller, Gary
Stanley, Rt Hon John	Walters, Dennis
Steen, Anthony	Ward, John
Stern, Michael	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stevens, Lewis	Warren, Kenneth
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Watts, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Wells, Bowen
Stokes, John	Wheeler, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Whitney, Ray
Sumberg, David	Widdecombe, Ann
Summerson, Hugo	Wiggin, Jerry
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Wilkinson, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wilshire, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Winterton, Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wolfson, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wood, Timothy
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Woodcock, Mike
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Yeo, Tim
Thorne, Neil	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thornton, Malcolm	Younger, Rt Hon George
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Tellers for the Noes:
Tracey, Richard	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Trippier, David	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Trotter, Neville

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 220.

Division No. 186]	[10.15 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Aitken, Jonathan	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Alexander, Richard	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Browne, John (Winchester)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Amess, David	Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Amos, Alan	Buck, Sir Antony
Arbuthnot, James	Budgen, Nicholas
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Burt, Alistair
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Butcher, John
Ashby, David	Butler, Chris
Aspinwall, Jack	Butterfill, John
Atkins, Robert	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Atkinson, David	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Carrington, Matthew
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Carttiss, Michael
Baldry, Tony	Cash, William
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Batiste, Spencer	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Bellingham, Henry	Chope, Christopher
Bendall, Vivian	Churchill, Mr
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Benyon, W.	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Colvin, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Conway, Derek
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Body, Sir Richard	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cope,John
Boswell, Tim	Cormack, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter	Couchman, James
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Cran, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Critchley, Julian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Brazier, Julian	Curry, David
Bright, Graham	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Day, Stephen	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Devlin, Tim	Hunter, Andrew
Dicks, Terry	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dorrell, Stephen	Irvine, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Irving, Charles
Dover, Den	Jack, Michael
Dunn, Bob	Jackson, Robert
Durant, Tony	Janman, Tim
Dykes, Hugh	Jessel, Toby
Emery, Sir Peter	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Evennett, David	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Fallon, Michael	Key, Robert
Farr, Sir John	Kilfedder, James
Favell, Tony	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Kirkhope, Timothy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Knapman, Roger
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Forman, Nigel	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Knowles, Michael
Forth, Eric	Knox, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fox, Sir Marcus	Lang, Ian
Franks, Cecil	Latham, Michael
Freeman, Roger	Lawrence, Ivan
French, Douglas	Lee, John (Pendle)
Fry, Peter	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Gale, Roger	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Gardiner, George	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Gill, Christopher	Lightbown, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Lilley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Goodlad, Alastair	Lord, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	McCrindle, Robert
Gorst, John	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Gow, Ian	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Gower, Sir Raymond	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Maclean, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Gregory, Conal	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Madel, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Major, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian	Malins, Humfrey
Ground, Patrick	Mans, Keith
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Maples, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Marland, Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Marlow, Tony
Hampson, Dr Keith	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Hanley, Jeremy	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hannam, John	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Mates, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Maude, Hon Francis
Harris, David	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Haselhurst, Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Hawkins, Christopher	Mellor, David
Hayes, Jerry	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Miller, Hal
Hayward, Robert	Mills, Iain
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Miscampbell, Norman
Heddle, John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Moate, Roger
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Monro, Sir Hector
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hill, James	Moore, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Holt, Richard	Moss, Malcolm
Hordern, Sir Peter	Mudd, David
Howard, Michael	Neale, Gerrard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Neubert, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Nicholls, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Oppenheim, Phillip	Stokes, John
Page, Richard	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Paice, James	Sumberg, David
Patnick, Irvine	Summerson, Hugo
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Portillo, Michael	Temple-Morris, Peter
Price, Sir David	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Rathbone, Tim	Thorne, Neil
Redwood, John	Thornton, Malcolm
Renton, Tim	Thurnham, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Tracey, Richard
Riddick, Graham	Trippier, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Trotter, Neville
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Twinn, Dr Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Roe, Mrs Marion	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Rost, Peter	Waldegrave, Hon William
Rowe, Andrew	Walden, George
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Ryder, Richard	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Waller, Gary
Sayeed, Jonathan	Walters, Dennis
Scott, Nicholas	Ward, John
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Warren, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Watts, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wells, Bowen
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Wheeler, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Whitney, Ray
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Widdecombe, Ann
Shersby, Michael	Wiggin, Jerry
Sims, Roger	Wilkinson, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wilshire, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Winterton, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Wolfson, Mark
Speller, Tony	Wood, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Woodcock, Mike
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Yeo, Tim
Squire, Robin	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stanbrook, Ivor	Younger, Rt Hon George
Stanley, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stern, Michael	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Stevens, Lewis	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Allen, Graham	Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Alton, David	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Anderson, Donald	Buchan, Norman
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Buckley, George J.
Armstrong, Hilary	Caborn, Richard
Ashdown, Paddy	Callaghan, Jim
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Canavan, Dennis
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Battle, John	Cartwright, John
Beckett, Margaret	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Beith, A. J.	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Bell, Stuart	Clay, Bob
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clelland, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bermingham, Gerald	Cohen, Harry
Bidwell, Sydney	Coleman, Donald
Blair, Tony	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Boyes, Roland	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Bradley, Keith	Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cox, Tom	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Crowther, Stan	McAllion, John
Cryer, Bob	McAvoy, Thomas
Cummings, John	McCartney, Ian
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Macdonald, Calum A.
Cunningham, Dr John	McFall, John
Dalyell, Tam	McKelvey, William
Darling, Alistair	McLeish, Henry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McNamara, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	McTaggart, Bob
Dewar, Donald	McWilliam, John
Dixon, Don	Madden, Max
Dobson, Frank	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Doran, Frank	Marek, Dr John
Douglas, Dick	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Maxton, John
Eadie, Alexander	Meacher, Michael
Eastham, Ken	Meale, Alan
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute
Fatchett, Derek	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Fearn, Ronald	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Morgan, Rhodri
Fisher, Mark	Morley, Elliott
Flannery, Martin	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Flynn, Paul	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Mowlam, Marjorie
Foster, Derek	Mullin, Chris
Foulkes, George	Murphy, Paul
Fraser, John	Nellist, Dave
Fyfe, Maria	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Galbraith, Sam	O'Neill, Martin
Galloway, George	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	Parry, Robert
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Patchett, Terry
George, Bruce	Pendry, Tom
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Pike, Peter L.
Golding, Mrs Llin	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Gordon, Mildred	Prescott, John
Graham, Thomas	Primarolo, Dawn
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Radice, Giles
Grocott, Bruce	Randall, Stuart
Harman, Ms Harriet	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Reid, Dr John
Haynes, Frank	Richardson, Jo
Heffer, Eric S.	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Henderson, Doug	Robertson, George
Hinchliffe, David	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Rogers, Allan
Holland, Stuart	Rooker, Jeff
Home Robertson, John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Hood, Jimmy	Rowlands, Ted
Howells, Geraint	Ruddock, Joan
Hoyle, Doug	Sedgemore, Brian
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Sheerman, Barry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Ingram, Adam	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Janner, Greville	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
John, Brynmor	Snape, Peter
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Soley, Clive
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)	Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Steinberg, Gerry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Stott, Roger
Kirkwood, Archy	Straw, Jack
Lambie, David	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lamond, James	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Leadbitter, Ted	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Leighton, Ron	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Turner, Dennis
Lewis, Terry	Vaz, Keith
Litherland, Robert	Wall, Pat
Livsey, Richard	Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)	Worthington, Tony
Wareing, Robert N.	Wray, Jimmy
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)	Tellers for the Noes:
Wilson, Brian	Mr. Allen McKay and
Winnick, David	Mr. Alun Michael.
Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.