---

Column 1153

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rost, Peter

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Speller, Tony

Squire, Robin

Steen, Anthony

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Sumberg, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Walters, Sir Dennis

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

Additional duties with regard to school inspections

( ).--It shall be the duty of any registered inspector conducting an inspection under section 9, when requested to do so by the Chief Inspector, to report--

(a) as to whether proper practices have been observed in the compilation of information required to be provided under section 16 by the proprietor or governing body of the school ; and

(b) on any other matter connected to such information required under section 16.'.-- [Mr. Murphy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause refers to the additional duties of privatised or registered inspectors, especially in relation to the information required to be provided under clause 16 on the so-called league tables.

The new clause will ensure that schools are compared and proper practices adhered to, and it goes to the heart of the Bill. In the past two days, there has been much reference to the benefits and good aspects of the Bill. The new clause touches on the very essence of the competitiveness of the proposed system and the market forces that will govern education in England and Wales. It is a safeguard against the excesses of the folly of the Bill. The people of Wales involved in education, whether teachers, parents, inspectors or anyone else in the education world, are deeply opposed to the Bill and would be very much in favour of the mitigating effect of the new clause. The Bill is opposed by the Welsh branch of the Association of County Councils, the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Welsh County Education Officers Society,

---

Column 1154

the Welsh National Union of Teachers, and the Welsh division of the National Association of Head Teachers. Indeed, all those who know anything about education in the Principality believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and that the new clause will be a means of mitigating some of its worst effects.

The Government have, however, chosen to impose their dogma on Wales, when not a scrap of evidence suggests that we need either league tables to compare secondary or primary schools, or private companies of inspectors to do a job that has been done successfully by Her Majesty's inspectors of Welsh schools since 1907.

League tables and the proposed privatised inspectors are based on the marketplace rather than sound educational principles. The Government have sculptured the education service in the Principality into a monument to market forces. A school's viability will now depend not on its educational worth but on the number of pupils that it attracts, and open enrolment and local management of schools provide the preconditions. In turn, viability will depend on the school's so-called "success" based on the ludicrous and silly notion of league tables comparing schools. Pupils will be seen as a financial resource and teachers will "teach to the test". All 59 of our Welsh inspectors will be drawn into that ludicrous and daft jungle.

Schools will go for the cheapest and least stringent inspectors and the divide between our poorer and more wealthy areas will be widened even further. The relationship between pupil and teacher and between inspector and school will be reduced to the cash nexus.

Those market forces and a privatised inspectorate would not produce proper information for a useful comparison between schools. That is why if, by any chance the Bill becomes law, the registered inspectors would have to look at the nature of the information.

Today, the Secretary of State for Wales, in an answer to a written parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), announced some details about how the inspectorate in Wales will be organised. What he said is inadequate and unsatisfactory. The creation of private companies of inspectors will fly in the face of more than 80 successful years in the history of Welsh education. The Welsh Office has ignored that, and we are deeply concerned that there is no commitment to a distinct Welsh inspectorate like the one that has existed for nearly 100 years. We compare that with the situation in Scotland, where the Government have already committed HMI Scotland to continuing. In Wales, the distinctive flavour of a Welsh inspectorate will be overturned because of a written parliamentary answer.

The Secretary of State has still given no date when the system will be introduced and the Welsh Office is deliberately suppressing the Valerie Adams internal review into the Welsh inspectorate. We have asked the Secretary of State many times to reveal what is in the report. The Minister of State, Welsh Office said only last week that he would not give the House or the people of Wales the results of that internal survey.

HMI in Wales, which is deeply threatened by the Bill, has been responsible for much that is good in Welsh education. Recently, when the House considered the GCSE and the national curriculum, the Welsh inspectorate gave our curriculum a distinctly Welsh flavour. For example, it initiated a GCSE in Welsh history in the English language, which is taught throughout Wales.

---

Column 1155

Welsh inspectors advise on research projects specific to Wales and successfully liaise with schools, colleges and universities. There is a consensus on education in Wales. We have no teacher baiting, there are very few opted-out schools and there is little enthusiasm for the views of the Centre for Policy Studies. A dogmatic system of education has been foisted on us by the English Department of Education and Science and it is not wanted in Wales. From 1993, the Welsh Office will have responsibility for all Welsh education. With a curriculum council for Wales and a strong and vigorous HMI in Wales, much could be achieved. But much will be destroyed by the Bill.

If the Government insist on league tables, new clause 7 is vital. Otherwise, schools will go for the cheapest and less able inspectors. We must also take into account the present cost of inspections in the Principality. Given that it takes six months to plan, inspect and report on a school, and that some 15 to 20 inspectors may take part in the inspection of an average secondary school for about two weeks, we estimate that the inspection of an average secondary school in Wales costs about £80,000 and a primary school costs about £40,000. Where on earth will schools in Wales, which must suffer under the burden of local management, find that much money for proper inspections? It simply will not work.

The Welsh people deserve better. We do not want our schools to be inspected at the cheapest price, and we do not want to see an end to our Welsh inspectorate. We want an education standards commission to be set up in Wales, which will stand for independence,

professionalism and the highest possible quality. The Welsh people will overwhelmingly reject the proposals at the forthcoming general election.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : I did not have the opportunity of serving on the Committee on the Bill, and I want to intervene only briefly to comment on clause 7. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies, he will comment on whether this clause would allow the inspectors to act in something like an advisory role? I am very much in favour of all that the Government are doing in the Bill, and I am most disappointed to have heard the comments of the Opposition spokesman, who does not want to see examination league results.

It has been a great shock to the people of Bolton to find out that their primary schools came out so low in tests on seven-year-olds ; we came out in the bottom third of the country, when we are used to coming out in the top third. Is it possible for inspectors who have a good deal of knowledge to give a little advice where such advice might be needed?

I have in mind one or two schools which could benefit from a bit of additional promotion. A very good primary school in my constituency is Egerton county primary school. The headmaster, Mr. Brian Hall, had an opportunity to meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been asked by Mr. Hall to present to the Minister a memento of his visit to Bolton, which I have here. I should like to give this excellent promotional material for the school to my hon. Friend, who is now taking his seat on the Front Bench, at the end of this short debate.

Is it possible for a school such as Egerton county prrimary school to be given some advice on how it can promote itself? It is an excellent school but, although it has over 100 pupils and gives a good education, it is affected

---

Column 1156

by falling school rolls. Would it be possible for such a school to be advised by people such as inspectors on whether, for instance, the small school special allowance could be managed in a way more favourable to the school? Although it is in a metropolitan area, it might perhaps be more easily looked after as if it were a rural school because of its location on the northern edge of the borough where there is no high density population immediately adjacent to it. If the school suffers a severe reduction in numbers it can be seriously affected by the way in which the reforms work.

Will my hon. Friend comment, therefore, on whether inspectors could help fulfil, under the new clauses, any sort of advisory role or whether elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for inspectors to help schools in that way? We would welcome anything in this Bill which would help such schools to promote and improve themselves.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : If I had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring in a tea towel and hold it in front of himself as if he had something to hide, I could have brought in a matching tea towel. They are obviously generally on sale. A company, I think in Birmingham, must have been distributing them round schools. I was given one by one of my godchildren for Christmas. So far it has hung on the kitchen door, but if we really have to go in for this, I suppose I too could bring one in and wave it around.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I must discourage this sort of presentation in the Chamber.

8.45 pm

Mr. Hughes : I was indicating that I had not thought of bringing in a tea towel, but obviously the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) thought it a good idea.

I want to speak in support of new clause 7. I support the specific wording of the new clause and am sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He will know, I think, that I owe the majority of my school education to the Principality, in Glamorgan and in Breconshire. Educational standards, which in Wales are generally far higher than in England, together with the Welsh education tradition, must be retained at all costs. The Welsh inspectorate has certainly done a good job.

What I want specifically to do is push at a door which I believe is already partly open. I wonder whether I could have the Minister's attention to this specific point. New clause 7 seeks to add to clauses 9 and 16 the possibility of reporting on specific items in relation to schools. Clause 9 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that the inspections cover city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts ; that is clear from clause 9 of the Bill as drafted.

Clause 16 of the Bill as drafted says that the Secretary of State may exercise his power to make regulations under this section, and shall do so with a view to making available information which is likely to

"assist parents in choosing schools for their children" and, in clause 16(3),

"increase public awareness of the quality of education provided by the schools concerned and of the educational standards achieved in these schools. "

The Minister may be aware that at present there is no requirement that city technology colleges should operate

---

Column 1157

an appeal system against refusal of admission. I raised this matter at Education Question Time the other day with the Secretary of State, and I had a helpful reply. He said,

"I will certainly consider the point, because it is our aim to put CTCs on a level with others in regard to funding and other aspects." [ Official Report, 28 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c.803] The clear implication is that because they are publicly funded, at least in part, all the same criteria should apply to CTCs and their users as to other state-funded schools. I ask the Minister as a matter of urgency to consider this. I appreciate that it cannot exactly be done by means of the funding as set out in the new clause, but it comes within the sort of issue that is being probed by the new clause and by my question. Will the Minister consider amending the Bill before it finishes its passage through Parliament to require an appeals system against refusal of admission to city technology colleges?

It will be useful to know--it does not require publication of names--how the appeal system works and how many appeals succeed comparatively across the country. Such information may follow, but it is not clear that it will follow from the Bill as drafted. There is an appeal system in all other schools, and comparative data as to what percentage succeed and fail would be useful. It could not, however, be done in relation to city technology colleges because there is no requirement for such a procedure.

I have talked to the principal and staff at Bacon's college in Docklands, and I can tell the Minister that one of the complaints about the present legal structure, procedure and regulations is that there is no provision for any re-hearing of applications for admission which are turned down if, as happens, a city technology college is a popular school and is likely to have a full roll and full admissions. It is vital to have some clearly independent way of reviewing the decisions about selection made across the range. We have had debates and differences about CTCs, and I do not tonight want to go into those issues again. I do not want now to argue again the merits of city technology colleges. I simply want to press the Minister tonight to say that he will be serious in joining his Secretary of State in seeing whether, before the Bill completes its passage, this omission in the original legislation can be corrected and pupils and their parents in this one category of school, looked after by inspectors and included in this legislation, can have the same rights as pupils and parents in other schools. I do not think that the principle is objected to, so I hope that we can agree on establishing a new practice. It must be done now if it is to be of any benefit to those who are currently applying with a view to admission from September 1992.

---