House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Nov 1992

Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : The hon. Gentleman refers to the Government's commitment to education, but is it not true that, in real terms, spending on education each year since 1979 has been less than that in other areas of Government spending? If the Government were spending the same percentage as was spent in 1979, an additional £1.5 billion would have been spent on education in the last year alone. Those are the real figures.

Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Gentleman takes no account of falling school rolls. That is the key here, and it was the basis of the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to surplus places. It may be that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech.

The problem facing the Government is that they have no control over the way in which funds are spent. To take up an illustration given by my right hon. Friend when he opened the debate, when we look at Birmingham, the nation's second city, we see that in 1991-92 its standard

Column 667

spending assessment for education amounted to£457 million. Spending on education in the same year amounted to £392 million, so its standard spending assessment was underspent by £65 million. That illustrates some of the problems that have to be overcome by the present system of administering education.

The priorities of some local authorities are not always those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Most of us want more money to be spent in the classroom, yet all too frequently resources are wasted on matters that do not relate to the child in the classroom. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is anxious to move forward with grant- maintained schools. With grant-maintained schools, the apron strings that secure schools to the local education authority are cut. We see a much closer relationship develop in the grant-maintained school between the school, its teachers and its governing body and the local community.

Grant-maintained schools are a substantial success. Parents like them. There is little doubt that by the end of this Parliament half of all the nation's secondary schools will have applied for grant-maintained status. Grant-maintained schools use resources best. They can make decisions more quickly and in their own best interests.

Those three specific issues have to be contrasted with what happens in the local education authority school. First, it does not enjoy the same level of resources, for some of that school's money is used to fund the local education authority. Secondly, decisions relating to that school are often taken at local education authority level, and the LEA may be some miles away from the school. Thirdly, the LEA's consideration of the needs of that school is sometimes distracted because of the conflicting interests of other schools within its area.

It is also interesting to note that grant-maintained schools encourage a greater sense of involvement by both parents and governors. It was significant that in a recent article in The Times, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, said :

"The single most potent factor in academic success is parental involvement and support."

Although some of us might challenge his view about parental involvement being the single most potent factor, it plays a substantial part. The greater involvement of both parents and governors in the running of a school, which is seen as their own school, must be good for the education of the children in that school.

It is interesting to note that Opposition Members are beginning to come round to that point. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to a press release that was issued in June this year by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was then the official Opposition spokesman on education. I shall quote what he said in full :

"It must be recognised that local circumstances will vary. The community of schools is under threat of being broken up but parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents."

That may not have been a blinding flash of light on the road to Blackburn or even Dewsbury, but it certainly represents a shift of opinion by Opposition Members.

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on those areas where substantial

Column 668

numbers of parents have been interested in opting out? The London borough of Wandsworth's appalling record and its total contempt for the educational values and standards of the schools that are trying to educate children in that area has led to parents very reluctantly--I speak as one parent in that position--taking the view that anything is better than to have one's children under the regime of the London borough of Wandsworth. That factor has led some people to vote for opting out. I should have thought that that would be a matter of serious concern to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) rose--

Mr. Pawsey : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but one of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), also has great knowledge of what goes on in the London borough of Wandsworth and its neighbouring authorities. Therefore the hon. Gentleman will, I know, forgive me if I give way to my hon. Friend who will put the other point of view.

Mr. Bowis : I suspect that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) knows no more about Greenwich than he does about Fulham, which he left not so long ago. The truth is that Wandsworth's schools only recently escaped from the Inner London education authority's regime, under which 45 per cent. of parents voted with their feet and took their children out of that borough's education system. They are now coming back. The schools are improving. Wandsworth is giving the go-ahead to those schools that wish to go grant-maintained and the results--attendance and everything else--in Wandsworth are better.

Mr. Pawsey : I was right to give way to my hon. Friend, who has given the hon. Member for Greenwich his come-uppance.

To return to the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who now leads for the official Opposition on education, I am reminded that when she was the shadow spokesman on the environment she was originally opposed to the sale of council houses, but that even she came round eventually to acceptance of that policy. I believe that history will repeat itself. Grant-maintained schools in the 1990s will be what the sale of council houses was in the 1980s, for the same fundamental reason : they give more power and more responsibility to the individual and reduce the role of the town hall and the bureaucrat in people's lives. I am convinced that most parents know best what is right for their children, and grant-maintained status encourages that laudable objective. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not duck the problem of failing schools, especially those in inner cities. Some schools have failed their pupils, and LEAs have not always been able to rise to the challenge of the failing school and to lift to an acceptable level the quality of education at the school. Under the Bill, where a school is identified as being at risk, the Secretary of State will be empowered to appoint an education association to take over its management until it regains and maintains essential standards. That is a fallback position, which will be adopted only after the LEA has been given every opportunity to put its house or the school in order.

The education association will be small. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and it will

Column 669

receive direct grant from central Government. It will have powers similar to those enjoyed by a grant- maintained school. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed this specific problem, because some inner-city schools have undoubtedly failed pupils and parents. The education association will bring new ideas and new minds to an old problem, and so often it is new ideas rather than money that are needed to answer the problem of the failing school.

The Bill makes it easier for specialist schools to emerge, and I look forward to their development. I want more schools to develop expertise in science, music and the technology that leads to engineering knowledge.

Hon. Members will recall that the title of the White Paper that gave birth to the Bill was "Choice and Diversity : A New Framework for Schools". There is little doubt that such a twin approach will advance the quality of education. Parents want more choice in the type and character of schools. The old idea that only one type of school can deliver education to all the nation's children is increasingly discredited. Children are not, thank God, identical. Some will always rise to the challenge of an academic environment, just as others will prefer a slower and perhaps more technical approach.

The Bill must ensure that children get the education that is best suited to their needs. The grant-maintained school provides more flexibility and autonomy and develops a stronger commitment among staff, parents and governors, which certainly results in better use of resources.

It has been patronisingly argued by Opposition Members that headmasters and school governing bodies lack the initiative, intelligence, expertise and enthusiasm to run their own schools and need the crutch of the local education authority. It has been argued that those schools cannot think for themselves or develop without the wisdom or guidance of the LEA. I have news for Opposition Members : most heads and governing bodies want more freedom to decide their own future. They are only too well aware of the shortcomings of the existing LEA system and want to improve their school and the education that it offers for the benefit of their children. The new Funding Agency for Schools will be responsible for recurrent and capital grants and will share with LEAs the duty of securing sufficient school places until 75 per cent. of pupils in an area are educated in grant- maintained schools. At that point, the funding agency alone will discharge that responsibility. It does not establish a son of LEA or set up an LEA by another name. The funding agency will have fewer powers, and essentially its job will be to allocate funds and not to direct the form of education in an area. Some, principally Opposition Members, say that we are centralising education, but that allegation is not borne out by the facts. We have reduced the role of the middle man in education--the LEA. Grant- maintained schools will have enhanced autonomy and greater responsibilities and the Department of Education will be responsible for providing funding. The interface that will be created by those two halves will do much to improve the quality and standard of state education and will give real local control. There will be no third party to interpret or distort the intentions of national Government as they apply to schools.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to small primary schools, especially those in small rural areas. I am

Column 670

pleased that they will be able to come together in clusters--[ Hon. Members-- : "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friends, who appreciate that point --making it easier for them to apply for grant-maintained status. Village schools with relatively few pupils do not feel able to apply for grant- maintained status. Under the Bill, that will be made much easier and more attractive. They, too, will share in the benefits that come from grant- maintained status.

I conclude by saying that Christmas is not too far away and by recalling my right hon. Friend's well-known sense of humour. The Bill reminds me of a Christmas cake. It is substantial, full of goodies and very fulfilling. I commend it to the House.

6.36 pm

Mr. Don Foster (Bath) : May I begin, even in his absence, by congratulating the Secretary of State on delivering a speech which at least he enjoyed ? Unfortunately, I did not enjoy it and I suspect that many people who are truly concerned about education would not have done so. I far preferred the measured speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).

Mr. Pawsey : He appreciated that.

Mr. Foster : I thought he might.

The Bill is the 17th education measure that the Government have introduced in the past 13 years. One gets the impression that the Tory approach is, "We shall keep on trying and might get it right one day." I believe that the Bill fails to get it right, and I hope to explain why I so believe. I also hope to deal with one or two of the points that the Secretary of State made directly to me.

I acknowledge that there is merit in some parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to those, and I agree with her comments about special educational needs, to which I add the subject of pupil attendance. There is some merit in the Bills's proposals on those subjects, and I hope that it will be possible to achieve all-party agreement on them in Committee.

For many, however, the biggest problem with the Bill is its omissions. It fails to tackle the key fundamental problem that is faced by many of our schools--underfunding. There is no commitment to ensure the massively increased funding that is so desperately needed to repair our rapidly crumbling school buildings, to provide more teachers, to reduce class sizes, to provide more opportunity for under-fives and to provide better equipment and more books. No doubt we shall have to wait until we hear what the Chancellor says in his autumn statement on Thursday. I suspect that none of us will hear any good news about overcoming the underfunding of schools. If the Bill is enacted, governors will still face the stark problem of choosing which books or which equipment not to purchase, or of choosing which teachers they will have to sack.

The Bill goes no way towards meeting the aims set out in the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity : A New Framework for Schools". I cannot see a single clause that will ensure that every child will have the best possible start in life. Indeed, I suggest that the chaos and division which

Column 671

the proposals will bring will go a long way towards harming the current quality of education in schools in England and Wales. I am sure that if he were here, the Secretary of State would have recalled that some months ago, I urged him to ensure that there was adequate consultation on the White Paper before the publication of the Bill. I specifically asked him to ensure that the consultation period did not cover only the summer holidays when it is most difficult for those directly concerned with education to produce co-ordinated responses. I know that I was not alone in making such a request. Clearly, the requests were largely ineffective, because the Secretary of State went ahead and the consultation period largely covered the summer holidays, with just a couple of weeks tacked on to the end.

What was proudly hailed by the Secretary of State as the largest ever piece of educational legislation has had what I understand to be almost the shortest consultation period attached to it. If what we hear is true, the shortness of that period has caught out even Department for Education officials. It is almost certain that the Bill will receive as many amendments from them as it will from Opposition Members.

One would think that the Government would have learnt their lesson from the poll tax with all its problems. The system of law-making used to be that we thought first and then legislated. The Government seem to see it the other way round--that we legislate first and think afterwards.

Perhaps it did not really matter that there was a short consultation period. After all, there is little evidence that the Government took much notice of the responses they received. The latest edition of Education magazine says :

"The Bill contains virtually no surprises. Nor does it reflect in any way the weight of opinion which so roundly questioned many of Mr. John Patten's original policy plans."

It is as if the Secretary of State and his Department are a black hole into which any vaguely dissenting voice disappears, never to be heard again and certainly never likely to influence the thinking of the Secretary of State.

It was, therefore, perhaps somewhat foolish of the Secondary Heads Association at its recent conference to complain, as many others have done, about the isolationist stance of the Secretary of State. It was perhaps even more foolish of the new president of the association to comment :

"Since the election the Secretary of State has refused to consult the very people, heads and deputies, who will be required to make his new proposals work."

It probably was foolish because the evidence suggests that, even when the Secretary of State consults, he takes only limited notice. The Secretary of State does not even take much notice of people who are normally his supporters. The Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils came across the reluctance of the Secretary of State to consult and then to listen. The association writes of its concerns that they were

"explained to the Secretary of State at a meeting with him obviously, time did not permit their reflection in the published Bill."

That is very charitable of the ACC. I suspect that the real reason was that the Secretary of State simply did not agree with the points made by the ACC.

Column 672

Mr. Bowis : I assume that the hon. Gentleman is about to enlighten the House on the process and procedures of consultation which led him in May to be in favour of every school being grant-maintained, but in July to believe that no school should be grant-maintained.

Mr. Foster : I have already said that I will turn to the points raised by the Secretary of State in a few minutes. I will pick up that point if the hon. Gentleman will wait a few moments. As we understand it, the Secretary of State has received hundreds of responses to the White Paper. I and many other hon. Members have received copies of many of those responses, which make interesting reading. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has referred to one response from the Conservative Education Association. It is so important that it is worth repeating one small extract from the document. The association says :

"The Government is nationalising the schools of England and Wales it represents a massive and dangerous increase in the power given to central government."

We have already heard from Conservative Members that there is now an attempt to disown that association and its comments.

Let us consider some other responses. It is believed that the intention that the unelected funding agency for schools should take over many of the functions of local education authorities will mean a marked loss of democratic accountability. That is the view of the Tory leader of Kingston upon Thames council. He continued : "In the place of the local LEA will be a remote national body, albeit with regional offices, which will be accountable only to the Secretary of State. It will be quite impossible for this body to respond flexibly to local needs, or to the problems of aggrieved parents."

Let us consider the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association. What did it have to say about the Bill and about the White Paper? The association described them as a "cause of serious concern". Organisations from all walks of life have criticised the White Paper, but it is clear that those comments have fallen on deaf ears. Their comments have dealt with many specific aspects of the Bill.

I touched earlier on the 39 or 44 increased powers that the Secretary of State will take on. Those 39 or so steps are steps towards the erosion of local accountability and local democracy. They are an attack on local government. That point is picked up by another of the responses to the White Paper :

"The Bill implies a profound shift in responsibility from local to national government for the provision of education that is of great constitutional significance."

Those are not my words, or the words of Liberal Democrats, Labour Members or trade unions. They are the words of the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils.

It is interesting to reflect on the debate on the Education Reform Act 1988. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said :

"The Secretary of State has taken more powers under the Bill than any other member of the Cabinet Within the parliamentary system, no Secretary of State should ever be allowed to hold such a degree of power."--[ Official Report, 1 December 1987 ; Vol. 123, c. 792-95.] Under this Bill, the Secretary of State will take on some 40 additional powers on top of those that he received from the 1988 Act. Is there no limit to the Department's desire to take all power to itself?

There is no doubt that the Bill is an attack on local government. It further erodes the shared responsibility

Column 673

between local and national government which was such an important feature enshrined in the Education Act 1944. Let us consider the major thrust of the legislation, which is the Government's desire to expand the grant-maintained sector despite having no evidence to suggest that a school will be able to deliver higher-quality education to its pupils merely by becoming a grant-maintained school.

The whole concept of opting out is beginning to create chaos and division in our education system. It is already leading to the two-tier system that we have sadly already seen in the national health service. It removes any opportunity for coherent strategic planning at a local and democratically accountable level. I intend to refer in a moment to the intervention of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about U-turns. However, let me say first that Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed opting out, and we are not alone in that. I referred a few moments ago to the present Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. This what he said about opting out five years ago : "Opting out should be dropped completely. It will undermine the whole of the basic educational system of this country."--[ Official Report, 1 December 1987 ; Vol. 123, c. 795.]

We understand why the Government are so keen to make it easier for schools to opt out. Like their proposals for city technology colleges, the Government's so-called grant-maintained revolution has turned out to be a damp squib. At the present rate of schools opting out, we will have to wait until the year 2150 before all schools have opted out. It is frightening to think that, in that period, there will have been another 200 major Education Bills through the House. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth say that he expected that more than 50 per cent. of schools would have applied for grant-maintained status by the end of this Parliament. That is well in excess of even the most optimistic dreams of the Secretary of State.

There is evidence elsewhere in the Bill of the Government's attempt to railroad grant-maintained status through. For example, governors may now decide to put forward proposals for opting out as any other business at about 10.30 pm at a governors' meeting when many of the governors may already have gone home. If they do that, there is no redress in the legislation.

The Government want to make opting out easier and they are also introducing a funding agency in England and its counterpart in Wales. The membership of those unelected quangos will be determined by the Secretary of State without any consultation. However, the Liberal Democrats share the Secretary of State's view in one respect at least. We accept--and we advocated it long before the Conservatives took it on board--that budgets and management decisions are best made at local school level. That is why we should like to see an extension of local management to all schools, not just to those that take the risky path of opting out.

We should like that extension to be contained within a local, democratically accountable strategic planning framework. That is the problem about the alleged U-turn to which the Secretary of State referred. He quite rightly referred to an article that appeared in a local newspaper. However, that article gave only the first half of the story, which is that we should like to see further delegation of power and responsibility to all schools. The article did not

Column 674

include the vital ingredient that that should happen within a strategic planning framework at the local level which is democratically accountable.

In that sense, we could almost argue that the Government are not being radical enough. Given that the Government are so wedded to open competition within education, it is surprising that in certain circumstances, they are limiting the period within which grant-maintained schools can obtain services from the local education authority.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replies, perhaps he can explain how, under the market philosophy in which the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues believe, the Government will limit the opportunity for grant-maintained schools to purchase services for their LEAs when, for example, the LEAs provide the best quality service at the best possible price.

The Bill is not as radical as we should like it to be in other aspects. We are very sympathetic towards the proposals to amalgamate the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council, although we should like to make changes to the composition. However, given the Government's clear wish to see vocational and academic qualifications given equal status, we should like the Government to go further and integrate into the new body the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

Clearly there is not enough time for me to examine all aspects of the Bill today. We shall be able to examine those aspects in Committee. We want to examine the possibility of the reintroduction of selection by the back door. The Secretary of State assured us that clauses 230 and 231 will not do that. We also want to consider carefully the proposals for sponsor governors in voluntary-aided schools, because at first sight that appears to be a mechanism by which those with the largest cheque books can buy themselves places on governing bodies.

Not long ago, the former inspector of schools, Mr. Eric Bolton, predicted :

"if we were able to lift the veil hiding the Government's intention for Education, we would find, not a coherent vision--worrying or otherwise--but uncertainty, confusion and incoherence."

The veil has been partly lifted with the Bill, and Eric Bolton's predictions have been justified. The Bill creates more confusion, uncertainty and inherent instability than it resolves.

The Secretary of State told us in the House recently that he had made an excellent speech at the Tory party conference. I disagreed with him and I have found very few people who would agree with him. The Secretary of State would now have us believe that the Bill is equally excellent. I disagree with that as well. The Bill is bad and it does not tackle the fundamental problems facing our schools today. It will increase division and set school against school, teacher against teacher and even pupil against pupil. That is why I and my colleagues will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill in the Lobby tomorrow.

6.57 pm

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) : I warmly welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on introducing legislation which will rank alongside the other important measures that the Government have introduced to promote parental

Column 675

choice and, above all else, higher standards. The drive for higher standards lies at the heart of the Government's education programme. We believe that higher standards can be achieved through the exercise of parental choice.

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The word "standards" passed her lips only once, in passing, at the end of her speech. She said very little about how she would raise standards. The word "choice" did not pass her lips at all. Anyone who heard the hon. Lady would be driven to the conclusion that standards appear low down the Opposition's agenda and that choice does not appear on it at all. That is the great difference between Opposition and Conservative Members. The drive for higher standards is the fundamental objective of our Government. I welcome the reforms in the Bill, which put in place the necessary framework for the achievement of higher standards. That framework will be warmly welcomed by my constituents.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned five schools which voted for grant-maintained status on Friday. I am proud to say that one of those schools is in my constituency. At Bushey Hall school, a popular and well-regarded school, 83 per cent. of the parents voted in favour of grant- maintained status. That decision came hard on the heels of the vote of parents at another school to opt for grant-maintained status. At Mount Grace school, another popular school, 89 per cent. of the parents voted in favour of grant-maintained status.

The parents at those schools will be most surprised to hear what Opposition Members and especially the hon. Member for Dewsbury said about selection. The parents clearly voted to seek grant-maintained status because they wanted to keep the character of the schools--mixed-ability schools with highly motivated teaching staff who seek to bring out the best in every pupil.

The parents will greet what Opposition Members said about selection with utter derision. Selection was not in the parents' minds. They may have been interested in specialisation, but that is a different matter. One feature of today's debate is that Opposition Members are unable to distinguish between specialisation and selection. That is worrying in view of the need for specialisation, especially in technology. I welcome what the Government have said about technology schools and colleges.

Mr. Enright : Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by specialisation? He said that it would mean more technology. Will specialisation be only in technology?

Mr. Clappison : The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that 80 per cent. of a school's time is taken up by national curriculum subjects. That will be the case in any school which opts to specialise. However, some parents and some schools may feel that in the remaining 20 per cent. of a school's time there should be some scope for specialisation. It is possible for schools to specialise in several subjects. Classics may be important, but the hon. Gentleman may agree that today there is a strong need for specialisation in technology. Many schools may choose to specialise in technology, including possibly some in my constituency.

Parents in my constituency will be interested in the attitude of Opposition Members to the exercise of parents' democratic choice. The hon. Member for Dewsbury talked

Column 676

a great deal about local democracy and accountability. She had no view to express to parents about them exercising their choice in ballots. What does she say to the 89 per cent. of parents at Mount Grace school who voted in favour of grant-maintained status? The message that comes over loud and clear from the Opposition is that parents' views do not matter and that Opposition Members know better than they what is best for their children. Those parents will be worried by what Opposition Members said, but I am sure that they will draw great reassurance from what Conservative Members have said about the reforms in the Bill.

Ms. Estelle Morris : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a school serves more than the children who attend it at any given time? It also serves children who will be pupils there in the years to come. Does he accept that the school serves the whole community? How can he justify a system which does not give a vote to most members of the community but only to parents who have children in the school at that particular time? How is that democratic? How does it allow people in the community to express a view about the type of school that they should have in their neighbourhood?

Mr. Clappison : I know that the parents of other children in my constituency and in the general community widely welcome the decisions of those schools. I am also aware that the local communities in Birmingham have welcomed the decision of schools such as Baverstock school to opt for grant-maintained status. Such schools make a distinctive contribution to the life of the community. The hon. Lady's argument is spurious. She seeks to deny parental choice. She suggests that parents do not know what is best for their children. That view will not receive the support of the overwhelming majority of parents.

Parents, will however, welcome the reforms in the Bill. They will not see the need, for example, for a second governors' resolution when there has been a first resolution and in any event there will be a parental ballot. Nor will they see what is wrong with limiting local authority expenditure campaigns about grant-maintained status. Of course, local education authorities will be allowed to allocate some expenditure to such campaigns. They will be allowed to pay for the production of one leaflet. But why should they be allowed to continue spending valuable resources on propaganda? Why should they go beyond their duty to transmit reliable, balanced, objective information? Parents will not see why local authorities should squander money in that way.

Parents will certainly warmly welcome the measure to allow clusters of primary schools to opt for grant-maintained status. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said. It is an important point. As yet, few primary schools have chosen the grant- maintained status option because they face obvious difficulties of scale. However, the Bill will assist them to opt for grant-maintained status by allowing them to opt out in groups and to pool their resources. The Bill does not force parents to do anything. It does not exercise favouritism. It enables parents to carry out their wishes. When the Bill is enacted there may well be a substantial increase in the number of primary schools

Column 677

which opt for grant-maintained status in the wake of the substantial numbers of secondary schools which have done so. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and other Opposition Members have been keen to play the numbers game, but they will lose. The number of grant-maintained schools is increasing all the time at an accelerating rate. At the time of the general election, there were 217 and there are now 330. There are 150 more in the pipeline. [Interruption.] By deriding those figures, Opposition Members deny the right of parents to exercise choice.

Opposition Members stand in the way of a great tide of parental opinion. Parents have seen the success of grant-maintained schools, which have raised standards. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh at talk of raising standards, but their constituents will not find it a laughing matter, especially those in Birmingham.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport) : Does the hon. Gentleman regard the 1.4 per cent. of schools which have opted out as a great tide of enthusiasm?

Mr. Clappison : That figure represents thousands of pupils and parents. Those parents have made a decision about what is best for their children. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the schools which have opted out of Labour local education authority control are a beacon of hope for other parents in the area. We know how difficult it has been for such schools and how many obstacles have been put in their way. Schools which have opted out have higher standards, increasing numbers, a more conspicuous school ethos and greater parental support. Those beacons of hope are needed in Labour LEAs.

Opposition Members will be aware that almost invariably the schools which prop up league tables--drawn up on any basis of academic performance--are in Labour LEAs. Parents will have noted the light-hearted way in which Opposition Members treat standards and choice. To Opposition Members it is a matter for laughter. Higher standards, greater academic achievement-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) Order. Let us have a little decorum in the classroom.

Mr. Clappison : The overwhelming majority of parents in Britain want higher standards. Opposition Members talk of releasing grant-maintained schools from central control. They have got it completely wrong. They are denying parental choice and the exercise of parental rights, and standing in the way of the wishes of an ever-increasing number of parents.

At the general election, the Opposition's manifesto echoed what they have said today about doing away with grant-maintained schools and returning them to local education authority control. They lost that election, and the only decision that they will have to make in the next four years will be when to reverse that policy and accept the inevitable, and how best to disguise the fact that they were wrong all along. They must face the fact that there is an ever-increasing volume of support from parents for grant- maintained schools, which are invariably associated with success. Indeed, they have become a great success story in our education system. I welcome the Bill, which puts in place the necessary framework for the development of that success story. I

Column 678

look forward to thousands more parents exercising their rights and achieving the highest standards for their children through the grant-maintained system.

7.10 pm

Next Section

Home Page