---

Column 831

of the fears about parental choice and of the evidence that education is already being damaged. It says that, because of the pressures on local authority budgets, after delegating money to schools, they are already beginning to lose some of the excellent people involved in the support services for special needs education. The list is damning. Only statemented pupils will have certain resources to support them, and it is feared that non-statemented children with special needs will not be properly recognised throughout the system. Only some local authorities, such as Lewisham, have the good sense to make the effort to prevent that.

The many criticisms made by the voluntary organisations involved with children with special needs show that the Bill will have to be much amended if it is to be made half decent for those children who deserve special help across the board.

Much has been said about the wonders that the funding agency will achieve for schools that opt out. My hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Warrington, South and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) have all said that the funding agency, whatever name it has, will not be local, accountable or democratic. Even with a regional set-up, parents who wish to express concern will have to travel a long way in order to do so and will not be able to remove the agency if they are dissatisfied with its performance.

We must ask whether that national unaccountable bureaucracy is likely to suffer the unwarranted interference of the Secretary of State as, for example, the National Curriculum Council has in the past. There is concern from all quarters about the removal of local accountability and from all quarters there is fear that the arrangements for joint responsibility, for the provision of places to be decided between the local education authority and the funding agency, will be a recipe for chaos and a duplication of powers. Criticism has also come from the Conservative quarter. The Conservative Education Association has said :

"Those who spend that sort of public money should be publicly accountable."

It has also said that the funding agency is a

"far larger, more bureaucratic and less accountable national education authority."

Even the chair of the Grant-Maintained Heads Association, Mr. Lloyd, has expressed real fears that that bureaucracy will endanger the so-called newly won freedoms--out of the LEA frying pan and into the funding agency fire. The funding agency will not be accessible in the way that the LEAs, the staff and councillors were. The sooner the Government--

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffith : If the hon. Gentleman had been here throughout today's debate, I would have given him that courtesy, but he has not been here.

The funding agency will not be accountable and the sooner we can return to funding being channelled through local authorities, the better.

The Bill attempts to make opt-outs easier. The removal of the second governor's resolution will make the procedure easier. However, it is unlikely that we shall see

---

Column 832

the opting out of 11,000 or 12,000 schools as was talked about in the early days of grant-maintained status. My hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South, for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), for Wallsend and for Warrington, South showed that opting out is already a failure. There is no substantial evidence that such schools provide any better education than the large bulk of maintained schools.

Far too many schools have been given grant-maintained status because they have been faced with closure. Two thirds of ballots have taken place in Tory authorities ; parents have sought to escape their low-spending policies, or their attempts to reintroduce selection in, for instance, Wandsworth and Trafford.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths : I am afraid not. The hon. Gentleman has been absent from the Chamber for most of the evening.

Both the CBI and the Institute of Directors have expressed doubts about the validity of the Government's support for, and belief in, grant-maintained schools. The CBI wants to ensure that their efficacy and effectiveness is reviewed within three to four years. The Institute of Directors plainly says that it cannot be assumed that all grant-maintained schools are performing well.

The headmaster of Queen Elizabeth high school in Hexham exposed what opt- outs were all about when he said that opting out was a pretty squalid scheme, which for the most part ensured that scarce resources went to those who needed them least. The Conservative Education Association has also expressed concern, saying that, if the grant-maintained system developed, the system would restrict choice rather than increase it. The Government's emphasis on

grant-maintained schools is something about which the association has grave doubts.

As for the issue of choice, we should bear in mind the horrendous impact on parents in Bromley, who, last summer, did not know where their children were going until a week or two before term started. Some of those parents were not even able to send their children to the school that they had named as their fifth choice. In that context, choice is a hollow concept. Labour will get rid of the funding council and will ensure that the performance of grant-maintained schools and the coherent provision of education for all children in LEA areas are examined. Our objective will be to recreate the educational planning role of the LEA and the self-management role of schools. Successful management models can be seen in both Labour and Tory authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West quoted the Conservative chairman of the West Sussex authority. I should like to quote the chairman of the East Essex authority-- [Interruption.] I apologise : I meant East Sussex. At least I know that they are both on the south coast. I have done better than the Secretary of State did yesterday in connection with the whereabouts of Gwent and Torfaen. The chair of the East Sussex education committee said : "We haven't been physically leaned on, but I sense there is pressure. The whole idea of a Tory-controlled authority which doesn't have a grant-maintained school is a disappointment to ministers. But I don't understand why that should be if that authority has high standards and is giving schools the chance to make local decisions." It is perfectly possible.

Hardly a good word has been said by any independent source about the education association. It has been

---

Column 833

pointed out by the Children's Legal Centre, and by many others who have blitzed us with griefs on the Bill, that there is already a way of dealing with the problem of schools that fail or have a high proportion of difficult children--namely, full implementation of the Elton report. Some authorities are doing that already ; it is a pity that the Secretary of State does not take his educational responsibilities seriously and ensure that all authorities implement the report. If he did that, there would be no need for education associations.

The Conservative Education Association, in its comments on that idea, said that support was best given firmly and discreetly. The association regards education associations as precisely the sort of ideologically bound policy that should be avoided. It went on to say that it regarded this as an unwarranted extension of central Government power, capable of abuse in the future. It would be more helpful if the Elton recommendations were properly introduced, and a formal and effective complaints procedure, so that all schools could act effectively. The Conservative Education Association also said that the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it have left teachers punch drunk with change and that the last thing they need is more change that is driven by ideology rather than educational need. If the Government were interested in educational need and good quality education everywhere, they would long ago have abandoned this continual tinkering with the education of pupils in England and Wales. They would have sought real consultation. They ought by now to know that parents want good quality neighbourhood schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge so rightly pointed out. Parents do not want to have to rush far and wide throughout the local authority's area, or outside it, looking for good schools. They want them on their doorsteps. The Secretary of State for Education should ensure that grant-maintained schools provide high quality education. The Opposition would have been prepared to enter into real consultations in order to achieve a proper consensus on how to provide good quality education for all our children. Unfortunately, the Government, in the 17 Bills that they have introduced, have failed to provide for adequate consultation. After the Government introduced their last huge Bill on education, they had to table nearly 600 amendments in the other place to try to put right their first thoughts. They presented this Bill as an even greater Bill than the great Education Reform Bill. I would not mind betting that even more amendments will be tabled by the Government in order to put right the rush to judgment that they have made in this Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth says that it is part of the consultation. Why on earth could the Government not consult in the first place and then prepare a good Bill, instead of wasting paper, acres of trees, on amendments that then would have been unnecessary ?

The Bill is not about choice in education. It is about creating quangos, with Tory placepeople being appointed to positions of influence, thereby being able unduly to influence the education of our children. The Secretary of State already has the power to appoint hundreds of people to quangos in Wales. If a funding council is established for Wales and if a large number of education associations is established in Wales, the strong possibility is that there will be more jobs to fill than there are Tory voters in the whole of the Principality. The Welsh Office should give some

---

Column 834

thought to the fact that, if it is not careful, it will have to appoint Labour supporters to fill those positions. If it did that, some common sense would prevail in education.

I look forward to the Committee stage because it will offer an opportunity to correct the myriad of mistakes that the Government have perpetrated in their hasty consultation period. They have already admitted that they need to table amendments because the Bill simply is a failure. The Government can rest assured that we shall table amendments to ensure quality education for all children in England and Wales, delivered through a democratic system, which the Bill seeks to destroy.

9.40 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth) : The two-day debate on this important and major Bill has beecharacterised by the concerns of Conservative Members for the themes of quality and standards, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), parental choice, which was rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and constant and knowledgeable references to special educational needs needs by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), to mention but a few.

Those were the themes which came through strongly from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, the themes of Opposition Members were, sadly but predictably, driven by concerns for producer interests--local authority bureaucracies and trade unions--and were embedded firmly in the past. Rarely have I seen such a contrast in attitude, content and approach between Conservative Members and the deadbeats on the other side of the House.

It is little wonder that the Bill and the White Paper have been so widely welcomed. The speeches of Opposition Members marginalised the Opposition in the debate on education and its future.

In a speech devoid of direction or content, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made the rather ritualistic claim, which was echoed by the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the consultation period had been abbreviated or inadequate. That is puzzling. When we were returned after the election in April, the Department was faced with the imperative to set a legal framework for the growing grant-maintained school sector. That could not be delayed or avoided, and we did not want to do so. We wanted to make real improvements to the Education Act 1981 and to special educational needs, which was widely welcomed by the special educational needs world. We wanted to take real action against local education authorities that had persistently failed to address failing schools and the pupils suffering in them. We therefore published a comprehensive and radical White Paper in record time--by the end of July--and allowed until September for responses. I do not know whether it is unreasonable to expect people, given the whole of August and most of September, to reply to such a document. Suffice it to say that, although Opposition Members were probably safely on the beach, we received nearly 1,000 replies from local authority associations and local authorities, the Churches, the special educational

---

Column 835

needs lobby and all those sufficiently interested in education to consider and to reply to the White Paper. Why Opposition Members believe that it was so difficult and impossible is beyond me. They will have to answer for that, but it hardly supports their contention that the consultation period was inadequate.

We are determined, having laid this excellent and comprehensive Bill before the House, to press on with the Committee stage to ensure that the Bill's provisions are enacted as early as possible so that its benefits can be spread as far as possible.

Mr. Win Griffiths : The Minister described the Bill as excellent and comprehensive. Does that mean that there will be but a few Government amendments to it?

Mr. Forth : I cannot possibly anticipate the Committee stage or subsequent stages of the Bill's consideration. As ever, the Government will be a listening Government. My Secretary of State and I will listen carefully--more carefully than the Opposition--to representations made to us and, if we think that there is a good case for amending the Bill, I am sure that we shall be prepared to do so. That is the essence of the process. Why the hon. Gentleman should find this so amusing, I cannot possibly understand ; perhaps he will explain why he finds the concept of listening and flexibility so strange.

I want to deal immediately with a question that arose frequently during the debate. It was raised first by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in his own individual style, then by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who wondered whether education authorities were deliberately misleading parents and governors of schools concerning the possibilities that surround grant- maintained status. Disgraceful material has been produced by many local education authorities : I mention Merton and Hammersmith and Fulham among many authorities that have sought deliberately to mislead parents who are interested in the possibility of grant-maintained status for their schools. I cannot do better than to quote a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 9 November :

"I have written to all schools in the country with the very specific assurance that schools accepted for GM status will continue to receive funding that recognises the extra responsibilities they have as GM schools. I make no caveat in the case of authorities spending above their education SSA."

There it is : it is perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend has made that commitment and I hope that my hon. Friends will go to their schools and local education authorities and make it perfectly clear that the way ahead for grant-maintained status is clear and firm, and that no local education authority must be allowed to peddle the dishonesty that has been peddled in the past. That does no credit to councillors or officials in local education authorities.

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood) : Will the Minister say more about this important point, which lay at the heart of all of the responses to the consultation exercise? All those who responded asked whether there would really be an absolutely level playing field as between grant- maintained schools and those maintained by local

---

Column 836

education authorities. Will there be absolute even-handedness and absolute parity? Is the answer yes or no? This is a Second Reading debate, and that matter is a key principle. Now is the moment for the Minister to tell us.

Mr. Forth : There can never be a level playing field between grant- maintained schools and local education authority maintained schools, because grant-maintained status gives such clear benefits and advantages.

That brings me to what I would categorise as the Opposition's schizophrenia. It was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) with his usual unerring accuracy. Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Forth : I shall certainly not give way after the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). On the one hand, Opposition Members seem to exhibit paranoia about what they regard as the threat posed to the establishment and vested interests of local education authorities by the growing grant-maintained sector. Yet, almost in the same breath, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that, as more schools opt out, the LEAs will lose powers to the funding agency and will eventually be relieved of all their functions. In almost the next breath he said that opting out had been an embarrassing flop. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. Either LEAs are under imminent threat of subversion by the growing grant-maintained sector, or grant- maintained status is a flop. Which is it? We have heard that contradictory message from Opposition Members throughout the debate. The hon. Member for City of Durham said that schools opted out only in LEAs with under-funded schools. I can tell him and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who tried to peddle the same nonsense, that a cursory look at the list of LEAs spending above SSA and which have a significant number of grant-maintained schools reveals authorities like Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Hertfordshire. I will not continue with the list. However, having failed to do their homework properly as usual, Opposition Members have asserted that only schools from under-funded LEAs are opting for grant-maintained status and that is wrong.

Mr. Byers rose --

Mr. Forth : Because he is bobbing up and down, the hon. Member for Wallsend reminds me that he said that the Government's education policy was Maoist. All I can say to him is, "It takes one to know one."

Mr. Byers : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth : No, not at this stage.

My award for effrontery during the debate goes jointly to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) and for Cannock and Burntwood. The hon. Member for Yardley had the gall yesterday to claim that the problem with education in Birmingham was lack of resources. She referred to classes with more than 30 pupils and went on to say :

"a work force of frustrated teachers who despair, year after year, at having to make diminishing resources go further and further."--[ Official Report, 9 November 1992 ; Vol. 213,c. 687.]

---

Column 837

That is right. There are diminishing resources in Birmingham--an authority which in 1991-92 spent£64 million less and in 1992-93, £57 million less than was provided under the SSA. Of course it is a matter of diminishing resources in Birmingham. That is the kind of authority that we are trying to get schools out from under, and I am glad to say that we are doing that very rapidly.

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth : No, I will not give way because I am just warming up about Birmingham.

While we are referring to Birmingham on education performance, I can do no better than quote The Birmingham Post of 6 November 1992 which stated that Birmingham was in the bottom third on this year's GCSE results with only a quarter passing five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 30 per cent. of average metropolitan LEA schools and a national figure of 38 per cent. The Birmingham Post states revealingly :

"Education chiefs in Birmingham are to launch an inquiry into why some secondary schools did so badly in this year's GCSEs." That is the authority which the hon. Member for Yardley had the nerve to defend yesterday.

Dr. Lynne Jones : Is the Minister aware of the discrepancy in the capital financing of Birmingham city council compared with its actual expenditure? Will he also comment on the fact that the Conservative opposition have never proposed an increase in the education budget at the budget session? Not only that, but when council members such as myself proposed an increase in the budget, the Conservative opposition sat on their hands and did not support it.

Mr. Forth : The hon. Lady should have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) who just the other day said something along the lines of, "If Birmingham council had spent a lot less taxpayers' and chargepayers' money on prestige products, it might have been able to spend a bit more on education." In fairness to Opposition Members, they have repeatedly asserted or implied that there are some secretive grant-maintained schools that we have yet to unearth. They implied that there can be no positive demonstration that grant-maintained schools are superior to schools that remain under LEA control. I want to quote once more from a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I find his letters most revealing and I want to share them with the House. My right hon. Friend said--I should like Opposition Members to listen to this :

"HMI have observed not only that in GM schools the proportion of lessons judged satisfactory or better is greater than that in maintained schools generally, but also that since becoming grant-maintained the schools have generally deployed their resources to good effect so as to secure continuing improvements ; that the demand for places in the majority of schools has increased since the change of status ; that pupils' behaviour and attendance in GM schools are generally commendable ; and that teachers' morale has improved."

That is what HMI says about grant-maintained schools. That is the hidden secret that Opposition Members are so keen to unearth. It is now a matter of public record.

During the debate Opposition Members have claimed that somehow there is a golden partnership between LEAs and schools that we must not seek to undermine. I wonder whether they were referring to Islington, where recently we

---

Column 838

were told that £60,000 has been paid to teachers who no longer work in Islington schools. That happened at a time when the LEA in Islington, presumably as part of its partnership with its schools, had to cut £4 million from its education budget.

Perhaps Opposition Members had Lambeth in mind. The LEA in Lambeth has paid more than £338,000 to 72 phantom teachers who no longer work for the council. Is that what Opposition Members have in mind when they talk about partnerships? Are they surprised that more parents begin to ask searching questions about what LEAs do, especially those that I have mentioned, and why the option of grant-maintained status is not more attractive to them?

I shall mention briefly a point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I shall trespass slightly on to Welsh territory, but as so many hon. Members who spoke come from Wales, I should nod in their direction. I shall read a brief excerpt from the Western Mail --that Welsh bible--which recently said :

"The message from Whitehall is that parents should be able to send their children to the school of their choice, shopping round for the one which best meets the requirement of the child. The message from Wales's eight education authorities is, by and large, the negation of that. You send your child to the nearest school, and that's that Hitherto, opting out has not taken off in Wales. But the current anti-choice culture in Welsh education means that parents and head-teachers will increasingly regard it as a way of liberating their schools from the inflexible grip of county hall. If the counties don't change their ways it could become a stampede." That sums up better than I could the ethos of what is happening in Wales.

In conclusion, I refer to the quotes from The Times which has been mentioned several times in the debate. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), quoted from The Times in July when our White Paper was produced. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly was pushed and invited to examine The Times' more recent considered opinion, a certain coyness came over him. Having given time and thought to our White Paper and Bill, The Times recently said :

"The government deserves congratulation for its attempt yesterday to dislodge the vested interests that control the state schools system"--

and Opposition Members.

"Instead it will be accused of excessive centralisation and worse."

On my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, The Times said "Mr. Patten seems sincerely committed to the idea of improving education for the majority of children. Further, he seems to interpret this to mean what most parents understand by it : restoring the importance of knowledge and visible achievement."

Even my right hon. Friend could not have put it better. The Government want quality education for all children. We want choice for parents and decisions made as closely as possible to schools and communities. The Bill provides for that with additional important provisions for children with special educational needs--a matter widely recognised.

Opposition Members apparently cannot support those aims. They are in thrall to producer interests, the local authorities, trade unions and any group which feels threatened by changed parental powers and the greater demands of higher standards. We are proud of the Bill, we

---

Column 839

can see the way ahead and we trust parents and governors. I ask the House to reject the educational Luddites on the Opposition Benches and to support the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time : The House divided : Ayes 304, Noes 268.

Division No. 84] [9.59 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Beggs, Roy

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Bowden, Andrew

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Churchill, Mr

Clappison, James

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Dunn, Bob

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fishburn, Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Gallie, Phil

Gardiner, Sir George

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Garnier, Edward

Gill, Christopher

Gillan, Cheryl

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Hague, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom-Ewell)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hannam, Sir John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Haselhurst, Alan

Hawkins, Nick

Hawksley, Warren

Hayes, Jerry

Heald, Oliver

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hendry, Charles

---