Stratford School (Hansard, 2 March 1992)

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
The problems of Stratford school in my constituency have received excessive national publicity. It is publicity that we do not welcome in the area, and the sorry mess could have been avoided in the first place if this malevolent and dogmatic Government had listened to the elected representatives of Newham—Members of Parliament and councillors.
I shall be brief because I want my Newham colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to contribute to the debate, and I have agreed that with the Minister.
Originally Newham council proposed the closure of Stratford school to conform with the Government's requirement to reduce surplus places in line with circular 3/87 from the Department of Education and Science. To enable the building of a new sixth form college and two new schools in docklands, Stratford had to close. The reorganisation plans were well supported in the borough by local industrialists, the London Docklands development corporation and others.
In an understandable attempt to avoid closure, the parents submitted a petition with enough signatures to trigger an opt-out ballot. The result of the first ballot was a majority of 10 against opt-out. As fewer than 50 per cent. of parents voted, a second ballot was required. The result of that ballot was an 18 vote majority for opt-out. Fifty-one per cent. were in favour of opt-out, but that represented only 33 per cent. of those eligible to vote. It was hardly an overwhelming turnout. However, an overwhelming majority of existing governors and staff were opposed to opt-out.
In October 1989, Newham's Members, together with councillors and officers, went to see the then Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold). We said that it was nonsense to grant opt-out for a school facing closure as part of approved education reorganisation. We warned the Minister about the likely chaos and divisiveness that opt-out would cause in the area. We were given a most sympathetic hearing and we assumed that good sense would prevail. In that respect, we were proved utterly wrong.
In the summer of 1990, with the Tory party conference looming, we understand that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), started expressing dissatisfaction with the slow rate of opt-out. Junior Ministers at the Department of Education and Science were changed. Despite advice from civil servants against opt-out, the overwhelming opposition of Stratford governors and the absence of any real support in the local community, opt-out for Stratford school was approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in October 1990.
It was a political decision that was based on the needs of the Tory party and the dogma of the then Prime Minister. The Minister who is sitting behind the Dispatch Box, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), knows that the Tory party had nothing to lose in Newham, North-West. He did not care about the education of 137 Newham pupils or community relations in the area. He was interested only in delivering an opt-out in a solid Labour area to satisfy the half-mad bigot who was then leading the country.
One has to contrast the Stratford decision in Labour Newham with the decision over Walsingham school in Tory Wandsworth. Walsingham was also facing closure as part of a reorganisation. Both schools had similar pupil and electoral rolls. At Walsingham in Wandsworth, 96.1 per cent. of parents voted for an opt-out on a first ballot. In Newham, on the second ballot only 51 per cent. voted in favour of an opt-out. At Walsingham, no fewer than 64.8 per cent. of people on the electoral roll voted in favour. At Stratford, only 33.5 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted in favour. There was no question about support for an opt-out at Walsingham at any level at any stage among any of the people involved, but the Secretary of State turned down Walsingham's opt-out application. Could it have been on educational grounds or could it just be because Walsingham is in Tory Wandsworth and Stratford is in Labour Newham?
I should like the Minister to answer three specific questions. First, is it not a ff cd67act that his Department advised and warned him against the Stratford opt-out? Secondly, why was Stratford allowed to opt out and Walsingham refused permission to opt out? Thirdly, why has the Secretary of State refused to meet elected representatives in the House, the three Newham Members of Parliament, and councillors from the London borough of Newham? It is because the opt-out in our area has created enormous bitterness.
Pupils are returning home crying. Parents are telephoning my office to complain and then refusing to give their names or addresses because of fear of intimidation. The local police are genuinely worried about the possibilities of violence, and maintain a presence in the area. The school is regularly staked out by camera crews and journalists. To cap it all, various racist organisations are now sniffing around to see what trouble they can cause. It is an appalling mess, and the blame for creating the conditions rests entirely with the Government.
Schools in the public sector do not belong to a particular set of governors, parents or staff who happen to be there at any given moment. Those schools belong to the entire community that funds them. Stratford school must be handed back to the elected representatives of the local community, and that means Newham council. This opt-out has gone disastrously but predictably wrong. The real sufferers are the school pupils and their education, and that is intolerable.
At the very least, the Government should ask Her Majesty's inspectorate to go to Stratford to see what is going on behind those closed doors. The nation's press is crawling over the school. The last HMI inspection was a routine one on 4 December 1991. The Government are obviously embarrassed by events at Stratford. The shoddily drafted legislation which permits an opt-out has no built-in safety measures to deal with an opt-out which goes haywire, as it has done at Stratford.
I expect a Labour Secretary of State to place Stratford school back with Newham council. In my opinion—it is only my opinion—governors and senior teachers involved in the opt-out will have to be replaced at some point. Neither feuding governors nor teachers must be seen to 138 win. The only victory that we want is a victory for good sense, the educational needs of the pupils and the wishes of the local community.
The Minister has deliberately sought to create trouble in my constituency, and for that I will never forgive him. The people of Newham will now have to look to the election of a Labour Government to sort out the sorry mess at Stratford school. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to give us the necessary assurances.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. I believe that the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will seek to catch my eye. I understand that the Minister agrees, provided that hon. Members leave him sufficient time to reply.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
This matter is a tragedy for the pupils of Stratford school because they come from the local community which contributes, through its poll tax via the council, to the Department of Education and Science, the money for the school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, the school is the property not of the governors or the parents but of the public and the community which it serves now and will serve in future.
Stratford school is one of three secondary schools that were due for closure under the Newham plan for which Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, asked. The southern part of the borough south of the A13 covers an area of land the equivalent distance from Earl's Court to Blackfriars and is an island that is accessible only by virtually three points across a main road which is the equivalent of a river—the Newham docklands. In that area we have two special schools, two nursery schools and no fewer than 12 primary schools, but no secondary school. The existence of surplus and larger numbers in the north of the borough prejudices the interests of parents and pupils in the area of Newham, South, the Newham docklands, which I have the honour to represent.

§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)
There was never any great demand for the opting out of Stratford school. On the first ballot, there was a majority of 10 against; on the second, a narrow majority of 18 in favour—a wafer-thin 2 per cent., or only 33 per cent. of the electoral roll.
Nearly all the governors and staff were against. All expert and professional local opinion opposed the opt-out. All head teachers in the borough were against it, as were the community college, the chairman of the local training and enterprise council, and the three local Members of Parliament. All those with local knowledge and experience warned against the opt-out, saying that it would lead to an unmanageable situation.
Then along came the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Following blind, ideological dogma, he went ahead with the opt-out, and Stratford quickly became a school for scandal, with one disgraceful episode following another.
139 Newham has many ethnic groups, languages, and currents. A professional local education authority is vitally necessary to hold the ring, keep a balance, and maintain the standards that the Government, for ideological reasons, destroyed in their blind opposition to democratic local government. They handed power to opportunists with hidden agendas and personal ambitions, and ever since there has been a catalogue of disaster and scandalous events.
After bitter disputes the school's chairman, Father Reilly, was ousted. One governor applied for the post of deputy head, which was advertised internally and without the knowledge of the head teacher. The governors then purported to sack the head, but she was reinstated by the Secretary of State—so much for local management. There have been public brawls in the school assembly, with words such as "liar", "fascist", and "racist" thrown about. The police were called to the school on a number of occasions, and there have been various legal actions alleging assault between those supposed to be running the school.
The Secretary of State was compelled to appoint two governors, who have now been boycotted by the others. Accusations have been made by both sides of intimidation and corruption. One principal added to the farce by declaring a 24-hour hunger strike. Can that be the way to run a school?
The Government must accept that they got it wrong. They must agree to sit down with Newham council to find a solution.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
Stratford is about the ill-considered, partisan policy of opting out exploding in the Government's face. It is not a race issue. The Independent commented that the events at Stratford, unprecedented in the history of state governance", were, in many features, the direct consequence of government policy. The Times, in a leader entitled "Opted into Anarchy", said that the Secretary of State is hoist with his own petard. As my hon. Friends pointed out, the Minister of State was warned directly of the consequences of allowing opting out. The governing body said: Grant-maintained status would lead rapidly to an unmanageable situation in which the school would be unable to provide a proper education for its pupils. Those warnings were ignored by the Minister and, sadly, the governing body was proved correct.
What must be done? Ministers must face up to the seriousness of the situation, for which they alone are responsible. Their indolence and complacency is inexcusable. For the Secretary of State to say in a week when the school was in chaos that it was "operating satisfactorily" was bizarre.
A team of Her Majesty's inspectorate must be sent to the school immediately, and its report published as quickly as possible. If just 10 per cent. of the incidents reported had occurred at a local authority school, the Secretary of State would already have sent in Her Majesty's inspectorate with a blaze of publicity. Look how swiftly he 140 acted last year over Culloden school in Tower Hamlets—but the HMI has not visited Stratford school since 4 December, and then only as a matter of routine.
The Audit Commission—not private auditors—must institute a formal audit of the school. On the basis of Her Majesty's inspectorate and commission's reports, Ministers must be ready to issue directions to the governors under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, and to use any other powers that they have to produce stability in the school. If Ministers need additional powers at this stage in the life of this Parliament, they should talk to the official Opposition. In government, we would act in the way that I have described.
Stratford proves beyond doubt how establishing a market in schools and opting them out of any local accountability can lead only to "anarchy"—the word used by The Times, direct rule from Whitehall, or the worst of both worlds, which is what we have today.
State schools must be accountable to the community that they serve, and which pays for them. Whitehall cannot run 25,000 schools. That is why opted-out schools must be returned to their parent local authorities—with, of course, clear safeguards to prevent discrimination against school or staff. Under Labour, there will be independent public inquiries into any local authority proposal to close a school. That would have provided Stratford parents with a just hearing of their case. Under Labour, there will also be an education standards commission, which could and would intervene at the behest of parents, teachers or governors to prevent circumstances such as those at Stratford from ever beginning to develop.
I give Stratford parents this pledge: Labour will not allow their children to be used as political pawns, as the Tory Government have so cynically done.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar)
That last remark really took the biscuit. Opposition Members have talked about Stratford as though they were talking about some kind of academic exercise. They have not really been concerned about the 600-odd pupils at the school.

§ Mr. Spearing
I mentioned them specifically.

§ Mr. Eggar
If the hon. Gentleman reads the record, what I have said will be obvious to him.
I will quote from a letter written by Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the school PTA. He has two children at the school, and was responsible for calling a very successful parent-teacher meeting this evening. He wrote: Jack Straw talks of a school in chaos yet neither he nor any other Labour MPs have visited the school. Were they to do so, they would see how well the school continues to function. They might remark at the high quality of the education; the quiet in the classrooms; the good behaviour and discipline of the pupils and the very high standard and progress being made. Children have only one chance in their secondary education. Some of those pupils at Stratford were victims of Newham's outrageous behaviour, and its attempts to empty the school last year. Let us be clear about this: when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talks about returning the school to Newham, what he really means is closing the school, because he knows that that is the policy of Newham council. He is talking about trying to return those pupils to an education authority that 141 has palpably failed. He is asking us to believe that the best way forward for Stratford school is, in fact, a leap backwards—a leap that would return the school to Newham LEA.
I say this to the hon. Members who seek to represent Newham: whatever differences may exist at Stratford school, everyone there is united on one thing—their absolute abhorrence of the idea of ever being returned to the control of Newham LEA.
What is Newham's panacea? The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should face up to the performance of its LEA. Newham is bottom of the league table in regard to the amount of money delegated to schools. It is almost bottom of the league table for exam results. It ranked 94th out of 96 LEAs in respect of average GCSE results over the last three years for which records are available, and it ranked next to last in the national tests for seven-year-olds: in the composite results and in English and maths separately, it came 104th out of 105. It did slightly better in science, coming 103rd. That is the record of Newham local education authority that Opposition Members seek to support.
Let us consider again what Mr. Scivetti, the chairman of the parent-teacher association, said in his letter: I would suggest it is the education of children at these LEA schools which is more likely to suffer and it is to these schools they"— Opposition Members— should direct their attention. Opposition Members have said on previous occasions and in previous questions to me, although not during this debate, that Stratford school is a waste of money. That was not repeated this evening. Opposition Members have made that very clear. They say that they believe that Newham is so efficient and streamlined that it could manage the school and provide high quality education.

§ Mr. Leighton
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that the Minister is casting aspersions. He said that one of us three hon. Members who represent Newham said that a school was a waste of money. I have never said that and I do not think that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have said that. The Minister should substantiate that remark or withdraw it with the rest of his tirade.

§ Mr. Eggar
It was the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who raised the question of the financing of Stratford school with me. I believe, from memory, that it was at Question Time.

§ Mr. Leighton
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never used those words. Will the Minister quote from where in Hansard I said that?

§ Mr. Eggar
The hon. Gentleman has, on previous occasions, made a statement about the cost of educating pupils at Stratford school. As he would surely want to know the facts, I can tell him that—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. If the Minister cannot show that he has done other than to misrepresent the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), he should withdraw his earlier remark.

§ Mr. Eggar
I am very willing to return to the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made about financing—

§ Mr. Straw
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is absolutely outrageous conduct from the Minister, who is trying to avoid responsibility for the school. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have just asked him to withdraw a totally unfounded remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). With respect, I invite you to ask him to withdraw it again.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I thought that the Minister was in the process of withdrawing it. I very much hope that he will do so.

§ Mr. Eggar
If I have misrepresented the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, of course I withdraw. However, the hon. Gentleman is aware that he has raised the question of the cost of financing pupils at Stratford with me.
The cost per pupil at Stratford is £2,600 per pupil on the roll today and that compares with Newham's standard spending assessment—the basis on which the Government's revenue support grant for the authority is determined—of £3,500 for 11 to 15-year-olds and £5,000 for over-16-year-olds.

§ Mr. Straw
What are the Government going to do about Stratford school?

§ Mr. Eggar
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wants to consider the record of Stratford school. Progress to date at the school has been remarkable. It now has 570 pupils, compared with only about 180 when Newham had finished luring children and teachers away. The school had almost to start from scratch, not knowing until the last moment how many pupils and staff it would have on 1 April 1991. Instead of attacking the school, Opposition Members should join in praising the head, the head's staff, parents and pupils for their sheer hard work and determination. [Interruption.] Again, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Blackburn says that no one has attacked the school. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West said at the beginning of the debate that the governors, the head and the senior staff should leave the school. If that is not attacking the school, it is riot clear to me what is.
Although the school continues to grow and to provide pupils with a good education, it is well known that there have been difficulties between the governing body and the head teacher. For Opposition Members, particularly those whose constituents are involved in the school, that should be a matter of concern and a reason to give the school support. It should not be an opportunity for political point scoring of the cheap sort that we heard tonight.
We have written to the governing body on several occasions to give advice and guidance on the sort of relationships that we would like to see. We shall soon send it the guidance that it asked for on the role of governors. This follows on from the advice that we have already given. For instance, the chairman of the governors was told in a letter from an official in January: The Secretary of State considers that the success of a grant-maintained school depends in no small measure upon a good working relationship between the headteacher of the school and the governing body. The headteacher is the governing body's professional adviser and their link between the formulation of policy and its execution in the school." In February, the chairman was informed of the Secretary of State's view on a disruption caused in the school earlier that day. He was told: 143 The Secretary of State is of the very strong view that the welfare of the children transcends any disagreement which you may have with the headteacher or any other persons and that it is wholly wrong to seek to involve pupils directly in such matters.

§ Mr. Spearing
I think that the Minister will agree that I said that the welfare of the pupils was the first consideration. He did not acknowledge that. Will he now acknowledge that by agreeing to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that the Minister ask his inspectors to go into the school to see that the norms that he mentions are indeed maintained?

§ Mr. Eggar
Her Majesty's inspectorate is closely involved with the school and will continue to be involved. It will continue to advise Ministers on the position. The hon. Member for Blackburn raised a point about auditors. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Department's auditors paid a visit to the school—I think in the middle of last week. As is well known, in addition to the representations that we have made to the governors, we have used our power under the Education Reform Act 1988 to appoint two first-rate additional governors to the school, Mrs. Daphne Gould and Professor Eric Bolton. They play a full and active part in the governing body.
The Government intend to assist the school to get over its difficulties and to ensure that, by whatever means necessary within our powers, the school knows what is expected of it and the right atmosphere is created to allow the head and her teaching team to get on with their job. We have not hesitated and we will not hestiate to use when necessary the powers given to us by Parliament. [Interruption.] We have made that clear to the governing body at every stage.
I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West say, again from a sedentary position, that we had been 144 chucking money at the school. That is exactly the point that I made earlier. The school is getting some £2,600 per pupil. That compares with the education SSA allowed to Newham council per pupil of some £3,500 for 11 to 16-year-olds and £5,000 for post-l6-year-olds. I might say that this great educational nirvana which is Newham chooses not to spend as much money per pupil on education as the Government allow it. The Government will continue to keep a close watch on the position at the school. We shall assist the governing body in the efficient and orderly carrying out of its work in every way possible. We will use our powers to intervene where necessary.
As was made clear tonight at the meeting of the parent-teacher association, the parents, pupils and teachers at Stratford want their school to succeed. They want and deserve a first-class education for their children. They must not be put off that objective by the negative approach of Labour Members. Given time, patience, assistance and support, Stratford school will go from strength to strength. It deserves the support of everyone, including the Members of Parliament who represent the area, in its continuing work for the pupils of its community. I trust that, after this debate, Opposition Members and especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will have worked out their bile and will seek to support the school and the teachers there.
I thank the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for giving me this opportunity to place on record the Government's support for Stratford school and for the work of the head teacher and her team. I hope that all involved will allow them to settle down and allow the school to mature into the first-class school that I know that it is capable of becoming.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.