§ 3.10 p.m.
§ 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 whether they intend that Surrey County Council shall continue to select pupils for admission to Whyteleafe County School for Girls, having regard to the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to approve that authority's proposal to cease to maintain that School as a separatist establishment within a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)My Lords, the effect of my right honourable friend's decision is that the Whyteleafe County School for Girls remains a school which admits pupils by reference to their ability.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, I find the Minister's reply quite evasive and I would ask him whether he is aware that the decision of the Secretary of State in disapproving the proposal of the Surrey County Council with regard to the future of this school is another case where she is denying the local education authority the greater freedom promised in Circular 10/70? Further, will he please answer my Question, whether they intend that the County Council shall admit pupils to this school by way of selection procedure?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, this is a proposal which was part of a package of proposals, 22 in number, of which my right honourable friend approved 21. Those proposals which were approved included proposals for three comprehensive schools in this area, at Warlingham, Caterham and Oxted. There is therefore no reason, unless parents so wish, why children should be subject to selection procedures. The noble Lord referred to greater freedom; and certainly the word "freer" was used in Circular 10/70; but I should have thought that a comparison 304 between Circular 10/70, my right honourable friend's circular, and Circular 10/66 would show the truth of this.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this decision with regard to the Whyteleafe School, which is a two-form entry grammar school, seriously affects the comprehensive schools of De Stafford and Warlingham by the use of highly qualified staff who would be more usefully employed in the other schools; that it will affect the position with regard to primary education in so far as the distribution of children for primary education is concerned, and that it will also affect the position of the middle school which is approved and for which there will now be no building? Does the noble Lord say that this is really the right sort of decision to take on behalf of a very small minority of the total number of children involved in this area?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, by way of comparison, the sizes of the three comprehensive schools are up to 1,200. Those are the proposals, and the noble Lord has himself given the size in terms of form entry of the Whyteleafe School, which comes to something in excess of 300; and of course there will be a sixth form, which I think at the moment has 98 girls. Those are the comparative sizes. As regards any further proposals from the authority, my right honourable friend is always ready to receive proposals from Surrey under Section 13 of the Act.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the effect of this action is to demote the comprehensive schools, and that there are no comparable facilities available for boys? This is especially something for a two-form entry grammar school, and the outlook for grammar school education in the whole area is virtually nil in the case of boys. Does the noble Lord consider that right?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the view of my right honourable friend was put in a letter to the Surrey County Council dated February 1, 1972. In answer to the noble Lord, the relevant part states that she has reached this decision after careful consideration of all the relevant facts, of the views expressed by local government electors (there 305 happen to be 7,000 objections to the closure of this particular school) and of the authority's observations on the objections received. She had regard to the desirability of preserving, wherever possible, existing opportunities open to parents and children—that is something which this Government think is important—and, in her view, the balance of educational advantage lies in enabling this school to continue to make its contribution to the provision available in the area. As regards the noble Lord's point about the site of a middle school, I have already referred to Section 13 of the Act and have said that my right honourable friend would be very ready to consider a proposal.
§ Lord GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister please to answer my original Question, which was whether the Government intend that the County Council shall select children for admission to this school? May I, by way of another supplementary, put to him that the closure of this school and its incorporation with De Stafford is an integral part of a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation? Will he also accept it from me?—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I know that technically the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, is casting his supplementaries in an interrogative form, but I think they are tending to become a little declamatory.
§ Lord GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the disapproval of the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe, as my noble friend Lord Pargiter has indicated, has created a most serious situation within the area in that the buildings are urgently needed to complete Plowden reorganisation of primary eduction?
§ LORD BELSTEADYes, my Lords. That relates to the bulk of the proposals, 21 out of 22, which my right honourable friend approved.
§ Lord PARGITERMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree that if there is anything worse than an obstinate doctrinaire man it is an obstinate doctrinaire woman?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, in a debate about three or four months ago I told your Lordships that my right honourable friend had received about 3,700 proposals for a change in character, or for the establishment or closure of schools, and that she had refused in 57 cases. I thought that was not very many, since in educational considerations the wise use of resources, local needs and local wishes are three criteria on which she feels she should base her decisions. What your Lordships may prefer to know is that those 3,700 proposals included 1,400 in respect of secondary schools, and of those my right honourable friend has refused only 35. I do not call that doctrinaire.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would the noble Lord care to answer the question which my noble friend has put to him on two occasions? Can the County Council, the local education authority, select children to send to this school?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, it is entirely up to the County Council. The arrangements for admissions to a voluntary school are entirely up to either the County Council or its mangers or governors.
§ LORD GARNSWORTHYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that reply indicates that it is the intention of the Government that the County Council shall continue to admit by way of selection?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, perhaps this ought to be the last word on this matter. The Government received a proposal under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. Incidentally, part of that section was redrafted by the previous Government in 1968, specifically in relation to the changing character of schools. The initiative therefore always lies with the people who are making the proposal—the local education authority. All that the Government can do is to say either "Yes" or "No". If noble Lords really want legislation to sweep away that section, then they ought to tell the House so. They did not do it from 1965 to 1970.