Education in Inner London (Hansard, 16 February 1988)

§ Baroness David
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, the amendments which the Government are tabling today to the Education Reform Bill will secure the transfer of education responsibilities in 1990. The introduction of a separate Bill would inevitably prolong the uncertainty about the future of education in inner London. What is needed is an early decision so that the urgent task of improving London's education service may begin as swiftly as possible.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, I must say again that I am shocked that a decision has been taken not to have a separate Bill, because a great deal of consultation has to go on.

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Baroness David
My Lords, what arrangements have been made for consultation with the parents, governors and teachers in the inner London schools? If, as I gather, the clauses are to be put down today, does that not leave a short time for those to be discussed before the matter is debated in Committee in a week or two?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, that may well be a matter for another place. The Government's timetable Motion in another place is the most generous for 20 years. The Government have made it plain that they will allow additional time to debate these issues. Tomorrow there is to be a full day's extra debate in another place and a supplementary timetable for the Committee and Report stages is being agreed. There will be a full discussion. As we discussed last week on the Statement, the whole question of the Government's manifesto commitment and the consultation process that followed have been taken into account in introducing these changes to the Bill.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, if I may briefly come back, the Minister has not answered my question about the consultations with parents, governors and teachers.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, we believe that we have already had a very full consultation process on the principle behind the changes. We had it in the lead up to the general election last year.

Noble Lords
Oh!

§ Baroness Hooper
We had it in the consultation process which followed the general election and we are continuing to have it. As the Government have always said, they are listening to the comments that are being made, and in taking those comments into account they are making these changes.

§ Lord Alport
My Lords, what factors have arisen since the Government legislated in the last Parliament for a directly elected education authority for London to make them now decide to abolish it? Do the Government realise that the certain consequences of abolition will be to increase the cost of education in London to central and local funds and to gravely damage the education opportunities for the majority of children in London?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, during the debate on the Statement last week, we discussed fully why the arrangements for the break-up of the Inner London Education Authority were being changed. The Question tabled today is directed at how those changes will be taken into account.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, that does not mean that there was a debate on the Statement. We do not have debates on Statements. There has been no opportunity so far to debate the matter.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive me. Perhaps I should have said discussion.

§ Lord Rawlinson of Ewell
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many school governors in central London who will be absolutely delighted at the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, yes.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, is the Minister aware that professional opinion is united in the view that dismemberment of the Inner London Education Authority will lead to a decline in the quality of educational standards in inner London? Is she further aware that in the House some two weeks ago she misquoted me in a misleading way by suggesting that my views were out of line with those of other professions, when they are not? Can she say why the Government are ignoring the views of experts on the matter?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I shall start by apologising to the noble Baroness for referring to her in her absence last week. I had no intention of mentioning her name. However, it was expressly at the request of noble Lords opposite that I referred to her by name. Nevertheless, I believe that I quoted faithfully from her statement.
As regards the results of discussions with educationists, I believe that it has been made clear in terms of the standards of education in inner London that in recent years the whole system has been in turmoil. The step that we intend to take will provide a once and for all answer to the question of 500 responsibility for London's education service. The interests of the children and the ratepayers of inner London are paramount.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, was not the Question about why there was no separate Bill? Are not we therefore in danger of debating the merits of the decision?

§ Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, I return to the Question. Many of us feel that the Education Reform Bill, as it is at present, is a complex Bill, spreading over a wide region of the educational field. Surely, therefore, to add this issue to the Bill will only further complicate it. Will the Minister speak to her right honourable friend and tell him that many of us feel that it would be far better to deal with the matter in two separate Bills rather than in one gigantic one?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, the issue of ILEA was in any event to be debated during the course of the Bill. We are not deviating from the principle; we are merely deviating somewhat in the detail. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to ask their friends in the inner London boroughs not to indulge in expensive and acrimonious campaigns, but to accept the realities of life and to co-operate in an orderly transfer of functions in the children's best interests.

§ Lord Stewart of Fulham
My Lords, does the Minister realise that she first said that the future of ILEA was a detail—a view with which most Londoners would not agree—and secondly, that it is wrong for people who disagree with the Government to say so? Does she stand by that?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I said that the principle of the changes to ILEA and the devolution of ILEA to the boroughs was already well-established. It is merely a question of the method by which we shall do it and the timing.

§ Lord Alport
My Lords, surely the Minister's assertion that there is general agreement that ILEA should be abolished is not true. I remember in the last Parliament that there was strong opposition in the House to that proposal.

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Alport
My Lords, does the Minister remember that in the last Parliament there was strong opposition to the abolition of ILEA, with the result that the Government had to change their policy halfway through the Bill's passage?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I am well aware that there is a variety of opinion about our proposed plans. However, we believe that we are responding to the wishes of the majority on the issue.

§ Lord Ritchie of Dundee
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a school in the borough of Lambeth, which I happen to be visiting tomorrow, the head teacher of which is utterly dismayed at the prospect of her school being handed over to the tender mercies of the local authority, whose leader 501 has described herself as "a militant lesbian", the Labour Party as "racist", and Tory policies as leading to the gas chambers? What shall I say to that head teacher when she asks me my opinion tomorrow?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties and those of the head teacher. We believe that, taking together all the proposed reforms in the education system, schools in small boroughs will be in a better position than they might have been had those reforms not been put in place.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government's policy is to destroy the largest education authority in Great Britain? Ought not such a proposal be subjected to all the procedures of Parliament?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, it will be.