HC Deb 02 November 1993 vol 231 cc142-3
6. Mr. Rowe

To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in Kent, distinguishing between (a) primary and (b) secondary; and how many applications for grant-maintained status are under consideration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire)

Fifty-four secondary schools and 12 primary schools in Kent are already self-governing and enjoying the freedom that grant-maintained status brings. A further seven secondary schools and seven primary schools are in the process of acquiring GM status.

Mr. Rowe

Does not that remarkable figure clearly demonstrate how popular the policy of grant-maintained schools is? Will my hon. Friend comment on the recent article by the director of education in Kent, who, apparently relying on the convention that officials are immune from political attack, chose to attack in an exaggerated and extraordinary form the policy of the Government?

Mr. Squire

I agree with my hon. Friend's praise for self-governing schools. I also agree that the article by the director of education, which was published in The Times Educational Supplement, was both inaccurate and misleading. That is not only my view; I notice that, the following week, the TES published letters from a significant number of head teachers and others making precisely the same points.

Let me reassure my hon. Friend that in Kent and elsewhere, as parents have those ballots, they will draw their lessons from the success of schools on the ground rather than from the articles to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Don Foster

Will the Minister acknowledge that the disgraceful decision to allow only voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools to apply for moneys under the new technology schools initiative is nothing more than a bribe to persuade yet more schools in Kent and elsewhere to opt out? Will he explain why the advice of the chairman of the City Technology Colleges trust was ignored? What further bribes does he propose to offer to try to boost the flagging grant-maintained school initiative?

Mr. Squire

The simplest answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to say that he is wrong. The policy to which he refers was highlighted by the Prime Minister in 1991, it was in our election manifesto in 1992, it was in my right hon. Friend's White Paper following that and it was in the legislation.

Mr. Dunn

Given that grant-maintained schools in Kent moved out of local education authority control only because parents wished to do so, is the Minister aware that the Lib-Lab controlled Kent county council is now objecting to all grant-maintained school applications, yet did not have the guts to tell the people of Kent of its policy during and before the recent Kent county council elections?

Mr. Squire

I find it sad that the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend took place in Kent and, for all I know, in other counties. In the forthcoming elections, I hope that the parties—whatever their views on self-governing schools—will not hesitate to put their views before the electorate. If, like Opposition Members, they believe that self-governing schools are wrong, they should say so and make that clear to the electorate before they vote.