---

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): The Secretary of State talks about choice, but the parents of the children attending the Ridings school had little choice. The local Conservative education spokesman, Councillor John Ford, has now admitted responsibility for pushing through the merger of the two schools that created the Ridings in the face of opposition from the Labour group. He criticised the Minister for delaying the merger, which damaged the school. Will the Secretary of State shoulder some of the blame, by admitting that the highly selective system that is operated in Halifax--and which is supported in the Education Bill--has caused much damage? Everyone else has admitted responsibility--what about the right hon. Lady?

Mrs. Shephard: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has bothered to read the inspector's report on the Ridings school. I also wonder whether she heard the chief education officer, who said:

"The LEA has failed the school."

The clear message from the inspectors of the Ridings school was that the school had weak leadership and management, the governors had not fulfilled their statutory responsibility and the LEA had failed the school. I hope that the hon. Lady has read the inspector's report.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): If there are education black spots, should we not remind the people that the Labour party is responsible for creating and running them? No Government have ever run a school. The local education authorities with the worst examination results are controlled by Labour. The Labour party should apologise to the people for the damage that it has inflicted on countless generations of our country's children.

Mrs. Shephard: Colleagues of Labour Members control nine out of 10 of the local education authorities

11 Nov 1996 : Column 39

with the worst examination results in the land. Labour Members have opposed all measures to raise standards which have gone through the House, including the setting up of the Office for Standards in Education and the inspectorate. That is a matter of great regret, and should be a matter of shame for them.

The Government intend to go further in widening choice for all parents. Parents want choice, and schools can extend choice by developing their particular strengths.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): When my right hon. Friend talks about choice, does she deplore, as I do, the attitude of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon local education authority? It manipulates its school transport policy to ensure that, in rural areas, the only people who can have their children educated at the school of their choice are those who can afford it. Is that what the Liberal Democrats mean by choice?

Mrs. Shephard: Probably. We observe something of the same in Essex.

We believe that schools can extend choice by developing their strengths, whether in teaching particular subjects or in teaching particular pupils. That improves the match between what parents want and what schools offer. It taps into the interest and the commitment of pupils, parents and teachers. It gives each school something special in which it can take pride.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): The Secretary of State will be aware of the Gallup poll carried out this year, which showed that 77 per cent. of the parents interviewed did not want selection. How can she say that that is what parents want?

Mrs. Shephard: I am also aware of a poll conducted for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which found that the majority of parents were in favour of selection.

Through the Bill, we want to give schools greater freedom to introduce or extend selection and specialisation. I must emphasise that we are giving schools the choice: no school will be obliged to adopt selection.

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South): Will the Secretary of State tell us how she has explained the Bill to her friends at Westminster, who believe that, as a result, there will be fewer, not more, satisfied parents? Have they misunderstood the Bill, or does the Secretary of State have something further to tell us about it?

Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. As I said, we are giving schools the choice: no school will be obliged to adopt selection. Many parents, however, want to send their children to selective schools. Existing grammar schools often have around four applications for every place that they offer, and demand is not confined to the few areas with grammar schools. As I said, a recent survey carried out for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers showed that the majority of parents favoured selection.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth): The right hon. Lady has considerable experience of education--as do I, and as

11 Nov 1996 : Column 40

do some of my hon. Friends. Does she not accept that a system of selection is also a system that places labels on the children who are not selected? As she will recall, children live up to the labels that are placed on them. If a large number of children are labelled unsatisfactory, unsuitable or unintelligent, they will act in that manner. We shall then have far more sink schools in Britain, and the country will pay a bitter price.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has come in on cue. Opposition Members are bound to start hurling allegations to the effect that we want grammar schools for the few and secondary moderns for the rest--but that, of course, is nonsense.

We are not in the business of imposing two types of school. We have spent the past 17 years introducing a broader diversity than that into the education system. Indeed, the notion of the imposition of two types of school is almost as far from true diversity as is the imposition of just one type of school--which is, of course, the policy of Opposition Members.

Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): Is not the nub of the issue the fact that we want to give parents the widest possible choice? Is that not what parents want, and is that not evidenced by the parents on the Opposition Benches who exercise the choice?

Mrs. Shephard: It is certainly true that our education policies are popular with some Opposition Members.

We support grammar schools, because they can provide an excellent education geared to stretching the most able. Good for them. Yes, we should like to see more of them, if that is what parents want. Many European countries with highly regarded education systems--including Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland--have selective secondary schools. Why should we deny our children the same opportunities?

Mr. Don Foster (Bath): The Secretary of State has said a good deal about the importance of giving greater opportunities for parental choice. Can she explain, in simple terms, how increased selection will achieve that? In fact, increased selection means that it is the schools that select the pupils, rather than parents selecting the schools for their children.

Mrs. Shephard: I have already explained that we do not intend to impose, for example, a dual system. Schools will be given the opportunity, if they wish, to build on their own strengths and to increase the diversity that already exists in the current system.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for several decades, educational development has been bedevilled by Opposition Members' refusal to accept that children have different aptitudes and abilities and, as a result, need different treatment?

Mrs. Shephard: That appears to be the view of some Opposition Members, but it is certainly not the view of all of them.

11 Nov 1996 : Column 41

Many excellent schools are not grammar schools. We welcome all types of school; the only uniformity on which we insist is that they should all provide, in their different ways, a good education for their pupils--as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): When the Secretary of State introduced a Bill to allow schools to opt out of local authority control, she allowed parents to have a referendum. Given that it is the children who are now in primary schools who will be affected by selection, does she propose to allow parents of children at primary schools that feed into schools that opt for selection to have a referendum? Does she not realise that that will lead to the same sort of result as the previous referendum, which proved to be a disaster for Government policy?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman says that the introduction of grant-maintained schools was a disaster. He should look at the league tables for the results. Of course, schools that wish to change their admission arrangements will be required to consult and there will be guidance because, obviously, that is essential.

Opposition Members say that as soon as one school becomes selective, its neighbouring schools will become second rate or even sink schools. They should look at what is happening in areas such as Bexley and Buckinghamshire, which have a high proportion of their pupils in grammar schools and where the rate of improvement in GCSE results in the non-selective schools has been faster than the national average.

Opposition Members are ready to make excuses for poor schools and no doubt we shall hear more about that in the debate, but as the chief inspector of schools has said, the most successful secondary schools achieve GCSE results six times as good as the worst performers in similar circumstances. Sadly for Opposition Members, most of those poor performers are in LEAs where Labour has long held sway. Labour's distaste for excellence and high standards is shown also, alas, in its voting record in the House.

We know that if one school changes, its neighbours do not just stand by and watch. They all ask themselves what they can offer to local parents as their distinctive identity and special strength, to ensure that they succeed. Competition between schools is a powerful lever for raising standards.

---