§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what educational reason influenced the decision not to approve the proposal of Surrey County Council to abolish selection for admission to secondary schools in the area of Walton-on-Thames and Hersham in Surrey.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)My Lords, I apologise for the length of this reply. On June 18, 1971, my right honourable friend approved Surrey's proposal, submitted under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, to change the character of Rydens Secondary School so that it should become comprehensive and admit pupils at age 13 without reference to ability and aptitude. The Surrey Authority had given notice of their intention of ending the 11-plus selection arrangements for children living in the area to be served by the Rydens School. The effect of this would have been to withdraw from pupils in the area any opportunity of qualifying for a place in either a maintained grammar school or a non-maintained grammar school at which Surrey take places.
My right honourable friend received complaints from parents about the Authority's decision and she concluded that their proposed arrangements were unreasonable because they had the effect of eliminating all choice of school for those children who might qualify for a grammar school place. The factors which my right honourable friend took into account 180 included the nature of the area, the schools available, the possibility of some parents wanting to send their children to denominational and single sex schools, and the fact that the Authority's arrangements made no provision for any exceptions. Accordingly my right honourable friend directed the Authority under Section 68 of the 1944 Education Act to modify their arrangements to as to enable children living in the area to be served by the Rydens School to take part at their parents' request in the Authority's arrangements for the selection of candidates for grammar school places.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that lengthy reply—and since it is so lengthy I hope the House will be a little indulgent—may I ask whether he could tell the House, since the proposal to abolish selection at Walton and Hersham in 1971 was specifically set out in the declaration of intent as approved by the County Council in 1967 and accepted by the then Secretary of State, how it can now be regarded as unreasonable of the County Council to wish to implement that policy, having regard to the fact that they have already begun to implement it at Frimley and Camberley, and especially in the light of Circular 10/70, which was supposed to make authorities freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, the proposal which the Surrey Education Authority published required approval by the Secretary of State under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, and in fact the proposals have received approval from my right honourable friend. The special proposals by the education authority to exclude children in this area from taking any entrance examinations set for children outside the area did not form part of these proposals, and did not form part of my right honourable friend's decision under Section 13. They formed part of a direction under Section 68.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, in view of the reply that has been given to your Lordships and the attitude that has been adopted by the Secretary of State, would the noble Lord say whether the Secretary of State is in fact saying that she will not approve any proposal to end selection and eliminate separatism? Does it mean that 181 she will insist upon the retention of grammar schools whenever reorganisation proposals are submitted?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, my right honourable friend will decide on Section 13 proposals on their merits in each individual case.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, while appreciating what the Minister said in reply to my Question, may I ask him whether he is aware that the County Council has already begun the abolition of selection and separatism at Frimley and Camberley? While I am fully aware of the use that has been made of Section 68 of the Act (which is rather unusual), I wonder whether he will tell us where, under Sections 6, 17 and 57, as stated in the letter from the Department, the county are in any way at fault?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, the letter which was sent to the Authority by my right honourable friend referred to Section 8 of the Education Act, which deals with providing schools "sufficient in number, character and equipment" to provide suitable education for the different ages, abilities and aptitudes of pupils. Section 17 refers to articles of government, which of course contain provisions about admission arrangements for schools, and Section 37 refers to school attendance orders. Section 6 of the 1953 Act is the section which refers to local education authorities being empowered, if they wish, to take up places at direct grant schools and also at independent schools. I leave to the judgment of your Lordships the reasons why my right honourable friend took the decision she did in the light of the extremely long Answer which I gave at the beginning of this exchange.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the very bad Press she has had with regard to her decision, and in particular to The Times Educational Supplement of July 2, in which the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he was Minister of Education in 1957, appeared to be completely at variance with the action she has now taken?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I think that if the noble Lord will look at Circular 10/70, which my right honourable friend issued soon after June of last year, it will be seen that it is felt that there should be freedom—or rather more freedom; the word used was that it should be "freer"—for people to decide on education. This includes parents as well as elected representatives.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, this is very important, and it is a matter of national importance, not purely local. The noble Lord has just said that Circular 10/70 said that people should be freer. Paragraph 2 states—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I think the noble Lord has had quite his fair share of supplementaries, if I may say so. I should not wish to deny him another, but could he perhaps phrase it in an interrogatory manner?
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for drawing the point to my attention, and I apologise if, because of the involved nature of the subject, I did not follow the usual form. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the article in The Times Educational Supplement to which I have referred said:
As he saw it, the Minister should not override an education authority even when he thought they were wrong, unless he is convinced that they have not fairly considered the case or that their decisions are not merely wrong but perverse.Will he please convey that to his right honourable friend?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I have given the noble Lord references and full explanations of the sections in the Acts under which my right honourable friend felt that she must direct the education authority. I think I can do no more than that.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord said that his right honourable friend would judge each case on its merits. He also said that included in the merits was the nature of the area. Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us something about the nature of this particular 183 area which justified segregation?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, the reference to the "nature of the area" was, I think, to the ease of travel in the area; and of course careful note is always taken of the number of pupils who may not go to the school, which has in this case been approved as a new comprehensive school.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, is it not true that in the Secretary of State's own constituency the authority has not answered her clarion call for freedom but has gone ahead with its own plans for comprehensive education?
LORD BELSTFEADMy Lords, I should be delighted to answer that question. The House went into this matter at great length on an Unstarred Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, nearly a year ago, when it was my pleasure to be able to point out to the House that comprehensive education, singularly successful in many areas of this country, has been divided between authorities—some Conservative, some Labour and many independent.