House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Nov 1992

Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : May I tell the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that grant-maintained schools are not a reality in the political firmament in Wales. Not more than three are up and running in the Principality.

I hope that the special needs objectives are achieved and that the proposals work. Nothing is more distressing than to interview parents in my constituency who believe that their children are not getting a fair crack of the whip on that important matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that an injection of money is urgently needed so that the existing system works, let alone so that the proposed system is successful.

I wonder whether there has ever been such an arrogant speech proposing the merits of a Second Reading measure as that made by the Secretary of State. It was a tour de force, but it was bombastic, arrogant and calculated. There was a lot of posing, pointing, declaiming and provocation in that tirade of one hour's duration. Such a style will not and cannot win a friend. However, I agree with the Secretary of State's opening remark that every child should have the right to the best education. After all, children are young only once.

By implication, the Bill acknowledges major problems. Conservative Governments have been in power since 1979. Although they have been responsible for the education service in Wales for some 13 years, yet another Secretary of State has come to the House with legislation designed to put right the many serious faults, many of which, after such a long time of government, we can now lay at the door of the Conservative party. After all, since 1979 Conservative

Administrations have had more than £100 billion of North sea oil revenues, which they have squandered when some of them could have been put into the education service to solve some of the problems with which we are now grappling. We have only to witness the over-large classes, the national deficiencies in skills and training, and the tumbledown and dangerous schools throughout Britain. Furthermore, teachers' morale is now dangerously low and schools are using out-of-date books and equipment.

If teachers are demoralised, schoolchildren will lose. Teachers in areas of high unemployment have particular problems. Bad housing, housing shortages and homelessness represent powerful challenges to teachers in a hard- pressed profession. Many pupils in state schools--perhaps in all schools-- come from broken homes. Marriages and partnerships frequently break down and it is foolish to believe that the consequences of those problems do not manifest themselves in the classroom from day to day.

The Government underestimate the scale of the problems faced by those who must practise the art of teaching in the classroom every day. Teachers have not been well served by recent Secretaries of State, who have let the education service down. The work of teachers and the hopes of parents have been seriously affected. Looking back, we had Mr. Mark Carlisle and Sir Keith Joseph--

Column 679

one was tired and the other was tortured. Soon afterwards, we had the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Their attitudes to their positions showed that they were clearly on the political make. It is fair to say, however, that we had a bland and rather quiet interregnum when the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) was Secretary of State. In all those 10 years of office, the major problems faced by our school service were not improved but made worse. The revenues from North sea oil were not employed effectively to improve prospects for children.

The funding council in Wales and the funding agency in England are fundamentally undemocratic, yet all hon. Members will agree that they are at the heart of the Bill. They are likely to undermine the structures based on elected local education authorities under the Education Act 1944. The Bill is silent on future levels of investment in the school service. That factor is crucial, but the Secretary of State gave no inkling about how his proposals would be funded or how the problems within the school service will be tackled financially. I wish to protest about the undemocratic nature of the funding authorities. The Secretary of State for Wales, who has an English constituency, is to set up a quasi-autonomous non- governmental organisation--a quango. It will be neither accountable nor elected, but nominated. It will be set up in a Wales which voted overwhelmingly for Labour, by a Conservative Cabinet Minister without a Welsh parliamentary seat. It is insulting to Wales and goes against the grain. It is not in keeping with the times. The Government are making a major error of judgment in their treatment of Wales. Under the Bill, what guarantees will there be that the many smaller and rural schools in Wales will remain open? What is the long-term future of the Welsh joint education committee? Can the progress in the Welsh-medium education--where strides have been made--be maintained? Can the successful community schools now located in our high schools continue to fulfil their widest roles? The schools provide the locations for youth clubs and societies, and remain open 360 days a year. Under the Bill, can the community schools continue with their fine work in the long term, not least in my county? What consequences will the Bill have for the emerging post-industrial communities in our south Wales valleys, which deserve the very best? I remain unconvinced that the Bill will help those communities. I pose the same questions about the schools in the rural and scattered communities in mid-Wales and north-west Wales. The recent changes in Her Majesty's inspectorate are for the worse. The inspectorate will be at sea when the Bill is enacted.

The Bill will prove a backwards move for Wales. The Government's decision to set up a funding council is a major misjudgment. Wales is democratic ; it is a mature political democracy. We have concluded that we want fewer, not more, quangos. We want more elected representatives to deal with the issues and problems. The Secretary of State for Wales has made an error in acceding to English measures being enacted in Wales.

If the Welsh LEAs are abolished--as they will be eventually under the Bill- -what chance will there be for the school orchestras, bands, choirs, drama groups and

Column 680

numerous sporting activities in the long term? We must pose that question, as we in Wales know that the LEAs have played an important role and provided good leadership. We are entitled to conclude--

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones : No, I shall not give way, as I shall soon conclude my speech. After two hours of speeches from the Front-Bench representatives, we need shorter speeches from the Back Benchers. The Bill is undemocratic because the funding agency and the funding council, unlike the elected LEAs, are unaccountable to all but the Secretary of State. The Bill contains a massive defect. The funding agencies will create a big new bureaucracy, but there is a crashing silence on the source of the extra money needed. The Bill will encourage selection. The Society of Education Officers has correctly summed it up and states that the Bill is

"a recipe for duplication and confusion."

The Bill should point to a much wider provision of nursery education. It should aim to rebuild and modernise our crumbling schools, and make all schools warm, light and safe. It should seek to provide more books and modern equipment for the use of pupils and staff. It should plan to end the scandal of oversized classes.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones : No, I shall not give way, as the Front-Bench team has had its hour. If the right hon. Gentleman is called he will have his time, although I am not at all sure how he has spent his time while in office.

The Secretary of State did not make the case for the increase in the centralisation of our school service. The House should refuse the Secretary of State's invitation to support so flawed a Bill. 7.25 pm

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will understand if, for reasons of etiquette, I cannot respond to any of the issues that he has raised, due to my role elsewhere. I am not surprised that he failed to give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as, in him, we have a right hon. tiger from Wales who will certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman's point later. The debate was opened in stunning style by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I can do no more than repeat the epithet which came from Selby to the effect that there must have been divine intervention when questions were answered. We look forward to more of that as the Bill proceeds to its rightful place in the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) continued in that light when he spoke of the trinity of legislation. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said too much, but the most memorable part of her speech was the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). The hon. Lady produced the three minutes of meat of her speech and seemed to say that the Labour party was opposed to grant-maintained schools because they were no good, so no-one wanted them, which was why there had to be campaigns to stop them in case too many people wanted them and, if so, it

Column 681

was unfair, because if not everyone was able to have them, no one should have them. I hope that I have correctly related her policy. The Opposition should not oppose the Bill. They have not given a reason why they should do so in principle. Some issues for discussion have been raised from both sides of the House, and we shall no doubt continue to discuss them today and tomorrow. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will listen to and answer questions raised. The debate should be a chance to clarify and to explain to the world outside how the measure will proceed. The Bill has followed a consultation period, which is clearly and rightly continuing. At the outset I declare an interest that I share with the hon. Member for Dewsbury as I am a consultant for the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and, although I think it does not matter in the context of today's debate, for the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education and for the Association of College Management. I should also declare the opposite of a pecuniary interest--something which costs me--in that my daughter is training to be a teacher and I am the son of a teacher. Therefore, I speak with feeling when I say how wonderful teachers are, and I expect my right hon. Friends to support me all the way. Teaching is a wonderful profession and we are fortunate that its members devote their lives to it--I say that in all sincerity, family apart.

The House does well to introduce legislation to enable teachers to provide the best education for our children and to draw the best from our children. Education is about "educo"--drawing out of children what is contained in them. We sometimes forget that "educo" also applies to the teacher. If a teacher does not have the knowledge and experience drawn out of him or her, the benefits cannot be instilled in the child and the child does not receive a full education. All too often, arguments about education become polarised between those who wish it to be entirely child-centred and those who wish it to be entirely imposed. I liken the process to baking a cake. If a child is given the ingredients and told to bake a cake, he or she will make a nasty mess. It helps if the teacher gives some guidance not only on the relative quantities of the ingredients, but on how to mix and bake, and at what temperature. Teachers' experiences, taken together with the innate abilities, ingenuity and initiative of children, will lead to quality education.

Mr. Enright : I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the Latin roots of the verb "to educate"--he said that it meant drawing out. Would he like to reflect on what "instil" means? Originally it meant a sort of forced feeding.

Mr. Bowis : I was using the verb "to educate" from the teacher's and the child's point of view. We do not want any forced feeding ; I hope that the best teachers will encourage feeding without resorting to the sort of drip feeding to which the hon. Gentleman may be alluding.

I was chairman of my London borough education committee at the time of Lord Joseph's reforms--excellent reforms in their way, to do with reading, poetry, and so on. There was also the technical and vocational education initiative. Teachers said that it was all wonderful, but wondered when they would be allowed to get on with the business of teaching. I was in this place when the

Column 682

Education Reform Bill introducing the national curriculum was going through. Again, teachers said that it was great, but they wanted to get on with teaching. What do grant-maintained schools represent if not the opportunity for teachers to get on with teaching, in partnership with heads, parents and governors? I cannot for the life of me understand why heads or teachers should resist this plea. There are positive and negative reasons for choosing

grant-maintained status--a fact which sometimes confuses the Opposition. There are certainly negative reasons why people should want to escape from a bad LEA, but there are also positive reasons why they should join a good GM school. I do not need reminding of the horrors of the inner London education authority. I remember from the days when I was first elected, in 1987, the carol service that ILEA provided for its children. It had nothing to do with "Away in a Manger" or with Christmas trees ; it had to do with Trafalgar square, the place where people go to demonstrate.

I can remember the anti-cricket and anti-competitive sports mentality in ILEA. I can also remember the anti-police attitude. I quote an ILEA document circulated to teachers at the time : "The police have a vested interest in law and order and thus are not best qualified to talk to children about the subject as their views are likely to be one sided".

I can remember, too, ILEA's views on physical education : "The hidden curriculum of PE does more than its fair share to produce and reproduce the social and psychological basis necessary to sustain a system populated by ruthless captains of industry, technocrats and subservant proletarians."

I can remember the time when Benjamin Britten's "Let's make an opera" was condemned as racist and sexist, largely because the villain was called Black Bob. I can remember the time when ILEA produced, at twice the cost, half the results for the children of London, particularly for those at secondary school. All this is why parents voted with their feet in the borough of Wandsworth. As I said, however, there are also positive reasons. Parents and school can see the benefits which can flow in terms of budgetary control and school morale--which in turn can lead to a higher quality of education. I have never said that grant-maintained status is the most wonderful thing that can happen to a school. A school may be on the right lines without it. But I do say that it often represents the right way ahead. Equally, it is a challenge, not an easy option. Choosing grant- maintained status means accepting the responsibilities which go with it.

I had hoped that the Labour party's previous education spokesman was coming around to a more positive view of GM schools. At the time of the election, it seemed that the Opposition were agreeing to support parents and not to go back and undo everything that they have achieved and wanted. Today's sad statement of policy, however, made me realise that all that has come unwound in the intervening months. To listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) on the subject of voting is to remind oneself that when Labour introduced changes to schools--from grammar to comprehensive--it did so by means of circulars : there were no votes for parents. Suddenly the Opposition have found a new belief in democracy. Our way is the best way, since it deals with the wishes of parents.

Column 683

I welcome the movement in this Bill to restrict the campaigns being fought against grant-maintained status. They have been grossly unfair in some parts of the country, and parents have been misled, not least in the borough of Merton, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke earlier. I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to examine the way in which empty places are assessed. Sometimes applications for

grant-maintained status are refused on the understandable grounds that there are too many empty places. There is always a balance to be struck between the need to remove empty places and the opportunity to take on grant-maintained status. It is not always easy to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine. On several occasions I have wondered whether an assessment in my area has taken into account the use of rooms by nursery classes, for instance. Not always, I fear. We should also bear in mind other educational uses--secure resource centres, libraries, and so on. We must keep up the pressure to get rid of empty places, but we should also keep under review the procedures that these assessments follow.

I have four questions for the Secretary of State ; we can explore them further as the Bill proceeds. The first concerns quality control and how to ensure it. There needs to be such control before schools reach the stage when the education association is brought in. I saw how schools were rescued from ILEA by Wandsworth borough education committee and its officers, and I am sure that the same can be done for other schools by patient work to take them off the at-risk list and to enable them to flourishthereafter. We need quality control, not just a rescue system when schools have reached the stage when the education association has to be brought in, correct though that method probably is.

Secondly, I should like to explore further the co-operation between the funding councils and the LEAs. Perhaps the councils could seek the views of LEAs and present the joint view, if one can be found, to my right hon. Friend for his final adjudication. Such a presentation could include local matters which might affect the LEA, not the funding council.

Thirdly, I hope that my right hon. Friend will come to the schools prom in a fortnight's time and have a careful look at its programme. He will see all sorts of bands and orchestras--the county youth band, county wind groups and jazz bands, and so on. These groups are organised on a county or borough basis by the education authority to bring musicians from schools together and to create this wonderful festival of music. Many hon. Members on both sides feel that this is a precious system, and we need to ensure that it is not put at risk by the uncertainties which may emerge from an examination of the management of schools.

Fourthly, I want to ask a question put to me by Deaf Accord. It concerns special needs and the grant for education support and training--GEST-- which, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the Government's response in 1989 to the needs of the deaf-blind. That grant has enabled provision to be made on a regional basis. We need to know that the service will be guaranteed and, if it is available in a school which goes grant-maintained, that it

Column 684

will still be provided in the region for which it was originally intended. Above all, we need to know how this funding will be dealt with in the future.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) spoke about special needs. I take a particular interest in that issue and welcome the Secretary of State's moves on it. He has met many of our concerns--some of which were raised in debate earlier this year--on the speeding up of statementing, the appeals procedures and parents' choice. We should also look at the whole issue of the funding of schools for children with special education needs who do not necessarily reach stages four and five and thus full statementing. Sixty per cent. of the children in one of my schools on the border of another London borough have special educational needs. However, only 10 per cent. of them are statemented and the school receives from Wandsworth borough extra funding only for that 10 per cent. The school takes many children from across the borough boundary and receives nothing extra through recoupment for them. I should like to see a scheme which provides recoupment from the centre in the same way as mandatory student awards. The Secretary of State will not be able to produce the response that he gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) because there might be a Treasury input.

I warmly welcome the Bill and wish the Government well as they take it through Committee. It is the latest Bill on the road to seeking the best for every child. That is done by making sure that the best is the norm.

7.41 pm

Ms. Estelle Morris (Birmingham, Yardley) : Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I should like to deal with what the Secretary of State said earlier, when he made yet another of his repeated attacks on Birmingham's education system. He was not sufficiently well mannered on that occasion to let me, a Birmingham Member, answer him, so I shall take this opportunity to do so. [ Hon. Members-- : "He is not listening."] That is nothing new. I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how much damage his repeated, unjustified and inaccurate attacks on Birmingham's education system are doing to the children. He has chosen to leave the Chamber. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State was manoeuvring his political virility and not engaging in proper discussion with a Member from one of the largest education authorities in the western democracies.

In September, the Secretary of State launched a disgraceful attack on surplus places in the city of Birmingham, knowing full well that the city had a solid agreement with his Department on how those surplus places would be reduced. That agreement has been in place since before the general election, but despite that, the right hon. Gentleman chose to make political capital out of it. If Birmingham is close to the hearts of Conservative Members, why did the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the Secretary of State, both of whom spoke about Birmingham, not take the chance to congratulate the city on the improvement in this summer's examination results which were published last week?

I shall make the Secretary of State an offer. It is not one that I would make to many people, and certainly not to many Conservative Members. I shall take him out for half a day in Birmingham and show him Sheldon Heath school,

Column 685

where he will see some of the best design work in the country. I will show him Cockshut Hill school, which has a wonderful technology centre and a level of expertise among teenagers that is unparalleled.

Mr. Pawsey : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Morris : The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

I will take the Secretary of State to Harvey Road school, Stechford school- -

Mr. Pawsey : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady mentioned me in her speech, and it is the normal practice for a Member thus mentioned to be given an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : It is not a matter for me.

Ms. Morris : I shall also show the Secretary of State Gilbertstone school. I have visited all those schools in the past few weeks, and in them primary school children excel in all areas of the curriculum and teachers create a marvellous learning environment. I shall even buy the right hon. Gentleman his lunch at East Birmingham college, where he will see adult learning and vocational courses taught to an exceptionally high standard. After all that, he will not even have left my constituency, let alone visited the rest of Birmingham, but he will have seen quality learning and quality teaching.

The Secretary of State must stop using Birmingham children as political football : people there do not deserve it, and teachers' morale and pupils' performance is falling because of it.

It seems that the Secretary of State and some hon. Members have read a different Bill from the one before the House. The Secretary of State spoke about quality, choice and accountability. Every response to the Bill that I have seen finds selection, uncertainty and confusion. The Bill destroys not only local accountability but the partnership between central and local government. It will destroy co-operation between schools and the network of support systems that is to be found in most local education authority areas. Nothing in the Bill and nothing that has been said in the debate can possibly justify that destruction.

I am saddened by the fact that so little recognition has been given to the valuable role played by LEAs in our education system. For almost a century, nearly every piece of education legislation has been entrusted to LEAs for implementation. The Secretary of State said that legislation in the past 13 years has improved school standards. Who implemented legislation on training and vocational education, pioneered pupil profiles, trained the governors and guided the implementation of the national curriculum? It was not hon. Members but people in LEAs, working in conjunction with the Government and schools.

Conservative Members seem to take credit for the legislation but will not give credit to the organisations that helped to make it a reality. The LEAs provide stability and continuity, and are the cornerstone of teaching and learning. Nothing justifies undermining that, but funding councils are to replace the LEAs. No matter what has been said by Conservative Members, those funding councils will take over a significant number of the functions that are currently carried out by the LEAs. The councils are ill thought out and ill defined.

Column 686

The Government do not appear to have a strategic plan for education into the next century. We do not know how many grant-maintained schools are envisaged. Nobody has told us why 10 per cent. is chosen as the entry point for funding councils, or why 75 per cent. has been chosen as the exit point. No one can guess how quickly those percentages will be reached in local authorities, and no one has explained how what remains of an LEA will fit into any new local government structure. We have been offered no proof that grant-maintained schools are successful in any measurable way. The Bill is not about education : it is about bureaucracy and structure. For ideological reasons, the Government seem intent on pushing schools into an unknown abyss, and they have no idea of the consequences. I am the first to admit that LEAs may not be perfect, but they have a proven track record for innovation and as efficient vehicles for the management of education.

The Bill will irreparably damage the network of expertise and support that is to be found in most LEAs. Above all LEAs are accountable to local people. The Secretary of State said in the Select Committee, and I have heard it said in the debate, that the local democracy argument does not count for anything, because not many people vote in local government elections. If only two people vote in a local council election, it is one more than will cast a vote for someone to serve on the funding council.

What gives locally elected education authorities their strength and legitimacy is the fact that they operate from the community that they serve. People know who serves on them and how to get hold of them. Anybody who has represented his party at local council level will know that the crucial point is that a low turnout in a council election does not mean that people do not use local government. Whether they vote or not, people use the structures and the accountability of local government to express views and seek help. There will not be that access to members of the funding councils, and the quality of the decisions that those councils take will be the poorer as a result.

The Bill is not only destructive but misleading. Its main buzzword is "choice". It raises parents' expectations. They think that they will be able to choose from an array of schools. One can imagine it, as the form comes through in January. One can see the parents saying to each other, "Should we choose the grant-maintained school or should we go for the LEA school? Should we try for a city technology college, or should we put our son into the grammar school? Should we take a risk on our 11-year-old developing an aptitude for maths and send him to a specialist school? Or should we choose that school down the road to which that nice business man has just given all that extra money?"

There is then the ultimate choice. Can hon. Members see it : parents sitting there and saying, "Should we send our son or daughter to that school down the road where the head has just been sacked and which has been given a label saying failing school'?" Does any hon. Member think that that is what it would be like and that that will be the nature of the choice before parents? No law, and the Bill is no exception, has ever guaranteed parental choice. The best parents have ever had is the right to express a preference. That is all that the Bill will offer.

Furthermore, with pupil numbers increasing and surplus places reducing, the choices for parents will diminish even further. The Bill shies away from the crucial

Column 687

issue of how schools will choose whom to take when demand exceeds supply. That concept is bound up with the concept of a range of different schools. No one can escape the reality that schools will choose and parents will be chosen, that teachers will select and pupils will be rejected. The only parents who will have any choice--the only parents who have ever had any choice--are those who have money, and those who have the skill and the contacts to weave their way through what will be an incredibly complex system. The basis of the White Paper and Tory party thinking is that schools should compete for pupils and resources. Schools have always been competitive. There has always been friendly rivalry between neighbouring schools. There is nothing wrong with that. That does no harm to schools or pupils. However, schools have been competitive within a framework based on the understanding that there is a wider responsibility to a public service of which they are all part. Because they understand that, schools have been co-operative as well.

We should never underestimate the value to the education process of teachers from neighbouring schools sharing skills and knowledge, of their being prepared to collaborate and even to share resources. If the Government turn education provision into a marketplace, they will destroy that co-operation. They risk forcing schools to build barriers between themselves so that they can jealousy guard their ideas and strengths with the aim of climbing higher up the examination league table. That is wrong, because it will not give the nation what it needs--higher standards in all our schools and not just in few.

This afternoon, Tory Members have alleged that Labour Members do not want individual schools to improve standards and do well. That is an insult, and they know it. The difference between the parties is that we are intent on providing a system that raises standards in all schools for all pupils rather than on focusing the resources and attention on a few selected schools and a few selected people. The Bill is one of the longest Education Bills in the history of education. In its 252 clauses, it manages to bypass the real issues surrounding education and the real problems facing our schools. We still have classes with over 30 pupils and school buildings that are a disgrace in a modern economy. We have a work force of frustrated teachers who despair, year after year, at having to make diminishing resources go further and further. We have teachers who are fed up to the back teeth with filling in forms when they would sooner be in classes with pupils teaching them what they need to be taught. Above all, schools in the 1990s are trying to operate in an economic and political climate that militates against their success. For as long as abject poverty exists in our towns and cities, so many families have to cope with the problems of homelessness, and poverty-related illnesses continue to rise, education standards will fall, because education and teaching do not take place in a vacuum. Schools need, more than ever, stability and continuity, certainty and clarity. The Bill and all that Government Members have said today offer none of that. That is why nearly all the clauses in the Bill deserve to be fought every inch of the way. We must stop the infliction on schools and children of a bureaucracy that will do no good to anybody.

Column 688

7.56 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton) : Parental choice is exercised rather differently in rural areas from how it is in urban areas. Both at secondary and primary level, there is often no obvious choice for parents in rural areas, which is why we have a tradition--particularly in the part of Devon that I represent, which has more than 90 parishes--of local schools providing an education for children right across the spectrum, from those with special needs through to the high achievers and those who go on to attain higher academic qualifications. Therefore, choice for parents is geared to ensuring that standards in rural schools are maintained because they are part of the community.

The White Paper rightly looked at the difficulties for small rural schools. Many of our schools have fewer than 100 pupils--60 or 70 is not uncommon. I know that governors have been addressing themselves to the proposal for clustering the smaller primary schools. I am sure that schools that wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Bill will co-operate.

However, I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the proposal on the governing bodies at such small schools. People feel very passionately about their local school. That does not mean to say that they do not work with other small adjacent schools so as to reap the advantages of economies of scale. However, the parent governors in particular want to feel that they are the governors of their local school, as this is the traditional role. I ask the Secretary of State to address that problem to see whether we can provide for primary schools the opportunity to cluster without governing bodies feeling that their representation of their school is threatened. That would be most welcome.

Will my right hon. Friend also look at another aspect of the rural schools? He is rightly addressing the issue of surplus places, and I have already heard hon. Members speak of the good use to which the money that could be realised in this sector could be put--not least to help children with special needs. The county of Devon has 7.9 per cent. surplus places, compared with a national average of 22 per cent. Any radical pruning of surplus places in the small rural schools would have a detrimental effect. It might mean that we could lose a school and then see a definite need for it two years later. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully to examine the different ratios, especially as they bear upon rural schools. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) would not let me intervene following his remarks about drama, music and school orchestras. Since local management of schools, I can assure him that schools in my constituency have been able to provide and, indeed, enhance those excellent facilities. If schools in Wales have difficulty in learning how to do that under local control, I am sure that there are people in Devon who could provide excellent advice.

My main interest in the Bill is the way in which it provides for pupils with special needs and their parents. I have a special interest in the subject and I know that I am joined by many charities that welcome the Government's initiative, especially as set out in part III, which extends choice to the parents of a child with a statement. They will be able to be involved in the choice of a suitable school

Column 689

and, more important, in the setting of a statutory time limit in which a statement is to be provided. The appeal directives are also welcome.

Since April, when I became a Member of this place, I have received many letters on education from anxious parents. I have not received one letter from a parent who is concerned about the quality of education that his or her child is receiving, but I have received many letters from parents of children with special needs, many of whom I have been able to see. They are desperate and frustrated because of the time that it has taken for their children to be assessed and statemented. I know that the provisions that bear on these matters are greatly welcomed. It would seem that the Government, in a broader sense, are reflecting on the 1981 legislation. There are matters that I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind when the Bill is considered in Committee. Clause 156 turns on the input from health service providers. It refers to children under five years of age and the need for the health service to inform parents of and to advise them on the voluntary organisations that might give them appropriate advice on their child. I understand why the clause is in the Bill. If a child has come under the care of clinical psychologists or paediatricians, it will be apparent in many instances before he or she reaches school age that it will be helpful for the parents, and the school that the child will be attending, to be aware of individual needs, which should be considered long before school age.

Unfortunately, when it comes to learning difficulties, there are many conditions that the medical profession is unable to diagnose. That means that a child may be under the care of paediatricians and clinical psychologists long after the age of five. I am concerned that some clinicians tend to feel that, once a child has reached school age, his or her problems are only educational and that they need no longer have an input. I hope that we are moving towards a system of multi-disciplinary teams and input from a range of people who have a connection with the problems of an individual child. To justify the role of paediatricians and clinical psychologists up to the age of five but not beyond does not take into account the fact that in many instances it will not be until the children are older--sometimes not before they are in their teens--that the exact difficulties will emerge and possibly medical diagnoses will be made.

Obviously, there needs to be special provision in pre-school years, but input from the medical profession should be extended while the child is at school or in other full-time education, whatever his or her age happens to be. Let us take the case of a child of 12 or 16 years, even, who does not receive any form of diagnostic assessment that enables the medical profession to say, "This is the child's problem"--that happens in some instances. It is obviously a pity that the parents are not advised by the clinician about the voluntary agencies that might be able to give useful advice and support. I should like to see input from the medical profession extended throughout the school life of the child.

Specialist or charitable schools are also important. The Audit Commission, in its report entitled "Getting in on the Act", cautioned on the basis of the experience of Denmark. It reported :

"As such pupils grow older, the gap between them and their peers becomes wider and they become socially isolated."

Column 690

There is a need to be flexible. We would entirely agree with integrated education for pupils with special needs where their needs can be adequately met--I emphasis "adequately"--in mainstream education. Denmark, however, is finding increasingly that it is having to increase the provision of special schools or make the necessary provision within the private charitable school sector. The Bill will establish stronger statutory rights for children with special education needs and their parents. I hope, however, that we shall examine more carefully quality of input and the outcome for the children. We are rightly concerned about standards for children in mainstream education ; we wish to raise standards and we are interested in measuring outcome. Similarly, these are important matters for the child who is statemented as well as for the child who comes into the 18 per cent. category, who has special needs but has not received an official statement.

It worries me enormously that even when a child has a statement and additional specialist teaching time is allocated, parents still complain to me that they read that the child will receive an additional five hours of teaching, for example, but find that that five hours does not always go directly to the child. They find that it is used by the local school to provide more teacher time and more one-to-one teaching.

Special education needs involves much more than one-to-one teaching time. Without a doubt, that form of teaching is useful. It is more important, however, that the time that is allocated to the child, or the additional assistance, is appropriate to his or her needs. One-to-one teaching is not sufficient. It is important that the teacher, or any other person in the school who deals with the child, has been properly trained and is properly qualified to deal with the child's specific needs.

Additional hours for individual children who have been statemented should not be merely mopped up within the education system. The hours should be used specifically for the individual child and not as general support for the class or school. That is not the outcome that the parents expect when they read and accept the statement. If we are serious about quality of teaching and outcome for both children with special needs and mainstream children, it is important that these matters are examined.

Mr. Jamieson : May I give the hon. Lady an opportunity to support Devon county council, which is responsible for the area in which her constituency lies? Perhaps she will respond to a comment that went before the education committee--it is a Tory authority--only recently. It was said :

"It is difficult to see how a funding agency could be other than remote, unresponsive, ignorant of local issues and unaccountable to local feelings."

Mrs. Browning : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was not relevant to special educational needs. Those needs will continue to be dealt with by local education authorities. I have already said that there are areas of special educational need with which I am not entirely happy.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Devon, a county with one of the highest percentage rates of statemented children in the country. It is well over the 2 per cent. that Professor Warnock anticipated in her report, and the same can be said in terms of the 1981 Act. Three cheers for Devon for its achievement--it has done better than many

Column 691

other local education authorities--but we are still using targets and figurees that stem from the Warnock report, the conclusions of which were enshrined in the legislation of 1981. There was identification of the 20 per cent., of which 2 per cent. would need either specialist education, additional help or specialist help within the mainstream of education.

I am delighted that the 1981 Act is being reviewed. The difficulty with Warnock--excellent report though it was and a watershed in its day--is that although it listed a whole range of conditions that should qualify for the 2 per cent. group and mentioned dyslexia and autism, neither of those two conditions is included in the list of 20 subjects. We all know that there are thousands of children with dyslexia or autism. In many cases, autism is not diagnosed until late in a child's life, especially for those at the more able end of the continuum. However, it is a lifelong condition and handicap. I received a fax today from the National Autistic Society, which says about autism :

"Several LEAs do not accept it as a useful label."

That is appalling for the parents and children who live in the area of an LEA that does not recognise the term "autism". Indeed, I know that some LEAs do not accept the term "dyslexia". I am not sure what they call it--I think it is "specific learning difficulty". If we are to provide quality of education for such children and if we are to define and measure outcomes, it is vital that diagnostic assessment is accurate from the beginning. Only then can we provide the specialist education that they need.

Some of those children do not come within the 2 per cent. group ; many come within the 18 per cent. group. The difficulty for them, especially if they do not have challenging behaviour but are typical children who sit quietly in the classroom and allow everything to wash over them, is that when they leave full-time education they are the children we fail because they hit the buffers. When they go on to training or the workplace, it becomes apparent that they have serious problems that were not addressed during their school lives. They become a difficult problem for the training and employment agencies and others who seek suitably to qualify them to take their place in society. As the Audit Commission report said, they become isolated socially because it is often too late to begin a programme that should have started 10 or 15 years previously.

I welcome the step forward in part III of the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the matters that I have raised. I hope that we can build on the Bill's provisions in Committee and within the general review of the 1981 Act. We need to ensure that local authorities do not use politically correct language the modern terminology- -to disguise the serious problems faced by many children with special needs, especially those in the 2 per cent. and 18 per cent. groups.

8.13 pm

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood) : Like many other hon. Members, during the summer holiday I read the White Paper that was the prelude to the Bill. It spoiled my summer holiday, as I am sure that it spoiled the summer holidays of many teachers, those involved in education, parents and, I hope, many hon. Members. The

Column 692

White Paper made me angry because of its absurd proposed time scale. It is a profoundly insulting time scale for a Bill that we are told will transform the education system for a generation and more. Some hon. Members have drawn comparisons with the 1944 Act, but that was a consensual document, carefully researched and prepared, which set the basis for an education system for a quarter of a century. Everyone who has examined the Bill has remarked on the contrast with the 1944 Act. The Bill is intellectually shoddy and it was preceded by an intellectually shoddy White Paper. That was the main reason for my anger when I read it. It was not so much what the Government were proposing, as the fact that they were proposing to do it on the basis of an intellectually shoddy argument. Every hon. Member should remember that when considering the detail of the Bill. The White Paper was like a Pattenesque article in The Spectator about God, morals and the universe. It was elevated into a White Paper and is now transferred into a major Bill. It would be funny if it were not so serious and tragic.

It is not the Opposition who are making those comments--far from it. Indeed, it is quite a job catching up with the comments of every informed outside commentator. I shall quote what was said by Stuart Maclure, the former editor of The Times Educational Supplement . He is one of the most independently minded, committed and informed supporters of the British education system. He read the White Paper while he was on his summer holidays, and he said :

"Is it my imagination or is this White Paper not unbelievably bad? Bad in a sense of poor quality--far below the standard you expect from a great department of State? Could you imagine David Eccles, Edward Boyle or Anthony Crosland--or for that matter Margaret Thatcher or Keith Joseph-- putting out such a slipshod and windy White Paper? And here is John Patten proudly boasting that he wrote the first and worst chapter himself."

The Bill is shoddy. It is devoid of any analysis or research and it is unfounded in every sense.

One Conservative Member gave a little peroration on how grant-maintained schools were somehow the route to quality, I wanted to intervene, but he would not let me. The fact is that there is no established link between grant-maintained schools and quality. One would have thought that there would be an attempt to show some connection, especially as the whole of the education system is to be transformed on the basis of that alleged connection--but there is no evidence of such a link, despite what Conservative Members want to believe. There is also no link in the White Paper with the fact that there is to be a wholesale reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Wright : I shall give way to those Conservative Members whose children attend state schools. Is the hon. Gentleman one of them?

Mr. Thurnham : My child goes to a special school

Next Section

Home Page