---

19 Oct 2004 : Column 227WH—continued

 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 228WH
 

Primary Schools (Stevenage)

3.33 pm

Barbara Follett (Stevenage) (Lab): I am pleased to have this opportunity to air a subject that is causing my constituents and me a great deal of distress and, if plans go through, is likely to cause us even more. I am here to ask the Minister to listen to our problem and to do all that he can to persuade Hertfordshire county council to rerun its recent review and consultation on primary provision in Stevenage.

I shall try to give the background to the problem, discuss Hertfordshire's solution and then say what we in Stevenage would like to be done. Historically, Stevenage has had a large number of surplus primary school places. That has been true for almost a decade, and at present there are 1,590 surplus places, or nine and a half forms of entry. This is both a problem and an opportunity.

I was glad when, this January, Hertfordshire county council decided to address the problem by holding a review of the surplus primary school places. I was even gladder when, in a speech to the school governors and head teachers concerned, the county council officials said that the review would be transparent and clear, and that they would publish the 11 criteria on which they had based their decisions. We heard nothing at all from January until late May, however, and only a strong rumour at the beginning of June that the county council would indeed publish its review, but that the review was delayed because of the postponement of the local elections until 10 June.

I assumed, as did many head teachers, teachers and parents, that the review would be published in September and that the consultation would end around Christmas. Hon. Members may imagine my surprise when, on 21 June, we were sent the review and discovered that the consultation period was just under nine and three quarter weeks, and that it was due to start in the few hectic weeks before the schools closed for the summer holidays and end on 31 August. In other words, it was perfectly timed to fit two thirds of it into the school holidays.

When consulting on the closure of six primary schools, people do not usually allow such a small window of opportunity or hold the consultation in the holidays. Not surprisingly, the parents, many of whom are here today, were deeply suspicious of the county council's motives. I do not know whether it was carelessness or whether it was contrived, but whatever it was, the timetable has been most inconvenient and difficult.

The summer holidays are traditionally a time when we all forget about things such as politics, primary provision and schools, go away and sit on a beach or walk in the hills—but local parents did not do that this summer. Instead, they spent their time organising. I have in my hand a petition of 8,000 signatures of parents in Stevenage who are against the county council's proposals, and I shall present it to the House of Commons later this week. The parents also ensured that the county council received a record number of response forms; one county official told me that the council had received 100 per cent. more than usual.
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 229WH
 
More than 3,000 response forms were returned to the county council, of which 97.3 per cent. were from people who were against the council's proposals.

What were the proposals that caused so much consternation? As I said, Stevenage has a long-standing problem with surplus primary school places, particularly in the southern end of the town, in which the population is ageing and where, because of housing inflexibilities, we have been unable to build the sort of housing that would allow older people to move out of their large houses into smaller ones. Numbers in the schools were therefore going down. The review dealt with two schools in the centre of Stevenage and four in the south of the town.

One usually expects reviews to list the options considered, and the reasons why some are good and some bad. One also expects stakeholders to be given a choice. The people of central Stevenage were the lucky ones: they were given exactly one choice. They were told that one school in the centre of the town, either Pin Green or Bedwell, would have to close, and that was it. There was nothing else. No other solutions—believe you me, there are many—were considered.

As I said, the people of central Stevenage turned out to be the lucky ones, because the review said quite baldly that in the south of Stevenage it could not possibly recommend anything else but the merger of four schools to create a primary school that is very large for Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire's 20 most successful schools have no more than 300 pupils, and its largest primary school has 560 pupils. The school proposed for the south of Stevenage would have to have 842 pupils, which is a lot. There are only about seven schools in the whole country that are that large—I know that the Minister happens to have one of them in his own constituency. However, I would point out to him that there are special circumstances in Stevenage, involving a history of very low achievement.

Parents, local politicians and I found it deeply insulting that the review document was entitled, "Raising Standards in Stevenage". Over the years—certainly over the 10 years that I have been living in Stevenage—standards have been very low. They are the lowest in Hertfordshire. When I moved to the town in 1995, I was shocked to find that only one third of children who left school at 11 to go to secondary school could read. Is it surprising that those children did not do well in their GCSEs, or that they did not go on to A-levels or university? Is it surprising that in 1995 there was 11 per cent. youth unemployment in the town? Much of it was caused by the fact that the youths were unemployable because they were illiterate. Remember: only one third of the children could read at the age of 11.

Since 1997 that situation has been reversed and now about 80 per cent. of children who leave primary school can read at the age of 11 and are fit for secondary school. Standards have been raised, particularly in the primary area. However, until then almost nothing had been done, except by Stevenage borough council, which is very good. It is the only Labour-held district council in the east of England and it ran the Raise project, which helped to raise academic achievement, but which had to stop because Hertfordshire county council would not go on funding it. That is the commitment that the county
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 230WH
 
council has to raising achievement and that is why we were so insulted when it produced the review under that title. At least it could have spared us that insult.

What has happened since then? The parents got their responses in and the county council held an education panel meeting at which it very narrowly voted through the proposals for the centre of Stevenage. It agreed to issue the statutory notices to close Pin Green school and decided in principle to proceed with the merger of the four schools in southern Stevenage, but it realised that it had not convinced the parents so it decided to have "more discussions" with them.

That is not what the parents want, or what I want. We want the consultation to be rerun, because we believe that it was deeply flawed. We have gone into the matter in great detail, using the council's own standards, which it helpfully published on its website. The introduction to the standards says that there is no point in consulting unless the county council is prepared to change its mind. It has demonstrated no such preparedness. In fact, in the face of 97.3 per cent. of the people being against the proposals, it has gone ahead with just a pause in the proceedings, not a rerun.

We feel that that is undemocratic, and many of my constituents have lost faith in the whole process of democracy. They cannot understand how we are so powerless that we can secure only the tiny victory of a stay of execution. I have letters from 241 parents asking me to refer the matter to the local government ombudsman, and I shall do so. If that fails, I shall submit the case for judicial review, because the council did not adhere to its own standards. One of those standards specifies a 12-week consultation when dealing with voluntary bodies such as parent-teacher associations and governing bodies. Only nine and a half weeks was allowed for consultation, but that was during the holidays, and yet another standard says that the holidays should have been taken into account. In this case, if the holidays were taken into account at all, that could only have been part of an attempt to railroad the closure through. I hope that that is not the case, but I fear that it might be.

The element of consultation is giving people a choice—[interruption] pardon me for sniffing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I always get a cold when I have an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I know exactly how the hon. Lady feels. I have one myself.

Barbara Follett : You have my sympathy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

At no stage were people consulted on whether they wanted a school of the proposed size. At their January meeting, the heads and governors were told that the model for change throughout the town would be a two-form entry school. That could have worked quite well. I shall not bore the House with the many permutations that might have been satisfactory to parents and which would have prevented the logjam of traffic that we shall get if the new school uses the two ancient asbestos-ridden sets of buildings on the Long Meadow site. It is not proposed to provide new accommodation. Instead, we will have to use buildings erected in the 1950s and 1960s that have asbestos in them, and they will have to
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 231WH
 
be bodged together into one big primary school. That is simply not on. There will also have to be mixed-age classes; again, that is simply not on.

Parents feel that this was sprung on them, and they were surprised. They were called to public meetings. I did not attend them, but parents have told me that they were among the worst run meetings they have attended. They did not have the chance to speak. The meetings were totally chaotic. Parents were bombarded with statistics by county officers, who were plainly nervous—and many of the statistics were wrong. The officers included Graveley school, which is in north Hertfordshire, not in Stevenage, in the list of schools; that raised the average achievement levels, which is simply sloppy. In some of their demographic projections—probably because the county council is in collective denial about future developments—officers ignored the additional housing that will probably be built to the west of Stevenage. They ignored the big demographic changes in the area that will see the ageing population shift from the south of the town.

Officers also made it clear to parents at the consultation meeting that if they kept their children at Pin Green school, which was threatened with closure, they would not be guaranteed suitable places for their children in September 2005, nor would any attempt be made to put the children in schools with their siblings or friends. That was not quite coercion, but it was certainly powerful persuasion. Not unnaturally, the parents moved their children, which allowed one of the county council officials to say at the education panel meeting, "Well, Pin Green school effectively closed itself." No, it did not. The county council slowly throttled it to death. They began the throttling process last year when they told the governors of Pin Green school not to appoint a head until the review had been completed. That marked it down as a finished school.

The parents and I are asking the county council for the consultation to be rerun on democratic lines—for people to be consulted, for a consensus to be arrived at and eventually for us to be properly consulted on several proper options. That is even more important because the bodged review and consultation dealt not with the entire problem, which involves nine and a half forms of entry, but with only three and a half forms. That means that we shall soon need another review.

The Stevenage heads wrote to me and to county hall—I have copied the letter to the Secretary of State—expressing their total dismay at how the process was conducted. The county council knew of the problem. Instead of making it into a plus, and seeing it as a way to use the surplus places to raise achievement in a town that has historically had low achievement, it missed the opportunity. I am here today to ask my hon. Friend to try to persuade the council to do otherwise. Hertfordshire has ignored Stevenage for too long. About 1,000 children are involved and we want our parents to have a say in how their children are educated, now and in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : For the sake of clarity following the Division in the House, the way in which the Standing Order works means that this debate will now have to close by 4.3 pm.
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 232WH
 

3.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg) : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on securing this debate and on her tireless work in campaigning on behalf of her constituency for higher educational standards. That is reflected in her work in securing this debate and in the petition that she said that she will present in the presence of a number of parents and governors from Stevenage.

My hon. Friend's commitment to raising standards in education matches the Government's commitment. As she said, the county council has stated in respect of its aims for the review that it wishes to raise achievement in Stevenage. I am well aware of the great interest and concern that people living in Stevenage have shown in respect of the review of primary school provision in the centre and south of the town. I appreciate the anxieties that are involved when school closures and reorganisations are considered. My hon. Friend made the important point that falling rolls can provide not only a problem, but an opportunity. That is a good starting point and I hope that today's debate will enable the strength of local feeling and parental concern about the issue to be placed firmly on the record.

I reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents that we believe that we have good arrangements in place for taking forward any significant changes that follow the review that Hertfordshire has undertaken. That is to ensure that the concerns of her constituents, which she has expressed so clearly today, are given due consideration. I must make it clear from the outset that any decision on reorganising school provision as a result of such a review will not be taken by me or my ministerial colleagues. The decision will be made locally, as it would be anywhere else, by the local education authority. Such decisions were devolved to local level in September 1999, because they are best decided locally, where the full range of factors and issues can be considered in context. That view not only is held by the Government, but has widespread agreement.

Each local education authority is responsible for looking at the needs of its area and ensuring that there are sufficient school places. That responsibility involves the need to balance the supply of places, to ensure that schools serve the needs of their local communities and to provide good-quality education in a cost-effective way. Often, with population changes over the years, there will be an imbalance or a need for new provision. Local education authorities can propose changes. When the proposed changes are significant, as is the case in Stevenage, a number of stages must be gone through before the changes can be implemented. There are safeguards involved in that process to ensure that changes are made in an open, democratic way.

The first stage is consultation, with all interested parties being consulted before formal proposals are published. The local education authority has a duty to allow adequate time and must provide sufficient information to those involved. The second stage is publication. If the outcome of consultation is a decision to proceed, a formal notice detailing proposals must be published widely, including in a local newspaper and at
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 233WH
 
the main entrances of the schools that are named in the proposals. People usually have a minimum of six weeks in which to submit their representations in support of or against proposals. An LEA may make the final decision on proposals that it has published only if there have been no objections. In all other cases, the proposals must be passed to the local school organisation committee. If that committee cannot reach a unanimous decision, the proposals must be passed to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.

On consultation, and on the concerns that have been raised by my hon. Friend in respect of Hertfordshire's handling of the review of primary provision in Stevenage, the Department does not specify precise arrangements, such as a timetable to be followed, or how options should be set out. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that LEAs have statutory responsibility for school place planning. Therefore, in the first instance, it is for them to consider options, taking into account specific local circumstances and their judgment as to the feasibility of a range of options.

We allow maximum flexibility, so that consultation can be tailored to local needs. Nevertheless, our guidance on school organisation arrangements makes it clear that the formal consultation prior to any publication must set out what is proposed in such a way that those affected understand what is involved and how they can make their views known. Furthermore, if proposals are to be taken up following consultation, the school organisation committee must consider whether the consultation undertaken was adequate before accepting formal proposals for consideration.

Of course, the arrangements for the work of school organisation committees fall under the jurisdiction of the local government ombudsman, who can investigate complaints of maladministration. I note my hon. Friend's plans to refer this case to the ombudsman. Beyond the ombudsman, there is the option to go to court and to seek judicial review. My hon. Friend has placed on record the possibility that that route will be used.

I understand that, while Hertfordshire county council has decided to revisit options for the south of Stevenage, it has also been decided to proceed with plans for the centre, in particular to close Pin Green primary school and nursery. To proceed, the LEA will need to move to the second step of the process I described earlier—to publish formal proposals. That will give all interested parties the opportunity to raise further, formal objections. If that happens, those will have to be considered by the local school organisation committee before a final decision to close the school can be made.
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 234WH
 

It is important to understand that the school organisation committee operates independently of the LEA. It represents the main education stakeholders in the area and consists of five or six groups, each having one vote on each proposal—there is an LEA representative, one each from the Church of England and Roman Catholic dioceses and the learning and skills council, and a schools group representing school governors and head teachers. In deciding on proposals, the school organisation committee takes into account their effect on educational standards, as well as their contribution to school improvement, and the need for places in the area and any financial implications, alongside the views of interested parties, including parents and the wider community, to which my hon. Friend has given voice today.

My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the possible outcome of the process in terms of the size of a planned new primary school. In our guidance, of which account must be taken, we make it clear that there should be no blanket assumption that a certain size of school is good or bad. She referred to an example in Enfield, in my constituency—Wilbury school, which has 900 pupils. It is one of the largest schools in the country. Clearly, the school that is being considered in her constituency, with 842 pupils, would come into the same category. There is no firm evidence one way or the other as to whether bigger or smaller schools can be considered better. We have many examples of schools that do well and happen to be very large, and others, also doing well, that are very small. We believe that those matters are best decided locally by those who know the area best. That is clearly the issue of contention that will move forward following today's debate.

We believe that decisions on changes to education provision in an area are best taken in that local area. Only then can everything be considered in its full context. We believe that the arrangements that have been made allow that and work well. I nevertheless appreciate the real concerns that my hon. Friend and her constituents have expressed about primary education in Stevenage, and, in particular, about the handing of consultation on the review. I am convinced that there are safeguards and that arrangements for the remainder of the process should ensure an outcome that will best serve the interests of everyone—higher standards for the pupils of Stevenage, for which my hon. Friend argued powerfully.

I thank my hon. Friend for placing the concerns of her constituents, and parents in particular, on the record. On behalf of the Department, I express the hope that a full process will be followed through, enabling everyone concerned with the education of children and young people in Stevenage to have their say, and have their say respected.
 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 233WH
 

 
19 Oct 2004 : Column 235WH
 

---