| Previous Section | Home Page |
TABLE Proceedings |Lords amendments ------------------------------------------------------------- Nos. 7 to 24 |7.00 p.m. Nos. 25 to 177 |8.00 p.m. Nos. 178 to 253 |9.30 p.m. Nos. 254 to 333 |10.30 p.m. Remaining amendments |midnight
2.--(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended ;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall--
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended ;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment ; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub -paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.
(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Extra time
3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
Column 48
4.--(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item ;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings 5.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee. (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Column 49
Orders of the Day
Education Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1
General Duty of Secretary of State
Lords amendment : No. 1, in page 1, line 12, r Schools (Mr. Eric Forth) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
Mr. Forth : In speaking to these amendments, it would help if I reminded the House briefly of the background to the clause. It seems a long time ago, but, if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) first identified in Standing Committee the fact that the essence of the Bill, which has been before the House and another place for such a long time, was somewhat at odds with the principles and contents of the Education Act 1944. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) took up the matter and reinforced what the hon. Gentleman said. Both asked whether the Government would consider what could be done to resolve any differences or divergences that were beginning to emerge between the principles of the Bill and those of the 1944 Act.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Will the Minister make it clear that I made the comments on the matter in a disapproving manner, unlike the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)?
Mr. Forth : That may be so. I cannot remember specifically the disapproval of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), but of course I accept what he says. The great service that he did to the Committee and the House--it is not overstating the case to put it that way--is that he was the first to put his finger on the difference. We came increasingly to the view that it was essential to correct and to deal with the matter. The group of amendments from another place is a direct result of that process.
In particular, there was a recognition--these are my words, and I shall no longer seek to associate the hon. Gentleman with my remarks--that education is no longer primarily the monopoly of the local education authority. Conservative Members are convinced that the best way to secure improved standards in education is to give individual institutions responsibility for deciding how best they can meet the needs of the people they serve--we have already made considerable progress on that. Those institutions are covered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in which we were happy to give the former polytechnics, now universities, their independence.
Column 50
They have responded to that in full measure and with vigour, and have used that independence in the most positive way.The Act also took further education sixth form colleges out of local education authority control. Those institutions are using their independence to benefit the students whom they serve. The local and business communities also benefit from the work of those institutions and from the improved attainment levels of their students. The same process is taking place in our school system. We and, most importantly, parents and pupils are experiencing an increase in the benefits that that process brings.
The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced local management of schools into the maintained school sector. Its introduction was much maligned by backward-looking Members, mainly Opposition Members. The policy of local management of schools has been grasped with enthusiasm by schools up and down the country. They have relished the opportunity that it has given them to take greater responsibility for managing their affairs in the interests of pupils.
More importantly, the Education Reform Act also gave schools the opportunity to opt out completely of local education authority control. It should be no surprise that Opposition Members also opposed that measure, but we now have a flourishing grant-maintained, self-governing school sector, which will continue to grow in response to parental demand. Nearly 500 self-governing schools are already operating and another 140 or so have received approval from the Department of Education and the Secretary of State. In a further 260, parents have voted to approve applications or proposals for grant-maintained status. More than one in five secondary schools has now balloted on grant-maintained status. Those figures clearly demonstrate the continuing popularity of the reform.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South) : My hon. Friend has made the important point that most of the great educational advances, which have been widely welcomed by teachers, parents, governors and pupils, have been opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. Those initiatives include the technical and vocational education initiative and the local management of schools policy that my hon. Friend mentioned. Does he agree that the Opposition will oppose the current legislation tooth and nail in the House today, but, in a few years' time, their policy will be stood on its head and they will support the Bill?
Mr. Forth : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is a problem for Opposition Members. They have to decide how long they can hold out against the tide of parental opinion and the strongly expressed views of parents. If Opposition Members persist in seeking to deny parents the freedoms that we provide--the elements of choice, the ability to ballot on grant-maintained status and the like--the Opposition will be the losers and we will be the beneficiaries.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : What does the Minister have to say to the ex-mayor of Calderdale, Tory Councillor Carpenter, who recently said that the education department in Calderdale had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opt-out? Councillor Carpenter warns that it will be the end of the local
Column 51
education authority, if not the local authority, because of the double funding and the way in which finances are skewed towards the opted-out sector.Mr. Forth : In the friendliest possible way, I would tell that councillor to look closely at the way in which his local authority operates and uses its funds. He should seek the advice of some of his colleagues throughout local education authorities, many of whom have responded imaginatively and positively to the challenge of grant-maintained status. Some of them have encouraged schools to become grant-maintained, others have welcomed the competition and others have sought, hopelessly, to resist the trend. It would help him if he discussed the matter with his colleagues in other authorities and found out the secret to responding successfully and positively to the challenge. I am disappointed by his negative attitude, but he will be able to find succour and advice from many who have found the secret which has eluded him until now. In the grant-maintained schools, self-governing status has helped to release enormous, previously untapped potential. The parents, who have chosen and balloted for the freedom of grant-maintained status because they want the best for their children, recognise that. The Bill maintains the momentum. In particular, it establishes a coherent and stable framework which will allow self- governing schools, and prospective self-governing schools, to plan confidently for the future. While guaranteeing that the route to self- governing status will remain, via the parental ballot, the Bill rightly makes the transition simpler.
Education law needs to be brought up to date to reflect the fundamental changes that have already taken place. Like the 1944 Act, it needs to be able to accommodate the changes still to come. That is precisely what clause 1 achieves. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the education of people in England and Wales. It encompasses all the key organisations which have, and will continue to have, important roles to play in the delivery of the highest-quality education--local education authorities, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils and, most importantly, the individual schools, colleges and universities--without cluttering the clause with a long, unwieldy list.
The clause establishes the key objectives of the Government : to improve standards, to increase opportunities for choice and to encourage diversity. The Bill will take us well into the next century. I have no doubt that, in the years to come, its praises will be sung throughout the House. Even Opposition Members may, on reflection, recognise the Bill's aims.
I will now turn to the amendments brought from another place. A number of peers were concerned that the clause in some way extended the power of the Secretary of State over institutions in the higher education sector beyond those powers already given to him in existing statute. That was never the intention behind the clause--the genesis of which I have described. We did not believe that that was the effect of the clause. However, we recognised the force of the concerns expressed and were happy to table amendments which sought to allay those concerns.
Column 52
The amendments brought from another place make it clear that the Secretary of State should have a general duty to promote the education of people in England and Wales, regardless of whether that education is provided in schools, colleges or universities. That aim is set out in new clause 1 which is entirely free standing. In turn, new clause 2, which is concerned with the use of the Secretary of State's powers, clearly applies only to schools and further education institutions and to primary, secondary and further education. I have set out the intentions of clause 1, which is important, but it goes no further than I have described. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : I wish to take up some of the issues raised by the Minister. In the last 30 seconds of his speech-- which was obviously truncated by the guillotine motion--the Minister referred to amendments Nos. 1 to 6. He did not refer to them in the rest of his speech, but I shall concentrate on the amendments, as I wish to probe the Government's intentions when the clause was brought before the House and when it came before the other place. We have never had a satisfactory explanation about that.
Just to ensure that the idea does not enter folklore, we must continually remind the Government that the Opposition do not oppose local management of schools and did not oppose it when it was introduced, but we rightly objected to the formula on which it was originally based. It is common ground between us that subsidiarity should apply and that decisions should be taken down to the level at which they can best be made. It is, however, a myth to claim that the Opposition opposed the principle. We merely opposed the formula and we were entitled to--we do not have to accept everything rammed down our throats by the Government.
I remind the House that the 1944 Act was our Act. The Conservative party has no proprietorial rights over it. So let us all use language that we can understand and not perpetrate central office mythology. On report, on 2 March at column 161, the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear that this part of the Bill was intended to apply to the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities. Indeed, he went out of his way to specify that it was intended to cover higher education. That intention clearly showed through the drafting of both the clause and the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
It was not until the Bill left this House and went to another place that the issue was debated in detail. There was hardly any debate here, because the 6 pm guillotine fell during the second sentence spoken by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), as I know from having read the debate. There was no debate here about the effects on higher education and the Secretary of State's intention that universities be covered.
Following the debates in the House of Lords and today's remarks by the Minister, we have still had no explanation of why Ministers intended to extend these powers into higher education. It would help us to guard against such moves in the future and be able to bring the Government to account if we were given an explanatory statement. Although the Government have backtracked in the meantime, it would still be useful to know their thinking on the matter.
Column 53
This is our first opportunity to discuss the issue. Although we agree with the Lords amendments, we make it crystal clear that the Opposition do not see threats to university autonomy or academic freedom in the promotion of policies in respect of quality education, wider access to higher education and equity of treatment as between full or part-time students in further or higher education. We will not be dictated to ; nor will we accept criticism from the university sector simply because we want to raise these issues, as they were raised in the Lords. They can be properly debated in a mature fashion, surely, without such accusations being tossed around the Chamber. For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that it is quite legitimate to raise these issues in debates, here and in another place. No one is levelling charges at anyone about a diminution of academic freedom or autonomy. Higher education itself is about inquiry and change, phenomena which can be uncomfortable bedfellows for those in politics and higher education.We do not yet have the benefit of seeing a consolidated clause, although I have one with me drawn up by the Library. Nevertheless, the Lords amendments construct a composite clause. I have already declared an interest--not pecuniary--as a serving member of an FE college corporation, a post in which I served for 20 years before coming to the House. Neither I nor my hon. Friends know of any FE corporation that wants to return to the status quo ante--that is not in dispute. I have seen at first hand the changes that have occurred and the problems both before and after incorporation. It has not all been plain sailing.
The borders between these sectors of education are becoming ever more blurred, the more so since further education is still included in the clause. We know that the Higher Education Funding Council for England directly funds no fewer than 77 FE colleges' higher education courses. Given that the HE arrangements in further education colleges are either franchise-based or based on 3 plus 1 or 2 plus 2 degrees, we want to know how the Secretary of State will exercise his power in the FE sector without impinging on the commitments given in another place to the effect that he will not do so in the higher education sector. Almost a quarter of FE colleges use this arrangement--higher education takes place, in fact, in far more than 77 of them, although only 77 are directly funded for it. As some of these colleges work in partnership with the universities, we need to know the Secretary of State's intentions.
5.15 pm
As the summer will show, cuts in university places will become apparent when the brown envelopes do not drop through doors, but that is to be compensated for in part by the proposed expansion--of 25 per cent. over the next three years--in the number of further education places. Some of that number will clearly be in higher education--so much has emerged from the colleges and from ministerial statements. The clause will thus have an effect on the HE sector.
I appreciate that the university lobby and its representatives in the House of Lords did not discuss this aspect. I was in the other place, in the Gallery, on 20 April, watching the kebabing of Baroness Blatch as she proposed the original clause. The vice-chancellors and their representatives rightly concentrated on their own
Column 54
institutions, because there had been no consultation or debate in this place, nor had there been any warning that the Government intended, as it appeared, to take further powers over the higher education sector.I have been to the other place only a few times and I found it illuminating to see the House of Lords chock-a-block, with every speaker from every quarter attacking the Government. Even after the Minister had given way to their demands, they carried on for another hour pressing their case. Anyone waiting to speak on any other aspect of the Bill would have found himself trampled at the end of that debate, because so many people were leaving.
I do not want to fall foul of anyone in the higher education sector, but I suggest that the next batch of working peers should be drawn exclusively from the further education sector, the better to represent its views-- especially in view of the blurring of the two sectors. It would be useful to have more practitioners, heads of departments and principals from FE, and more heads of nursery schools, in the second Chamber, while it remains in its present form. That makes the debates more rounded, and it would allow those of us who tend to concentrate on higher education to understand that the lower tiers of education provide the seedcorn. It is wrong to compartmentalise each sector of education. I make this point for all party leaders as they draw up their lists of working peerages. Our higher education sector deserves a statement in greater detail than the Minister has been able to give so far about why they were included in the original clause.
In principle we do not disagree with the new wider powers, but on behalf of those who will be on the receiving end of them we are entitled to ask how the Minister will exercise them. Will representatives of parents, teachers, students and pupils be consulted before these wide general powers are exercised? In the spirit in which the Government should conduct education policy, they should be prepared to say that there will be meaningful consultation because sometimes consultation is merely symbolic. More thought by the Government before presenting the new clause would have been helpful for all concerned.
We do not oppose the amendments. We would have raised the same issues if we had had the opportunity when the Bill was going through this place. However, we did not have the opportunity to do that because the Government were not willing to allow time to debate the Bill in the detail that it deserves.
Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : One of the Bill's principal objects is to make it easier for schools to apply for grant- maintained status. That was said in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I welcome grant-maintained status, although the hon. Gentleman did not. Opposition Members have made no secret of their hostility to grant-maintained status. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is in her customary place on the Opposition Front Bench, has said that, if Labour ever wins a general election, it will abolish grant-maintained status and put schools back under local education authorities.
Parental opinion expressed through a free and secret ballot apparently means nothing to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. It is odd that she is so far out of step with her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands,
Column 55
East (Mr. Smith) and with her hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who are steadily moving away from the old clause 4 mentality that only state ownership and the LEA are right. The hon. Lady is in something of a time warp. Most believe that she will have to change her mind on this issue in precisely the way that she changed it on the sale of council houses.Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury seriously tell the House and the nation that, at a time when hundreds of schools have become grant-maintained and hundreds of thousands of the nation's children are being educated in them, she will abolish their status and return them to the control of local education authorities? Does she think that parents will stand for that? Does not she understand the magnitude of the upheaval and the damage that the change will do to innumerable children in the state sector? The hon. Lady is unwise, and it may be significant that already there are rumours that some of her hon. Friends think that she is wrong and will seek to change her mind before it becomes set in its customary concrete.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) : Who?
Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Gentleman asks, "Who?" It is up to him to take soundings in his party. If he does not know who they are, it is not for me to tell him.
Mr. Steinberg : The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, as he usually does. When my party forms the Government in three years' time, it will return opted-out schools to the state sector.
Mr. Pawsey : I wonder whether the House noted the silence with which the hon. Gentleman's intervention was received by his hon. Friends. Does he realise how isolated he is becoming in his party? Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Pawsey : Now they are queuing up.
Mr. Enright : We are getting close to the end of the hon. Gentleman's second speech and I have not yet heard one iota about his philosophy on education or anything about his aims or dreams or what he intends to do and what education is about. All that he can do is grub in the dirt.
Mr. Pawsey : The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the debates in Standing Committee E. If he can remember that far back, he will recall that I spelled out in substantial detail my philosophy on education. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to take up more time by repeating purely for the hon. Gentleman's benefit what I said at length some time ago.
Grant-maintained schools are successful because they are popular with parents and more parents want them ; their wishes are expressed through a free and secret ballot. For such schools to be sacrificed to a political vision that is becoming increasingly abandoned by the more progressive thinkers in the Labour party would be a mistake on a par with Labour's expectations during the last general election.
Mr. Rooker : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pawsey : I should like to make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Column 56
Mr. Rooker : The hon. Gentleman is obviously wound up on this issue. Will he give a commitment that the promises given to parents during the ballots on grant-maintained schools will be kept and that the funding of future grant-maintained schools will be on the same basis as the funding of those schools to which that status has already been granted?
Mr. Pawsey : I acknowledge that funding will become increasingly tight. Conservative Members certainly accept that, because we understand the substantial deficit between Government revenue and expenditure. We appreciate what has to be done to rectify that deficit, but that does not damage the fundamental principle of grant-maintained schools. People vote for those schools, and they come into existence not because of the extra funding that they receive but because parents believe in them and appreciate the greater freedom and the greater choice that go with them. The hon. Gentleman should understand that.
When the hon. Member for Dewsbury was shadow spokesman on the environment, she took a long time to accept the sale of council houses and accepted it only after several thousand had been sold. Given time and several thousand grant-maintained schools, I am certain that she will again see the light-- perhaps not in a brilliant flash as on the road to Dewsbury, but rather sullenly and reluctantly--and she will be motivated by the knowledge that the abolition of grant-maintained status would be unpopular and a real vote loser.
There is nothing like four lost general elections to concentrate even the most recalcitrant mind. Parents want grant-maintained schools and they will get them, but only from a Conservative Government. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends listen only to the trade unions and to the views and needs of their friends and comrades in local authorities. They must understand that grant-maintained schools offer genuine choice and genuine diversity to the nation's parents.
One of our more interesting debates took place on 21 January ; it was on specialisation. I make no secret of the fact that I support specialisation and believe that where governing bodies, parents and teachers want to specialise in technology, science or music, they should be allowed to do so. Specialisation adds additional choice, concentrates resources and challenges pupils, and it should be welcomed.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, about 640 schools have been approved for grant-maintained status, and a further 260 applications are in the pipeline. The vast majority of those are secondary schools. Currently, about 20 per cent. of secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status and more than 350,000 of the nation's children are now taught in grant-maintained schools. That is a clear sign of the magnitude of the revolution taking place. For the first time in almost 100 years, the apron strings that secured schools to LEAs are being cut.
I have long held the view that those who believe that the only acceptable form of state education is local authority education are mistaken. There is a place for the local education authority, but it is unwise to assume that only one form of education is right. It is also unwise to accept that all the nation's children should be educated in a single type of school, run by a single form of authority.
Column 57
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Hear, hear.
5.30 pm
Mr. Pawsey : I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's assent. No one person and no single system has a monopoly on virtue. The old monolithic structure of the LEAs, which has survived for the best part of 100 years, is now under challenge--and rightly so. Parents are becoming more knowledgeable as a result of the Government's reforms and they are becoming more interested in their children's education. They have the right to exercise their opinions and their choice. We have made it possible for the educational establishment to be challenged and most parents are taking advantage of that. The Bill makes it easier for primary schools to emerge through the introduction of clustering. That will be of particular benefit to schools in rural areas. The concept of clustering will also assist denominational schools--for example, a Catholic secondary school will be able to apply for grant-maintained status with its feeder primary schools.
I think it appropriate to quote from a letter that I received from the Catholic Education Service, dated 22 January. In that letter, the deputy director told me :
"In Sheffield, where I learn this morning that three of our primary schools are about to embark upon the GM route, there is no doubt that the authority has consistently sold Catholic schools short when comparisons are made with the LEA funding with county schools of similar size. I am told that examples of the same can also be found in Derbyshire. Similar observation has been made in Staffordshire and Liverpool and, I regret, could be demonstrated elsewhere. Such disparities in provision, long suspected, became apparent with delegated budget provision."
I am not especially surprised that some LEAs have consistently sold Catholic schools short. That may or may not have been deliberate policy, but, whatever the reason, it will be put right when such schools receive grant-maintained status. They will then receive their fair share of resources, with greater freedom added for good measure.
Mr. Enright : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pawsey : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time.
Mr. Enright : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has spoken for a second time. Could he explain why the Archbishop's spokesman, Bishop David Konstant, is opposed to grant-maintained schools and advises Catholic schools not to go down that route? For the hon. Gentleman's information, I have taught in Catholic schools under both Conservative and Labour authorities, both of which have always given excellent back-up to Catholic schools. I pay tribute to them for that.
Mr. Pawsey : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he did not challenge the extracts that I quoted from the letter from the Catholic Education Service ; clearly, he rightly accepts them as correct. On the question of Bishop Konstant, it may be that his opinion has more to do with his political beliefs than with anything else. I merely put that point to the hon. Gentleman for good measure. I certainly hope that more Catholic schools take the plunge and are reborn or rebaptised as grant-maintained schools.
Column 58
Throughout the passage of the Bill, Labour Members have ridiculed grant-maintained status and have tried to reduce the significance of the numbers. I ask them again today, as I asked them in Committee : if grant-maintained status is as unsuccessful as they claim, why do they make such a fuss about it? The fact is that grant-maintained status is a substantial benefit.I want to discuss my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's admirable initiative in tackling failing schools. Education associations will take over where LEAs leave off. It is not always easy for an LEA to get to grips with a failing inner-city school, where the headmaster may be old or tired or nearing retirement. My right hon. Friend's solution will be of substantial benefit, so I hope that the amendment will receive the support of Labour Members. Education associations will be a longstop, rarely called into existence and then only when an LEA has failed, despite being given the appropriate time and opportunity to take remedial action. Membership of the education associations will be small and committed, and I believe that their attitude will be positive and substantial. They will be of great importance to a considerable It builds on the independent schools inspectorate, and it confirms the national curriculum and testing. The aim of the Government's reforms is ambitious : it is no less than a genuine attempt to improve the quality and standard of state education where the majority of the nation's children are educated. I believe that to be a truly laudable objective.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) : The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke about the damage that the plans and policies of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might do to children. If only he would, to use his own words, take soundings throughout the country, he would find that many people, including governors, parents and teachers, would tell him that the Government's current policies are already causing a great deal of damage to the education service. The hon. Gentleman spoke about sacrificing the education service for political ideology. The ideology that he and his party support has already led to strife rather than consensus in the education service. The ideology that the hon. Gentleman, his party and his Government support has led to competition throughout the service, rather than the partnership that was such an important element of the 1944 Education Act, about which Conservative Members boasted so proudly only a few moments ago. They have had 14 years in office and have brought in 17 major education Bills, yet they still fail to get it right.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he truly believes that, if all schools opted out, 23,000 quasi-independent schools would add up to what he and I both understand to be an education service.
Mr. Pawsey : I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. The difference between us is not that I would drive 23,000 schools into one form of education or another--very simply, I want to give them the choice. Freedom to choose is what it is all about. It is what parents want and it is what they will get from the
| Next Section
| Home Page |