---

9.30 pm

I represent a constituency adjacent to the London borough of Tower Hamlets. I openly invite the hon. Gentleman to come to any of the secondary comprehensive schools in my constituency, just a mile or two from Tower Hamlets. We have multi-cultural education of a high standard--although no doubt the buildings could be better. I invite him to come to any of the four schools in my constituency, because I think that he would then revise the speech that he has just made.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his local schools are very good. Does he not think that it makes a difference to the morale of a whole street if one or two children are attending a grammar school? People have a chance to say, "Look, there is one of the kids along the road who has broken out. My kid could do the same."

Mr. Spearing: The philosophy is not one of breaking out from an enclosed prison, but of making use of the facilities that the teachers and the community, as well as the borough council, if it is allowed, make available. The hon. Gentleman's assumption may have been true 10, 20 or 30 years ago, particularly in east London, but that situation is now much diminished--I believe that it has largely disappeared.

We have a rather strange debate. I should like to refer to the precise wording of the Bill. I see that the Under-Secretary has departed. I inform the Minister of State, who has now arrived--I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State herself has also arrived at this interesting stage of the debate--that at the beginning of this important debate on selection the Under-Secretary declined to give the Government point of view in resisting the new clause. The new clause negates and limits the purposes of the clauses that relate to the issues that we are considering.

The explanatory memorandum of the Bill as published for Second Reading--not the Bill as we now have it--said:

"Clauses 32 to 35 provide for the introduction of compulsory baseline assessment of children at primary schools. That assessment is to be carried out in accordance with an accredited baseline assessment scheme."

Anybody reading that--I think that I must include myself--thought, "Oh. This is a tightening up of what we have already got about assessment of pupils and how they are getting on and centralising it to a much greater degree." The words "selection" and "admission" do not appear in the alleged explanatory and financial memorandum.

I suggest, therefore, that the absence of those words and the inclusion of what the Secretary of State was alleged to have said on Second Reading about selection for entry to primary school by assessment show that the Government were being not just economical with the truth in the explanatory memorandum but downright misleading. I am

27 Jan 1997 : Column 114

sorry that the Secretary of State is doing exactly what the former right hon. Member for Finchley used to do. When a good point was being made by an Opposition Member, she engaged herself in conversation and pretended not to listen. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is displaying uncustomary discourtesy on this point. Perhaps she will read our debate in Hansard; I commend that point to her.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): My hon. Friend might as well talk to a rice pudding.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure about a rice pudding; the Bill is certainly not very wholesome.

I now refer to clause 31 and I may get some enlightenment from the Secretary of State as I quote it. I would be glad if she intervened on this point. Clause 31 says:

"'baseline assessment scheme' means a scheme designed to enable pupils at a maintained primary school to be assessed for the purpose of assisting the future planning of their education".

As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) said earlier, the scheme appears to be diagnostic. It is a means, albeit compulsory, whereby the needs of the pupil will be assessed

"for the purpose of assisting the future planning of their education".

Any decent school and any decent education system does that all the time. Indeed, it is one of the primary jobs of a teacher to assess the needs of pupils.

We then come to the most extraordinary part of clause 31. As the Secretary of State has, unfortunately, departed, I hope that the Minister of State will stand in for her and answer my question. Clause 31 refers to

"the future planning of their education and the measurement of their future educational achievements".

That phrase is extraordinary. The Bill refers to children's future achievements.

The word "achievements" may include GCSEs or other examinations; the achievements may be non-examinable, but some non-examinable achievements are important. As an ex-teacher, I used to say to people, "What does the O-level say? What does the GCSE say? It says that you are good at passing O-levels or GCSEs, but it does not tell you very much more."

Mrs. Gillan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read the report of the Bill's Committee stage. I draw his attention especially to column 554, where the use of the word "future" was discussed at some length as a result of an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I hope that that will assist the hon. Gentleman in his search for the meaning of the word "future".

Mr. Spearing: Alas, it does not. The Committee debate assists me in understanding the illogicality and educational naivety of the Conservative party. It is clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking--she may wish to contribute to this brief and useful exchange--tabled an amendment to try to clarify the extraordinary statement about the measurement of future educational achievements. Perhaps the Minister means that the scheme may assist in predicting future educational achievements, but the Bill does not use the word "predict"; it uses the word "measurement". Measurement can refer only to what exists. I suggest to the Minister that

27 Jan 1997 : Column 115

the wording of the clause is nonsense. It cannot be sustained in fact or in educational criteria. What we have here is the basis of provision for entry to primary school by selection, and we had not heard very much on that subject until tonight. Unless one had heard the speeches tonight or the debate in Committee, one would not be able to take that meaning from reading the Bill, because the provisions of the Bill are gobbledegook. They do not make sense educationally or practically and I suggest to the Under-Secretary that she is starting something that is completely wrong.

I shall conclude on one fundamental point of educational philosophy with which I am sure the Under-Secretary, and any teacher who happens to be in the House, will agree. Primary schools have always been comprehensive schools that meet mainstream educational need for the whole local area. If the Under-Secretary does what she has said she will do, each primary school will be turned into a selective school--a competitive racetrack for the meritocratic stakes. That is not the purpose of education and it should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. Gunnell: I shall comment briefly. Government amendment No. 65 is clearly about selection for primary schools. In Committee, I asked the Minister of State whether he could name a reputable educational organisation or school that had told the Department that it wanted selection in primary schools. He could not do so. He said:

"In a sense, it does not matter how many schools have asked for the provision; we are giving them the opportunity, if they want to take it. Perhaps by giving them that opportunity, we may stimulate more interest--I do not know."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1996; c. 102.]

He implied that there was not much interest in the issue any way.

The Minister was unable to name anyone, apart from members of the Conservative party, who had decided that selection in primary schools would aid them in the future. He could not name anybody who had requested it--certainly not anyone with an educational reputation. We ask, therefore, why the Government, having set out their stall on parental choice, are so anxious to remove parental choice of primary schools.

The reasons why people choose primary schools are different from the reasons why they want a say and a choice in secondary schools. Fundamentally, parents choose a primary school because of its location in relation to their homes. The reasons are geographical; proximity to their homes is important. I handled an appeal for parents whose choice of school was dictated by their responsibilities as parents of their other children and as working parents. Selection of primary schools is usually made on that basis.

It was not until the debate in Committee that we realised that the Government intended to use baseline assessment for selection. It is clear that they are trying to use baseline assessment for purposes for which it was not designed. They are trying to use it as a basis for diagnosing achievement or aptitude.

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who sincerely expressed his anxiety that children from what he called a working-class ghetto should get on and

27 Jan 1997 : Column 116

get out, felt that such a selection system would help them. It would have absolutely the opposite effect because it would reduce the age at which a child was selected and make it almost certain that those who, to use his word, were ghettoised would not pass--since selection means pass in this instance--or be selected. If the background of such children is restricted, as he suggests, it is very unlikely that they will be selected.

I am greatly concerned about how selection will work. The most likely outcome is that parental influence will have a rapid effect on selection. Primary school children will be selected on the basis of the pressure that their parents are able to bring to bear.

I recognise that there is no time for further debate of the issue, but I hope that the Minister will cite some reputable organisation or school, not simply the Conservative party, from which pressure has come for selection at primary level. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) clearly and most elegantly described why selection is to the disadvantage of our children. Such selection is fundamentally wrong. If the Government are seriously proposing it as a way forward, it will be disastrous for our children.

---