§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.30 pm§ Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)I should make it clear at the start of the debate that this is one of the few occasions on which I have no criticism to make of the Government. Their role is to decide on recommendations made by councils about schools on the basis of the information that they have received. I believe that the Government have behaved fairly and honourably.
When I raised the issue of the William Gladstone community school at Prime Minister's Question Time before the election, the Prime Minister asked the then Secretary of State for Education to meet a deputation of local Conservative, Labour and Liberal councillors and parents. We were treated with absolute courtesy and given all the time that we wanted to put our case. The Government have behaved completely honourably. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Brent council, under both parties.
Anyone in any area would be proud of the school. I visit it frequently. It is successful. It serves a very mixed community, in both class and racial terms. It has an enviable record and is intensely popular. Remarkable loyalty is shown to it by both staff and pupils. Remarkably, in the campaign to keep the school open we managed to enlist the support of Damian Green, the Conservative candidate at the last election who has been invited by the Prime Minister to join him as a policy adviser at No. 10. The Liberal candidate was also a member of the deputation that went to see the Secretary of State for Education. Putting party politics to one side, Damian Green argued with his Conservative colleagues on Brent council that they had made a mistake and that the situation should be reversed.
Sadly, the campaign—a rather underhand campaign—against William Gladstone school has continued. The events that have recently affected the school began with the election of the Labour administration in 1986. Faced with a massive surplus of school places, it proposed to close South Kilburn, Brondesbury in Kilburn, Neasden, Sladebrook and Willesden Green schools, as well as a few others in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). The one school that survived that process was William Gladstone. Once again, there was a massive campaign. The then Conservative opposition, some Labour councillors and I managed to persuade the council at that stage that William Gladstone was a good school, that it had a good academic record and that it was attracting more and more pupils year by year. The council was persuaded to withdraw its closure proposals while those for all the other schools went ahead. That led to a dramatic reduction in the number of surplus school places in the borough.
The problem now facing many pupils at the school is that they attended other schools which were closed. In particular, a large number of pupils at Sladebrook school opted to move to William Gladstone school, which survived the closure proposals. If we cannot persuade the council and the Government to change their minds, that group of schoolchildren will have to cope with two school 623 closures in their brief academic careers. That is almost unique and is an unfair burden to place on young people.
The school survived and was given a clean bill of health, but a whispering campaign was started. The bureaucrats who had made the proposal were almost outraged that they had not got their way. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have encountered such people in town halls, who assume that they know best and are more angry when they are defeated than in any other circumstance. Rather than accept that the council had decided that the school should stay open, a whispering campaign among primary school heads was initiated, I regret to say, by the borough's director of education, warning that the council would be coming back to this, that it was "just a reprieve." Despite all that uncertainty, local primary schools continued to send children to William Gladstone community school because it was recognised as a good school.
The position changed again in 1990 when, after the local elections, we had the delights of a hung council. Immediately, the proposal to close the school was put back on the agenda. George Benham, the director of education, having been frustrated once, thought that he would have another go at trying to close the school. In the chaos which reigned for a year while there was a hung council, the proposal to close the school was narrowly squeezed through—relying, once again, on figures showing that there would be a major surplus of school places in the borough. When the Government considered the proposal for closure, which used figures showing a large surplus of places, it was almost inevitable that they would agree to the closure.
The school fought back and voted to opt for grant-maintained status. It detected that it was not popular among bureaucrats in the town hall, who had been defeated once and thwarted in their ambition to close the school, and felt that its future would be more secure with grant-maintained status. Although at that time it was Labour policy to oppose opting out, because I was aware of the bureaucratic attitude of Brent town hall I did not oppose the application and wished the school well in pursuing it. I recognised that unless it was free to govern itself it would always be under threat from the bureaucrats at Brent town hall, who had determined that it should close.
In the weeks and months which followed, a good campaign brought together all the political parties, particularly Damian Green, the Conservative candidate, and Mark Cummings, the Liberal candidate. Many local councillors realised that a mistake had been made. The campaign ran both before and after the election. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education, who carefully considered what we said, but had to bear in mind the figures that he had been given showing a surplus of places and the fact that if William Gladstone school did not close another almost certainly would.
The position has changed dramatically because Brent's figures, as in so much that Brent does, have turned out to be wrong. That was admitted this week in a committee report submitted by the director of education. The school initially went to the London Research Centre, which provides statistical projections for many London boroughs on such things as school population projections. 624 The centre produced dramatically different figures, showing not a tremendous surplus of places but the possibility, which was admitted on Tuesday at the meeting of the education committee, of a deficit of 238 places by the end of the decade.
That changes matters. I can only ask the Government to reconsider the figures. However much the Minister may wish to win my support and approval, I know that he cannot give a commitment or say, "I will save your school." All I ask is that the Government examine the new figures to ascertain whether a mistake has been made.
I wish to dwell on an especially disturbing issue. Those of us who have been in local government know that there is often a fear of surcharge. Liverpool and Lambeth councillors' recent challenge to the Government on rate capping ended with their being personally bankrupted and barred from office for five years. Every decade or so, there is a confrontation between central and local government which leads to councillors being at risk of being surcharged. I once received a bill for £1 million from the district auditor; I won the case when it went to court, but there is always that fear among councillors.
It is remarkable that George Benham, the director of education, not certain that he could sustain the proposal to close the school by relying on the figures—especially as they were inaccurate—has resorted to trying to stampede councillors by telling them that they are at risk of being surcharged if they vote to reconsider the future of the school. Last month a special meeting of the council was called and it passed a motion which I read into the record. It stated:
This Council believes that William Gladstone Community School is a viable school and we recognise that its closure will result in the payment of increased recoupment fees because most parents concerned have indicated that they will send their children out of the borough if the school is closed.Accordingly, this Council refers the matter to the Education Committee to report on the feasibility of revising the decision to close William Gladstone Community School.Councillors were told that they risked surcharge if they voted for the motion. Carol Shaw, a Conservative member of the council, showed me a letter from the director of education which warned her that voting for the motion would lead to a surcharge. That is rubbish.It is the norm for legal advice to be given by legal officers of the council and not by the director of education who, with no legal background or training, can merely venture an opinion on the legality of an action. It takes only a minute to realise that we are talking about the council deciding whether it has made a mistake and then asking the Government whether they can change their mind. The Government must then decide whether that is possible. How could it possibly be illegal to ask the Government, after full consideration, to change their mind? How could that put councillors at risk of surcharge? Such logic is a nonsense, but councillors are often very worried about such matters because they face the possibility of personal bankruptcy.
I said that I would not be critical of the Government, but I am critical of George Benham, who seems to have launched what is almost a political campaign to close the school by lobbying, arm twisting, bullying and frightening councillors with threats of surcharge which are nonsense.
The council motion was discussed at Tuesday's meeting of the education committee. One of the members of the 625 committee representing religious schools in the borough had said that he was likely to support the retention of the school, but could not vote accordingly. As he was leaving the meeting, he was asked why he had changed his mind. Mr. Ray Lorenzato said that he had received a phone call warning him that he would be surcharged. That is not the way to carry on an honest debate about the worth of a school, based on honest projections and differences of opinion about pupil numbers. It is a squalid, behind-the-scenes set of manoeuvres more worthy of the tactics of President Nixon's White House than senior officers who are supposed to consider only educational merit when giving advice to members of the council.
As so often in recent years, Brent council remains undecided and confused. The education committee will report to the full council in a few weeks and, based on the figures, Brent council will have to decide whether to tell the Government that it has made a mistake and ask how it can get out of it.
It would be absolute nonsense to close a good and popular school, to which an increasing number of parents wish to send their children. It has an improving academic record with increased take-up at 11-plus and a better sixth form retention and uptake than in the past. According to information provided by the London Research Centre, closure of the school could mean that in five or six years' time the council will have to ask the Government for capital funds to build additions to existing schools or to build temporary huts.
I am asking the Government to make it clear today that, if the council decides after further consideration that it has made a mistake, the Government will be prepared to co-operate with the borough to save the school, reopen it, or do whatever can be done to repair the damage.
It is a pity, but Government Ministers do not have a chance to visit every school in contention. This school is excellent. One would assume that a Conservative Government would think it an example of a school which is working well. It has improving academic records, tremendous parental support and respect in the local community. It has not been beset by problems and there have been no scandalous accounts in the local papers about the way it is managed. Any hon. Member would be proud to have such a school in their constituency. It is the sort of school on which we should be building and expanding.
Given the doubts that have been raised about the figures which led the Government to take an honest decision, before the school faces a death sentence will the Government be prepared to reconsider if Brent council asks them to do so after its next council meeting?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Eric Forth)I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on initiating the debate and thank him for the generous tone of his early remarks, especially those about the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science. More debates of this type might allow more rational discussion to take place and more effective decision-making. Who knows?
This issue is obviously important in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Such matters are always 626 important for communities and for the Members of Parliament involved, and I understand the role that the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue to play in the matter.
At the outset, I must make it clear that I am advised that if—to use the hon. Gentleman's words—the local education authority were to change its mind, the matter is not quite as simple as it seems, as he probably knows. However flawed he may believe the decision-making procedure to have been, if the education authority decides to reconsider and to make a different disposition, it is not a matter of persuading the present Secretary of State to reverse the previous decision. That is not possible. An application would probably have to be made to open a new school, which may sound slightly quaint—I put it no more strongly than that—but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, knows that such matters often work that way and that it might not be as daunting as it sounds.
As the local education authority decided that the school should be closed, and it is on notice, it would have to be reopened as a new school on whatever basis would seem fit. That is the procedure if the local authority decides to reconsider the matter.
I hope that no one believes that applications for grant-maintained status should be seen as a way to escape closure. That is the worst possible basis on which any school would want to apply for such status, as it is supposed to be a basis for the future conduct and vigour of a school not merely a means to save it from an albeit unpopular closure decision.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attitude to grant-maintained applications in this case. Perhaps he was the hidden hand behind the decision by his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to change their mind about grant-maintained status. Who knows? I shall not press him on that. It is important for the House to understand that such applications should be made on the basis of looking to the future, rather than trying to avoid a decision made by the local education authority, however unpopular that decision may be.
I do not want to go through the history of the matter in detail, as the hon. Gentleman did. Suffice it to say that, in 1991, the two conflicting statutory proposals in respect of the school were published: the first on 19 April 1991 by the governors for grant-maintained status, and the second on 16 May 1991 by Brent to close the school. Faced with such conflicting proposals, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is obliged, first, to inform himself of what has been proposed, secondly, to evaluate the strength of the case for each proposal and, thirdly, to evaluate the grant-maintained proposal against the closure proposal. After he has done that, he must determine, first, the grant-maintained proposal and, secondly, the closure proposal. That was all duly done.
My right hon. Friend considered the proposal to close the school. He noted that consultation had started in 1987 with a series of documents leading to the publication in February 1991 of the final document entitled "Progressing Excellence: Securing Equality", which discussed the options to close two secondary schools, one of which was William Gladstone. That document, together with a four-page summary which was, incidentally, translated into Urdu and Gujerati, was widely distributed. There were consultative meetings in all parts of the borough and the director of education met the governors and parents of the school and other interested parties.
627 The proposal was that the school should close in September 1993. To preserve continuity of education wherever possible, the authority planned that in September 1992 no pupils would be admitted to the school. Those due to begin two-year examination courses in the fourth and lower sixth forms would be transferred to other schools. Alternative places would be offered at other schools in the area or at the further education college, subject to the availability of places.
The hon. Gentleman has recognised the main reason for the closure, although he has queried the basis on which it was predicated. The reason was to eliminate the many surplus places in Brent secondary schools as a whole. The authority estimated that the William Gladstone premises could be sold for £2.75 million and that there would be recurrent savings of £205,000 per annum. The authority's objectives were to use the resources thus released to raise the quality of education and the standard of achievement for all pupils, thus substantially reducing the number of pupils going to out-borough schools.
There were 12 statutory objections, including one from the governing body of the school, to the closure proposal. I will go through the main grounds quickly and will comment briefly on each. The first is that the school has good standards and is successful, that the number on roll has increased rapidly and that it is now the most popular school in the south of the borough. That very much reflects the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Our information is that the school has one of the poorest examination result records in the borough.
Total numbers at the school dropped from 656 in 1986 to 462 in 1989. The number then increased to 560 in 1990, dropping back slightly to 549 in 1991. It has a capacity of 1,080 places, so that even now it is only half full. It is one of the schools with the largest proportion of surplus places in Brent. The majority of pupils leaving William Gladstone's feeder primary schools went to other secondary schools.
The objectors then said that closure would result in there being no co-educational schools in the area. It is true that the two John Kelly single-sex schools are closest to William Gladstone, but there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate all the pupils at the Queens Park and Willesden co-educational schools, which are about two miles away. That is not an excessive or unreasonable distance.
The objectors then allege that the local education authority has underestimated demand for secondary school places—the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the facts bear that out. The authority and grant-maintained schools provide 12,850 secondary places for the 8,480 pupils on roll in 1991 in the authority as a whole. The LEA estimated that on current trends, and even allowing for a 10 per cent. increase in admissions each year of pupils aged 11, numbers would rise to 9,925 by the year 2000. That would still leave a surplus of almost 3,000 places. The closure of William Gladstone would reduce that by about 1,080 to 1,845, which we believe is more than enough to cope with the vagaries of estimating.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention that the figuring is sufficiently wrong to undermine the case for closure and that it cannot deal with the question of surplus places. The figures that I have given today, if they 628 are accurate and we believe that they are, suggest that a considerable problem of surplus places would still remain even if William Gladstone school were to close. That must be taken into account.
We cannot plan our school system on the basis that surplus places should be carried in case pupil numbers change in seven or 10 years' time. To carry, deliberately, surplus places to the extent that we are considering here—it is a school with a capacity for more than 1,000, but it is currently accommodating just half that number—against the possibility that they may be needed in the future is not a sensible approach to the planning of education.
The objectors argue that the school is one of the cheapest to maintain. Brent has said that fundamental defects in design have resulted in disproportionately high maintenance costs which have been incurred at the expense of other intrinsically sound schools in Brent. That is Brent's view and, as it is the authority responsible for the maintenance of the fabric of the buildings, it is a view to which we must give great weight.
My right hon. and learned Friend, the former Secretary of State, informed himself of each of the proposals, considered the strength of each case and evaluated them before making his decision. He noted all the points that had been drawn to his attention, as the hon. Gentleman kindly accepted, at the meeting in February of this year. My right hon. and learned Friend also noted all the favourable points about the school. However, in the end, he decided that the balance of advantage lay with the authority's proposals which were aimed at securing the removal of surplus places and the more efficient use of resources in the provision of schools in the authority area. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend made his decision, and it must now be implemented by the authority. We have no power to reverse the decision—only a court can ask us to do that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, an application from the chairman of governors to the High Court for a judicial review to quash my right hon. and learned Friend's decision was not granted.
I have described the background to the case as we see it. There is always scope for debate and an honest difference of opinion on such matters, which must be ones of judgment. One must judge matters in terms of the welfare of the children and the quality of education in any one area. Such decisions depend very much on the judgment of the local education authority as the elected authority charged with the responsibility for delivering education in a community. Authorities come forward with proposals of this type and it is for the Secretary of State to consider the proposals and judge whether they make sense in the circumstances.
Given my reply to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the decision was the correct one and, on the basis of the information available then and now, it can be fully justified. If we consider the number of surplus places that are being carried in Brent and the need to deal with that problem—there are more than 1 million surplus places in education throughout the country—the decision can be justified. I understand the fustrations of the governors, of the staff and pupils at the school and of the hon. Gentleman. I ask them to understand that such decisions, difficult and complex though they may be, are inevitably part of a developing education system.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to think about what I have said today, and I shall certainly consider what he has said. 629 We shall examine what lies behind the problem and consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments. However, I must advise him, as I did at the beginning of my speech, that, even if the local education authority were persuaded to take a different view of the matter, it would have to go about it in the way that I have suggested.
We are always prepared to advise the hon. Gentleman or his authority on the best way forward. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and his 630 constituents that this matter has been dealt with fully, carefully and responsibly by the Secretary of State. That is what we always endeavour to do. Equally, we shall always listen carefully to what is said in the House. I hope that between us we can decide how best to educate our children in Brent and elsewhere. That is our common aim.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.