2 Mar 2005 : Column 253WH
Westminster Hall
Wednesday 2 March 2005
[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]
Post-primary Schools (Northern Ireland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
9.30 am
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I welcome the opportunity offered by this Adjournment debate on admissions arrangements for post-primary schools, a subject that is important to many people in Northern Ireland. Retaining our successful grammar schools and the principle of academic selection in Northern Ireland are key priorities for the Democratic Unionist party. The Province's pupils consistently produce the best examination results in the United Kingdom. The recent consultative document from Northern Ireland's Department of Education on new admissions arrangements to post-primary schools confirms neighbourhood comprehensives as the inevitable outcome of the transfer procedure changes that the Government are seeking. In ruling out academic selection, the Government are excluding the principle that the majority of parents obviously support.
We reject utterly the Government's vision of post-primary education in Northern Ireland. An unaccountable Sinn Fein Minister and the Costello report attempted to ignore the fact that almost two thirds of parents in the Province opposed the Burns report proposals to end academic selection. Now, direct rule Ministers are doing the same. Indeed, I am informed that several schools have applied to the Department for consultation response booklets on behalf of parents, but that the Department has refused to give the schools the booklets, saying that individual parents must contact it directly. I am not aware of such practice in other Departments in Northern Ireland.
Is the Minister afraid of public opinion coming out against the proposals yet again, and thus attempting to limit the parental response? Surely it matters not how a parent obtains the consultation response document. If we are about open government, we should be encouraging more people to participate in the consultation process. Will the Minister deal with such matters in his response? Students should be placed in the school that best suits their needs on the basis of ability, not by postcode or the ability to pay.
Despite excellent exam results in the Province, there are undoubtedly areas for improvement. We need to enhance the qualifications of those not so academically gifted. Children from areas of social deprivation do less well—an issue that we want to address. It is important that more young people from working-class areas reach grammar school and university. It is through a process of academic selection that they are given the best opportunity of proceeding to higher educational attainment.
2 Mar 2005 : Column 254WH
David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the consequence of the imposition of comprehensive education in Northern Ireland will be an independently funded education sector for the well-off and no provision for working-class children? The consequence of comprehensive education in England in the '60s and '70s is to be imposed on us to the detriment of working-class children.
Mr. Donaldson : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention; he is absolutely right. I have spoken to those associated with some of the voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland and they are clear that, if the Minister proceeds down the road on which he has embarked, the result may well be that we have private fee-paying schools in Northern Ireland. That will not create the type of social equality that he talks about; it will increase the gap between those who have and those who have not in educational terms.
The current method of testing children at the age of 11 must be improved, so that it is less stressful for them. I have had two young children go through the transfer system and I know the pressures that it places on families. Those in my party support the scrapping of the current 11-plus transfer test, but we believe that it ought to be replaced by a new assessment system that includes academic selection on transfer. Tests could be conducted over a longer period, such as two or three years, and in-class monitoring by teachers during the latter years of primary school could also contribute towards the transfer procedure.
By persisting with their current policy, the Government could rob Northern Ireland of one of its key selling points. It is also flying in the face of what the Minister knows to be the wishes of the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. The public want a system of education that includes academic selection and allows everyone, regardless of their economic background, an opportunity to attend grammar schools—in short, a system that produces pupils educated to the highest standards within the United Kingdom. People in Northern Ireland are proud of what the education system allows individuals to achieve and that academic excellence is open to everyone. At present, the doors of grammar schools are open to everyone in Northern Ireland, not just the rich or those whose parents were educated at grammar schools. Under the Minister's proposals, I fear that the net result, whether he intends it or not, will be the opposite.
Martin McGuinness's consultation received an unprecedented reply from 200,551 households in Northern Ireland. Some 64 per cent. of respondents demanded the retention of academic selection. McGuinness, clearly shocked by the results, tried to massage the figures, but his protestations simply did not wash. He claimed that teaching sectors and unions were in favour of abolishing academic selection. How wrong he was: among teachers in Northern Ireland, the response was an emphatic 62 per cent. in favour of retaining academic selection for determining post-primary placement.
In desperation, McGuinness then tried to claim that the responses were skewed due to the motivation of the grammar sector in Northern Ireland. However, it is clear that almost one third of Northern Ireland households replied, two thirds of which disagreed with
2 Mar 2005 : Column 255WH
the Minister and current Government policy. Such a high level of return in a Government consultation process is a mark of just how concerned parents are about the current direction of policy.
Not only was that concern reflected in the Department's household consultative responses, the Omnibus survey for the same period also showed a clear majority in favour of retaining academic selection. It is clear that the people of Northern Ireland and the teachers and the parents of children in the Province wish academic selection to be maintained. The majority of political representatives in Northern Ireland also favour academic selection. The Government should not seek to frustrate the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
On the day that the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended, Martin McGuinness moved quickly to abolish the 11-plus without any consideration of an alternative system for post-primary transfer. It is sad that the Government have continued to pursue that flawed and unpopular policy.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): Would it not be fair to say that all Mr. McGuinness did was issue a press release? What then happened was that the Government proceeded to abolish academic selection.
Mr. Donaldson : I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is right. It is sad that the Government have chosen to go down that road in the face of public opinion.
The issues of the transfer test and retaining our grammar schools are extremely emotive, and we readily accept that there is an expectation among many parents that the current 11-plus should be replaced. However, there is also an expectation that the grammar system and academic excellence should be retained. The way forward is clear: we must retain what is best about our education system while reforming what is outdated and ineffective. The Government, in their haste to end the outdated current 11-plus, have failed to take account of how their actions will destroy what is best for academic achievement. They have signalled the end of academic selection from 2008. Such a policy is folly. Decisions should not be taken on narrow ideological grounds; instead the Government should pursue a fresh direction that is in the best interests of all the children of Northern Ireland.
The Costello report is portrayed as a win for all. Those who opposed academic selection were bought off with the promise that it would go by 2009 and that children could opt out sooner. Those who supported academic selection were told that their primary school children would not be affected by any change on account of the time scale involved in delivering a replacement. Grammar school supporters were informed that grammar schools would stay, even though no explanation has been given as to how schools based on delivering an academic education can find those children best suited for their school without academic selection. Parents were told that they would have maximum opportunities to exercise choice in determining the best school for their child.
However, the reality is that some 60 per cent. of post-primary schools in Northern Ireland are already over-subscribed each year. That situation can only
2 Mar 2005 : Column 256WH
deteriorate under the Government's proposals. New admissions arrangements do not offer parents equal choice: if they live outside the immediate catchment area of the school of their choice, they will lose out. Parents will have to get their child into one of the feeder schools of a so-called "good" school—in the event of over-subscription, those are also catchment-area based, and sometimes tightly so, even down to house numbers. That clearly works in favour of the middle classes and those in towns. How can it possibly be a fairer system than the current one?
The Northern Ireland education ethos has always been of a system offering opportunity for all. Aspects of the system have failed some sections of society, particularly working-class Protestants. The current system requires reform, but it should not be abandoned. The Government propose the replacement of academic selection with a system that would allow the better-off to send their children to modern, vibrant schools, while the underprivileged would be offered no such opportunity.
David Burnside : Does the hon. Gentleman, my friend, agree that there is already evidence in Northern Ireland of people with money moving and buying houses near the best grammar schools in the Province? There are examples in Belfast and in my constituency—in the case of Ballyclare high and Antrim grammar schools—of people moving to take advantage of their wealth, which ordinary working-class people cannot do.
Mr. Donaldson : Again I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I see that happening in my constituency, too. In the city of Lisburn there are two excellent grammar schools—Friends and Wallace high schools—and some excellent secondary schools. However, the developers are already eyeing up available land close to the grammar schools, because they know that those houses will be at a premium and they will be able to name their price. That ridiculous situation creates social inequality, which the Minister says he is determined to address with his proposals. I urge him to set aside the ideological rhetoric and work with politicians and the education sector in Northern Ireland to deliver an education system that commands support across the community. Costello clearly fails to meet those criteria and should be abandoned.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he and his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party support the proposal—not an Ulster Unionist party proposal—that the procedures that apply in England and Wales, whereby parents in the locality of a grammar school can vote to retain it, should apply in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Donaldson : That would be a kind of local referendum to retain a grammar school, and I am not sure that we want to go down that road. However, I am not against the principle of local solutions such as the Dickson plan in Craigavon. I have not heard the Minister explain what will happen with the Dickson plan under his new proposals; I hope that he will address that, because it affects my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Are we going to go down the road of local solutions and retain the Dickson plan?
2 Mar 2005 : Column 257WH
I say to the hon. Lady that I have concerns about the idea of referendums to determine the retention of grammar schools. I would much rather we retain grammar schools within the existing education system so that they are accessible to everyone. That is a solution, and there is a large degree of consensus between our two parties on that issue.
Mr. Trimble : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the Dickson plan. It is my view, and that of a number of other people in the area, that if selection on the basis of academic merit disappears, the Dickson plan will disappear with it, although the hon. Gentleman may wish to take account of the fact that a significant number of people in the educational establishment seem to be moving towards selection at 14, which is one of the features of the Dickson plan.
Mr. Donaldson : The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That debate has been part of the discussion about Burns and Costello, yet both reports fail adequately to address whether the Dickson plan will be retained. As far as I am aware from my contact with the schools and those affected by it, the Dickson plan has been a success in the Craigavon area. I do not advocate that solution for the whole of Northern Ireland, but I wonder why the Department seems to have ignored the issue.
In respect of how the proposals will work in practice, the accusation has been made that the key stage 2 curriculum is skewed by the existence of the transfer test, because schools devote time to practice tests and encourage the learning of key facts by repetition. None the less, statistics from 2003 show that at key stage 2 in English and mathematics more pupils from Northern Ireland reach the expected standards than their counterparts in Great Britain.
We fully accept the public will that the 11-plus should be abolished as soon as is practical; however, we do not accept that the ending of an imperfect test should be equated with the ending of any form of academic differentiation at 11. Children do not all have the same abilities or interests and it is wrong to suggest that they do so by seeking to enforce a comprehensive system of education in Northern Ireland.
The Government propose the introduction of the pupil profile, which will be drawn up by primary school teachers and may be given to the desired post-primary school prior to a parental interview. However, the Government say that the pupil profile will not be the basis for selection. How can the Minister defend the fact that there is no requirement for parents to show the profile to the receiving school, or even to discuss their child going to the school with either the primary or the post-primary head teacher? Surely the Minister is not so naive as to suppose that parents will automatically, and unerringly, choose the right school for their child, especially if primary teachers are less than honest in their assessment of the pupil's ability. There will be pressures on primary school teachers in drawing up the pupil profile.
How can a child who lives closest to a former grammar school get a place because of the distance criterion, when a child who lives further away but who
2 Mar 2005 : Column 258WH
has more academic ability cannot get in? How can that be just? It will cause confusion to parents who will see the pupil profile as a key and, perhaps, decisive influence on the transfer process. They will in turn often put enormous pressure on primary school teachers and principals to accentuate the child's strengths and downplay its potential weaknesses. The pupil profile without academic selection simply creates false expectations for parents, who will place considerable weight on it, even though the Minister claims that it will not be the basis for selection. If there is no test, and no other tangible means of assessing the child's ability, it is inevitable that parents will see the pupil profile as the basis for selection, even if that is not the Department's intention.
The preparation of the pupil profile will mean additional work for primary school teachers and principals. What consultations have been held with them about the pupil profile? Without objective testing and external moderation, the new admissions arrangements put the P5, P6 and P7 teachers and primary headmasters in the firing line. The pressure on them to state that a child is capable of pursuing an academic course will be tremendous if it is based on class work and a class teacher assessment, albeit moderated within a school. Does the Minister agree that even if the pupil profile is not to be used—or even seen—by the receiving school, primary school teachers will be under greater pressure?
The implications for post-primary schools are also a matter of concern. Under the Government's proposals, each parent has the right to an interview with the school or schools of their choice prior to selection, which could have significant consequences for such schools, with hundreds of one-to-one interviews being required with principals during the November period designated by the Department. The new admissions arrangements refer a great deal to the objectivity of the pupil profile, but there is no indication as to how that objectivity is to be achieved. It cannot possibly be objective if it is based only on internal assessment. It is also not comparable with that for other children of the same age if there is no external moderation. There can be no consistency, as promised in the new arrangements document, if there is not some external moderation. How does the Minister propose to ensure the objectivity and consistency promised in the consultation document?
Despite 35 years of civil unrest, our pupils in both grammar and secondary schools have consistently out-performed their counterparts in Great Britain at GCSE and A-level. In 2002, 58.7 per cent. of Northern Ireland pupils obtained five or more A* to C grades at GCSE compared with 52.5 per cent. of pupils in England and Wales. Fewer of our pupils left without any qualifications. The pattern is similar at A-level, with Northern Ireland pupils out-performing their peers in England and Wales by a considerable margin. So why does the Minister want to change the system when it is working? Why does he want to give us the same system that is failing children in England and Wales? Parents in Northern Ireland cannot understand that.
The Minister's claim that our pupils trail behind Great Britain on the average points statistic is grossly misleading. Employers, universities, pupils and parents regard GCSE grades A* to C as pass grades, but the points system in the Costello report awards points to
2 Mar 2005 : Column 259WH
grades lower than C. That means that a pupil with five C grades at GCSE would have a lower points score than someone who obtained five D grades and two E grades. Moreover, it has been publicly acknowledged by failing comprehensives in England that they have abandoned GCSEs in favour of BTEC qualifications in order to achieve better results—a practice that is not widespread in Northern Ireland.
The results published by the Programme for International Student Assessment for 2003—an assessment of 15-year-old students—suggest that Northern Ireland has one of the best performing education systems in the world. The average score across all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in each subject area was around 500 points. In Northern Ireland, the average scores were 515 in mathematics, 517 in reading and 524 in science. In reading, mathematics and science only two OECD countries did significantly better than Northern Ireland. Only pupils from Finland and Korea performed better in reading, and only Finnish and Japanese pupils did significantly better in science. The Minister was forced to admit:
"the performance of our young people continues to be well above the international average, in all the areas assessed."
The PISA findings did not make pleasant reading for Ministers, as 15-year-olds in England scored worse in mathematics, science and reading than pupils from 17 other industrialised countries. Yet the Minister wants to keep the system in England and to remove the system that is currently succeeding in Northern Ireland by international standards. I and many people in Northern Ireland believe that the Minister has got it wrong. We have a system that is working and when something is working one should not try to fix it. One should try to improve it, but not abandon it as the Minister appears to be doing with his current proposals. Why are the Department and the Government so intent on destroying a post-primary system in Northern Ireland that produces such fine achievements at all levels, only to replace it with a system that has patently failed to produce either good academic standards or social equality in England and Wales?
The question of admissions criteria also needs to be looked at closely. In the end, with more than 60 per cent. of schools in Northern Ireland currently oversubscribed, admissions criteria will be a major factor in determining where pupils are educated and what schools they attend. Four sets of criteria are set out in the consultation document: family-focused, community-based, geographical, and the so-called tie-breakers. The fact is that three of the four are in reality based on geographical criteria. The family-focused criteria include whether any siblings are currently at the school, and clearly the location of the school is a factor in that. As for the community-based criteria, feeder primary schools and the location of the parish are issues; again, geography comes into that. Then we have the geographical criteria themselves, with school-centred and child-centred catchment areas. Finally, there are the tie-breakers, which include a consideration of proximity of a school to home. In fact, one could argue that all four criteria are based on geography to a degree, but certainly the latter three are based primarily on geography.
2 Mar 2005 : Column 260WH
That, I believe, will result in the kind of situation that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) mentioned earlier—some schools will be popular, and parents who can afford to do so will move close to them, because when it comes down to the tie-breaker, it is a matter of either random selection or proximity of a school to home. That will create social inequality in Northern Ireland when it comes to education, and that is simply not acceptable. What are the parents supposed to do in my constituency, in places such as Moira and Annahilt, when they do not have a grammar school within miles, and when the feeder primary schools may be outside the catchment area? Moira in particular is on the edge of the Dickson plan area; parents there are in something of a quandary about all that. They are going to lose out, and why should they? Why should someone lose out simply because of where they were born or where they live?
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pupils from rural areas in all constituencies in Northern Ireland would be immediately disadvantaged?
Mr. Donaldson : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; that was precisely the point that I was coming to. Especially in rural areas in Northern Ireland, pupils will be significantly disadvantaged because the Department is moving towards the closure of small rural schools and the consolidation of schools. That means that rural pupils, by virtue of where they live, will be significantly disadvantaged in Northern Ireland; that covers a significant proportion of the population in the Province.
Mr. Trimble : I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes with regard to the consolidation of schools, but is it not the case that what is likely to happen next year is driven entirely by cost, with no effort having been made to consider what is necessary on educational grounds?
Mr. Donaldson : I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, not only on educational grounds, but as regards the very proposals and the new system that the Minister proposes to introduce. It seems that one policy is moving forward and another is being adapted, but the current policy does not reflect the implications of the proposals for transfer arrangements in terms of the location of new primary schools and so on.
Proposals that pupils should attend classes in different schools, and that teachers should teach lessons in more than one school, are impractical and misguided. We wholeheartedly support the development of properly accredited vocational courses and believe that it is important that society, and especially the world of work, recognise vocational qualifications as valid and valuable. We must break the cycle of society believing that only academic qualifications have status. That is where the Minister really ought to be concentrating his efforts. Also, he should be supporting the secondary schools that he claims are underperforming, where pupils in working-class areas are leaving without
2 Mar 2005 : Column 261WH
qualifications. Would not it be much better if the money that he is to spend on reforming the system and abandoning the current one were spent on investment in underperforming schools, on helping the pupils who need the help most, and in particular on developing vocational-type courses in those schools? Such courses would really, practically benefit the pupils and give them an opportunity for a future career from which they would really benefit.
David Burnside : On that point, does not the fact that the special money—what teachers in my constituency told me last week was the Chancellor's money—does not apply in Northern Ireland prove the Government's hypocrisy with regard to spending on "Education, education, education"? The extra money that the Government apply to education throughout the whole of the United Kingdom is not being applied fairly and on an equitable basis to Northern Ireland schools.
Mr. Donaldson : I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will address that point. Whether the Minister thinks that what the hon. Gentleman mentions is the reality or not, it is certainly the perception among many in the teaching and educational profession in Northern Ireland.
Under the Government's proposals, academically focused schools do not exist. It is ironic that specialist schools can exist to provide courses in sports science, drama, the performing arts, technology and computing but not in academic subjects. The Minister needs to address that issue clearly. To ensure a fair system of transfer at 11, the choice of pathways must be equally attractive and valued. Pupils with academic interests and abilities must have the opportunity to pursue those at a grammar school, while those with different talents and interests—who are no less valued—must be able to secure a place in a school that will cater for those. If the Minister believes that his proposals will enable grammar schools to continue in their current form, perhaps he will give us the information that I am afraid is lacking in his consultation document.
Society must be encouraged to afford all post-primary schools equal status. That should not just be bestowed but earned by performance and the resourcing and attitude of the Government towards all schools. The consultation document on new admissions arrangements for post-primary schools and the information on the performance of pupils provide no indication of how the Government intend to ensure objectivity.
As parents, we are not impartial judges of our children's educational potential—we need the input of professionals. Underachievement and inequality do not start at age 11. Any current research findings on school attainment levels show that pupils' performance is markedly affected by social class and cultural capital. For example, a recent survey carried out by the university of London's Institute of Education found that primary school pupils eligible for free school meals—an indicator of family poverty—began with lower scores in maths and literacy and fell further behind as they progressed up the school. That finding is duplicated in the O'Brien research carried out in the Irish Republic.
The current system of post-primary education in Northern Ireland, for all its faults, still sends a significantly higher number of pupils from working-
2 Mar 2005 : Column 262WH
class and disadvantaged backgrounds to higher education. Queen's university and the university of Ulster have among the highest levels of students from working-class backgrounds of all universities in the United Kingdom. I believe that the Minister's proposals will result in a reduction in the number of children from working-class backgrounds who make it through to higher education.
I could say so much more on this subject, but I am mindful that other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to speak before the Minister winds up the debate. However, I want to make an appeal to the Minister. A consensus is developing in Northern Ireland which he ignores at his peril. It is important that this issue should be handled sensitively because the decisions taken today will affect a future generation and will deeply affect Northern Ireland, because one of our best selling points is our education system.
The Minister should draw back from these proposals. At this stage, we do not know when the Northern Ireland Assembly will be reinstated, and there would be a consensus among Opposition Members that the sooner that happens—in the right circumstances and with those parties committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means in government—the better. The Assembly should have the final say on this issue, representing, as it does, the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister should put this matter on hold until the Assembly is reinstated and allow the local parties to take the decisions on how we move the system forward.
David Burnside : On the very point of the Assembly, if it comes back—I do not expect that it will—would the hon. Gentleman's party give the commitment, as I wish that my party would, that we, the Unionist parties, will take the Department of Education and never again let it go into the hands of Sinn Fein?
Mr. Donaldson : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is my belief that in the current circumstances, with Sinn Fein linked to an organisation that is involved in criminality and terrorism, it should not hold any departmental position, never mind the education portfolio. The Unionist parties should co-operate on this issue. I do not want to see a Sinn Fein Minister with responsibility for education in any future Executive. We need to give that priority, because it is a question of confidence. Many in the education system did not have confidence in the previous Minister and are disappointed that the current one has carried through the very flawed policies adopted by Martin McGuinness.
In conclusion, The Sunday Times "Parent Power" survey late last year placed 25 Northern Ireland schools in the top 200 UK secondary schools. Given our comparatively small population, that was a fantastic achievement. Such success will not be maintained by destroying academically oriented schools.
There is still plenty of room for improvement. My party and I want to be at the forefront in helping to achieve those improvements, particularly for children from working-class Protestant backgrounds in Northern Ireland. Investment is needed in those areas and in education and schools in those areas. That would benefit the whole community.
2 Mar 2005 : Column 263WH
Compromising what is best about our education system is no way to proceed. We want a system that allows all children to reach their full potential.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : It would be helpful if right hon. and hon. Members would indicate early that they intend to contribute. Let me explain why.
It is the common convention in this Chamber to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion. That would mean that we have 23 minutes left under normal circumstances. However, on issues that have a particular local or regional interest, Mr. Speaker has made available the rule that the Chair can curtail the contributions from the two main Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople to five, rather than 10, minutes each. Someone is clearly after my job because they have looked ahead and seen the prospect of that, and I have a ready and willing offer to accept that rule. It looks as though I will have to apply it.
Therefore, we now have 32 minutes. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that time curtailment in mind when they make their submission, or when they accept or respond to interventions.
10.8 am
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I will be very brief because I want to see all my friends from Northern Ireland get the chance to speak.
I just want to make two points. I am a product of a grammar school in Northern Ireland—Belfast royal academy—which, 40 years on, still contains a broad social mix and is producing excellent results. It is quite wrong of my Government to be pushing forward with this whole change to the education system in Northern Ireland.
There is a huge democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. We now have Ministers, some of whom probably had not been to Northern Ireland before they were appointed, trying to change an education system that has served the people of Northern Ireland extremely well. Those Ministers have no mandate in Northern Ireland—not a single person there voted for the Government currently running Northern Ireland, because of the ridiculous democratic deficit of not allowing Labour party members in Northern Ireland to be in any way organised.
I will continue from the final point made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), whom I congratulate on securing this Adjournment debate. He said that the proposals should be withdrawn. The consensus on working towards a change in the transfer system—there is no doubt that change is needed—should be followed, and no decisions should be taken until the Assembly is back. It is wrong for any Minister, and for a Minister of this Government in particular because they take no votes from Northern Ireland, to blunder in, pick up a proposal from a known terrorist, Martin McGuinness, who threw it in at the very last minute of the previous Assembly, and take it on. It is wrong that that should happen. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister has just taken over the existing situation. I had hoped that he would listen, learn, look, talk to people, talk to head teachers and parents, and that he
2 Mar 2005 : Column 264WH
would take a different decision. I had hoped that he would not be carried along by the small group of people in the Northern Ireland Department of Education who have wanted to see the end of grammar schools for a very long time. Those people got their chance when Martin McGuinness was running things—I hope that we will never again have someone from his party running education. That small number of officials have been zealous in trying to end grammar schools. I am sorry that my Government are colluding in that, and I hope that, even at this stage, they will draw back from the policy.
There is no doubt that Northern Ireland education stands out in the United Kingdom as the best. We see that clearly from all the results. One particularly important figure is that fewer pupils in Northern Ireland leave school without any GCSEs than anywhere else in the UK. Many people who go to Northern Ireland are willing to take jobs there because of the excellence of the education system. We should not change the system radically in the way that the Minister suggests.
We can all agree that changes need to be made and that improvements are needed in some of our secondary schools. There are some excellent secondary schools in Northern Ireland, however, and the transfer between secondary and grammar schools, in areas where the schools work together is wonderful. Children really do have a choice, and as they grow older and it becomes obvious that they need to be at a different school, that is made much easier by the way in which the system works in Northern Ireland.
If we put an end to the current system, we will see a growth in the private sector—people will buy their way into a better education. At present, that does not happen: very few people are educated privately in Northern Ireland. That is a tribute to the education system. We should not destroy it, and we should certainly not destroy it without the support of the people of Northern Ireland and the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister should listen to the Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : There are 27 unallocated minutes available.
10.13 am
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP): I will begin my remarks by again reminding the Government that the Ulster Unionist party remains totally opposed to the imposition of a comprehensive education system in Northern Ireland, for good reason. However, that reason, no matter how often it is repeated, not just by politicians but by parents and teachers, seems to be lost on this Government. We simply do not want our grammar school system to be replaced by a comprehensive one that has failed Great Britain.
It is not just Northern Ireland's elected representatives, teachers and parents who believe that the Government's plans are fatally flawed and will destroy the excellent system that already provides the best post-primary education available in the country. The United Kingdom's leading education expert, Dr. Chris Woodhead, expressed the same opinion. Speaking at the launch of Concerned Parents for
2 Mar 2005 : Column 265WH
Education's "Vision for the Future" document in Belfast last Wednesday, Dr. Woodhead dismissed the Government's plans as "crazy". He said:
That is the very question that we have repeatedly asked the Government since the suspension of the Assembly in autumn 2002, and that they have consistently failed to answer. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how grammar schools can be retained without academic selection.
We are rightly proud of our education system in Northern Ireland and are committed to raising standards in all our schools. Every parent wants the highest standard of education for their children. We must support all schools in focusing on the essentials and making the most of each child's abilities and aptitudes, thereby allowing every child to develop to their fullest potential. The comprehensive school system that the Costello proposals will create will inevitably introduce a hitherto unknown level of social division and put a high price on education for everyone. The system will pave the way for the expansion of independent schools, which will charge fees that will be unaffordable for most families. Moreover, in Northern Ireland, more pupils from deprived backgrounds go on to higher education than in England and Wales, and the difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland in that regard is even greater. Everyone in Northern Ireland has access to academic schools, regardless of income, property or domestic location, which is not the case in England and Wales.
I am shocked to hear the Minister, the hon. Member for Brent, East, advocating a comprehensive system that has failed the public and proved to be socially divisive in Great Britain. Rather than producing more division, would not the public be better served if the Government were to employ their resources in improving our primary and secondary schools? How can the Government justify promoting specialist schools in Great Britain, yet deny Northern Ireland the right to retain our academic specialist grammar schools and the opportunity to develop vocational specialisms in secondary schools?
In a statement to the House last year, the former Secretary of State for Education said of the education system in England and Wales,
"we expect all secondary schools to become specialist schools with a centre of excellence. They will now be able to take on a second specialism. High-performing specialist schools could become training schools or leaders of partnerships."—[Official Report, 8 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1012.]
In Northern Ireland, we have not even got our first centre of excellence and specialism in a secondary school. It strikes me as ironic that the Government support specialist schools in arts, technology, IT and sports, yet they are determined to remove schools that specialise in nothing other than academic excellence.
Parents, teachers and their political representatives have met with insurmountable Government intransigence. Clear and reasoned arguments are falling on deaf ears, and so are the wishes of 64 per cent. of the parents of Northern Ireland who expressed a desire to retain some form of academic selection. Ministers and officials appear determined to press ahead, regardless of
2 Mar 2005 : Column 266WH
how often the arguments are exposed as misleading and unrepresentative. Flawed arguments make for flawed policies. We do not wish to see a flawed comprehensive education system in Northern Ireland. The education of our children and the future of our region must not be based on over-generalised, over-simplistic educational theories.
The Government's Costello plan will introduce selection by postcode. In that way, choice of school will be determined by where people can afford to live rather than by their child's ability. A parent's right to choose the most appropriate and suitable school for their child will be taken away. Parents and a fair system of selection should determine the best schools for their children. As Dr. Woodhead concluded, there is no logic in jumping to the conclusion that if we are getting rid of the 11-plus, we might as well get rid of the grammar school system while we are at it. There is no correlation between the two.
The Ulster Unionist party will continue to work at Westminster in the way that it has done, representing the interests of all parents and protecting our children's education and schools from the Government's failed comprehensive agenda. That is why my party will continue to call for raised standards in all our schools, fight to keep our grammar schools, replace the 11-plus with a fairer system of academic selection, and defend parental choice and oppose the Costello recommendations.
Finally, I again call on the Government to adhere to the democratic wishes of the majority of the population in Northern Ireland, and to spare us from a failed comprehensive system, which has blighted the British education system for generations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Twenty-one unallocated minutes are available.
10.19 am
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): I wish to make just a few points. One of them concerns the decision taken by Martin McGuinness in his last minutes as Education Minister. Some of these points have been made publicly before, but it is important to make them again.
It is not widely known that there was a ministerial code during the operation of the Northern Ireland Executive. That code prescribed which decisions should be taken centrally and had to be brought before the Executive to be considered. It also contained provisions on how decisions would be made within the Executive. The code was, of course, known to all Ministers and to senior officials in the various Departments. It had not been published, because it was still being revised when the suspension began. Indeed, it was still on my desk. There were other reasons why it was still on my desk, which I might be inclined to go into on another occasion. I simply mention that there was that code.
Under the code, the decision in the education sector on the Burns report had to go to the Executive, but Mr. McGuinness had not yet brought the issue to the Executive. There was a simple reason for that: he knew that the Executive would never approve the decision. I can make that statement absolutely confidently. Even if the decision had been approved by the Executive, it
2 Mar 2005 : Column 267WH
would not have been approved by the Assembly, and the Minister would never have been able to get the appropriate legislation through the Assembly. That was known to those in the system; that would have been known to senior officials in the Department of Education. I do not know how they could have escaped that knowledge.
We then had the unusual situation of suspension. Of course, there are reasons why the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were suspended, which I shall not go into, but in the last half hour before suspension took effect, the press release was issued. The following crossed my mind afterwards and I am sorry now that no one pursued it: I do not think that the purported decision in the press release would have survived judicial review. That is the basis of the decision on which the Minister thinks he is depending. Previous Ministers knew that they were dealing with a purported decision that had no validity in terms of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland people. Perhaps this Minister did not know that, but what he cannot do is in any way pray in aid the Burns report or what might have happened under the Assembly. What is happening now is entirely his responsibility.
Someone once described comprehensivisation in England as the greatest crime committed against the English working class in the 20th century. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Before comprehensivisation was introduced in England, performance in schools there was above that in Northern Ireland. It was only subsequent to comprehensivisation that performance levels and attainment in Northern Ireland got ahead of those in England, and they have moved steadily ahead. That is the comprehensive effect.
It is perfectly correct, as hon. Members have said, that if the proposals go ahead, we will have a public school sector in Northern Ireland. A fair number of Northern Ireland Members were educated in grammar schools, but I do not think that a single one present would have got to a grammar school had there been a public school system, because if the Minister's proposals go ahead, the only grammar schools will be public schools, where people have to pay substantial fees. People from a working-class or lower middle-class background, who have succeeded through merit, will find that channel denied to them.
I hate to have to say this, but it seems significant that the last time that this idea was attempted in Northern Ireland was in the 1970s by Lord Melchett when he was Education Minister. It was defeated by the opposition of society in Northern Ireland. It seems significant that the only times when this idea has been attempted in Northern Ireland under direct rule has been when we have had public school boys as Education Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Seventeen minutes remain unallocated and available.
10.24 am
David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): I think that I speak on behalf of all Northern Ireland Members present when I say that this is not a single narrow
2 Mar 2005 : Column 268WH
defence of grammar schools, but a campaign for the whole education system in Northern Ireland. If I can catch the eye of the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee next week, I will raise the subject again when we consider the total budget spend for Northern Ireland, because we are suffering badly from expenditure-related problems across the primary, secondary, university and further education sectors.
I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—she is not right honourable but she should have been made so a long time ago—about the influence in the Department of Education in Northern Ireland of a small number of people. That is seriously important. The Minister should step back a little and identify the civil servants and the number of representatives of academia in Northern Ireland who have been carrying out a campaign since they gave up their kaftans and sandals in the 1960s and 1970s, when they were outwardly left-wing socialists. That is all they are. They campaigned at that time to undermine the education system in England and Wales, and were successful in destroying it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, they lowered academic standards in England and Wales.
Standards in Northern Ireland were higher because we had a widespread, selective, fair and equal education system. There are people in the Minister's Department, and some of the advisers who were involved in the Burns report and the Costello report, who are, frankly, left-wing retreads. The quality of their academic research is not objective, quantitative or qualitative, and is highly questionable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Burnside : I will in a moment. I am not attacking the integrity of any civil servant in his Department, but there are academics such as Professor Gallagher who submit academic reports that are, in my opinion, highly questionable. I have raised that with the academic authorities at Queen's university in Belfast through the normal channels. The Minister should step back a little and realise that there is a conspiracy in his Department and some sections of academia in Northern Ireland—totally separate from the mainstream opinion of society—to destroy our grammar schools.
Mr. Gardiner : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him, although I did not wish to have to raise such a point. I am very happy for hon. Members and others to criticise me and my decisions in my capacity as the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland. However, I do not think that it is either fit or decent for hon. Members in this Chamber to criticise my civil servants in the Department of Education in the manner that we have just heard, and on other occasions, when they know perfectly well that it is not possible for those civil servants to respond. If there are proper criticisms to be made of the policy in Northern Ireland, hon. Members should make them to me and I will respond. They should not make them ad hominem to those who cannot respond.
David Burnside : I address the accusations to the Minister. I ask him to trace the record of his ministerial
2 Mar 2005 : Column 269WH
position and responsibilities in the Department back to the time of the Assembly, and to consider the bias in the composition of the Costello committee. It was not representative of the academic world, and could not have come to any conclusion other than to be against academic selection. If one considers the background pronouncements, submissions and public statements of those appointed to the committee, one realises that the committee was biased, and that was because of the recommendations from officials in the Minister's Department who are against academic selection. I have made my point strongly, and accept the Minister's defence of his civil servants. I would never attack the integrity of civil servants, who have to do their jobs and who, in Northern Ireland overall, do so excellently. However, there is a bias on subject matter in his Department that needs to be questioned.
In the short time available I turn to one other point that has not been raised so far in this important debate. The Minister should look at the slide presentations that were made during the worst days of the troubles by the Industrial Development Board—now Invest Northern Ireland—at Berkeley street, or in New York or Taiwan, in an effort to get investment into Northern Ireland. Companies said that they did not want to be near Northern Ireland—hopefully, we are past those very bad days, and businesses are investing and will continue to invest in Northern Ireland—but the one thing above all that we were able to sell, despite the troubles and our bad image, was the quality of our education system. The Minister is proposing that we lower the quality of that system, and that will be bad for investment.
When an inward investor comes to Northern Ireland, he looks at the return on the investment, the profitability of the enterprise, the amount of support that he can get, and for an environment in which people can enjoy living and working. He also looks at the quality and availability of an educated work force, and the proposals will damage that. That has not been raised so far and I should like the Minister to take it into account. We need investment in Northern Ireland. Let us not destroy what is good in our academic system. Let us improve primary, secondary and the grammar school system, not destroy it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The rule is lifted.
10.30 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): The course of this debate seems as predictable as everything else that happens in Northern Ireland politics. I now find myself starting at half-past 10.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) on securing the debate. As one who still looks in on Northern Ireland politics as an outsider I found it fascinating. His presentation was exceptionally measured, well reasoned and detailed. Those are not accusations that I would normally level at him, so he can take the praise on this occasion as being absolutely genuine. One remark struck me in particular. He said that we were dealing with an ideologically driven measure. Coming from this new Labour Government, I find that quite refreshing. I may not necessarily agree with the measure, but it makes a pleasant change.
2 Mar 2005 : Column 270WH
I can bring something of a different perspective to the debate. Unlike the Northern Ireland Members who have all gone through a grammar school, selection-based system, and unlike the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the new Labour Minister, I had a comprehensive education. A quick look at Vacher Dod tells me about the other two Members. For the benefit of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), the new Minister represents Brent, North, not Brent, East. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is rather shorter and has rather less facial hair than the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
It was an excellent education and I want to consider for a few seconds why that was. It has a bearing on the debate. I want to try to widen the context of our considerations this morning. First, I got an excellent education because my school was very much part of my community. There was a strong sense of community. That is also true of Northern Ireland. I sometimes think that if Northern Ireland had a slightly weaker sense of community it might find it rather easier to regulate its affairs, but I say that simply in passing.
I also got an excellent education because I attended a school where there were good, well motivated teaching staff who maintained excellent discipline and because the resources that were given to the school were adequate for the job that was required of it. We always want more resources, especially in an area like education. My experience is that the institutional structure in which we educate our children is often less important than the strength of the community, the integration of the school in the community and the way in which the teaching staff are resourced, the children are disciplined and the school functions as part of that community.
My sisters and I are the first generation of my family to go to higher education and to obtain degrees. I come from, to borrow an expression from the hon. Member for Lagan Valley, a working-class Protestant family. My father was a shepherd. I attended school with the children of doctors and teachers. It is no accident that we are the first generation to attend higher education. I do not think that this was a generation in which the Carmichaels just happened to get smart. We are the product of a generation given opportunities by a comprehensive education system that were denied to previous generations.
I do not say that Northern Ireland should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater and go down the same route, because there are few more dangerous things in this place than people considering their experience on this side of the Irish sea—or the north channel in my situation—and then trying to transfer it lock, stock and barrel to the situation in Northern Ireland. However, I say to Northern Ireland Members that they should be measured in their criticism of comprehensive education—there is a lot of good to be had in it, and it is not the end of civilisation as they might know it.
Lady Hermon : I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is a strong devolutionist, and, fortunately for him, the Scottish Parliament is in place. Does he therefore agree with Northern Ireland Members who have contributed to the debate through
2 Mar 2005 : Column 271WH
interventions or speeches that this decision—a crucial and fundamental decision to change the method of education and selection for generations to come—should be left to the devolved Assembly, rather than being taken by a Labour Minister who is unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Carmichael : The hon. Lady has served on sufficient Committees, and has heard me often enough on the Floor of the House, to know that that is exactly my view. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed by Northern Ireland Members this morning, including that relating to the manner in which the matter has been handled by the Government. We live in an age in which we are consulted to the point of extinction, but never listened to. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] This seems to be one of the worst examples of that. I caution the Minister that if he proceeds in this manner and with this determination, he will risk doing damage to more than an education system. He stands to bring the entire political system into disrepute, because if there is such a gulf of opinion between the Government and the governed, be it on education or on any other matter, the process of disengagement from formal parliamentary and party politics will only get worse.
Had I been the Member choosing the subject for debate today, and had I been minded to bring forward a discussion on education, I would have been more inclined to focus on the need for integrated education in Northern Ireland because, in my view, that is the absolute priority. However, we are where we are, and I make that point only for the purpose of putting it on the record.
I was struck by some of the proposals made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley with regard to reform of the system and the abolition or reform of the 11-plus. I thought that there was a great deal of merit in those proposals. One thing that has struck me both during my research for this debate and in the course of the debate itself is that the new ideas all seem to be coming from one direction. All that we get from the other direction—from the Government—is the question of abolition. They say that it is comprehensive or nothing. It seems to me that there is much scope in the current system for greater flexibility—perhaps for making 14 rather than 11 the cut-off. If such a range and quality of ideas is coming from the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party, why is that not the fulcrum of the debate?
I see that I have taken up nine minutes of the debate; I had not intended to speak for as long as that. I conclude by saying that the Minister ignores the consensus on this issue at his peril.
10.39 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) on securing the debate? It is a subject that, in my journeys to Northern Ireland, I have found to be of huge interest and concern to parents and teachers from all backgrounds and communities.
We have heard today from representatives of both Unionist parties, and I should put it on record that yesterday morning I had a meeting in County Tyrone
2 Mar 2005 : Column 272WH
with Monsignor Denis Faul and representatives from the Catholic grammar schools, who wanted to make clear their outright opposition to the Government's proposals. This is not an issue that divides people along sectarian lines.
I am glad too that we were able to get a slight moderation from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) of his party's customary hostility to academic selection in all its forms—a hostility that the Liberal Democrats have expressed often in speeches and votes in both the House of Commons and local authorities in England and Wales in recent years.
Today's debate has centred on the Government's proposal to end academic selection from 2008. As we have heard from the hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), there is no evidence that that will improve academic attainment within Northern Ireland. In fact, the English evidence suggests that the opposite is likely. What we see in Northern Ireland is better results in public examinations than in Great Britain and a better record of enabling pupils from all backgrounds to get into higher education. Would that Great Britain could match the standards currently achieved in Northern Ireland.
Everybody accepts that there has to be a mechanism of some sort for determining admissions to schools that are oversubscribed. The Government's consultation document makes it clear that they are looking at two basic options. The first is random selection—some form of lottery with a Minister or one of his officials saying metaphorically to parents, "It could be you". I can think of nothing that is more likely to provoke confusion and uncertainty among parents, who want to have a clear idea of where their children are likely to go to school.
The second option, which is more likely to happen if the proposals become law, is that the distance between home and school will in practice decide where a child should be educated at secondary level. After all, that is what happens in most of England. If that happens, it will place at a particular disadvantage parents and children from rural areas who will almost by definition be further away from schools, which for the most part will be in towns. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the Government's model will also place at a disadvantage children living in poor, working-class areas, who will be more likely to be trapped in a neighbourhood comprehensive in the same way as they are trapped in so many inner cities in England and Wales at the moment.
I want to say a quick word about the proposals in the Government document on pupil entitlement, because it has not been mentioned much. The minimum figure of 24 courses for GCSE and 27 for A-level is somewhat arbitrary. We are all in favour of a broad-based curriculum, but to impose such a rigid total is likely to mean one of two things: either split-site schools, perhaps the worst mistake of 1960s educational reform with children being bussed around from one site to another, or an accelerated programme for the closure of small schools, particularly in rural areas, with pupils herded together in large comprehensives. One thing that we know from the English experience and international evidence is that disciplinary and pastoral problems are much more difficult to manage in large secondary schools than in schools with fewer pupils.
2 Mar 2005 : Column 273WH
There is a better way, and I want to make it absolutely clear that if, as I hope, a Conservative Government are elected this year, my party would abandon this misguided policy immediately. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley made it clear that many constructive approaches can be taken to address the problems that exist with schooling in Northern Ireland. Certainly, we should consider international evidence and build on the idea of the pupil profile to create an alternative mechanism for academic selection to that of the 11-plus exam. We should focus on how to improve schools that are not working well, and in Northern Ireland, as in Great Britain, we should work to establish those high-quality technical and vocational routes through secondary education that Rab Butler saw as essential way back in 1944, but which the United Kingdom has never managed to operate successfully in the decades since then.
I want to give the Minister time to respond, so I shall make my final point. I have always found him to be a genial and pleasant parliamentary colleague and opponent, but I believe he has been sent to the debate today to defend a cowardly, mendacious policy that will be destructive to the life chances of thousands of children throughout Northern Ireland. It is cowardly because the Minister and the Government know that every test of public opinion in Northern Ireland shows a decisive majority opposed to what the Government want to do. The response booklet, which was published with the Government's consultation document, shows that parents were not even asked directly to express an opinion on whether they support the end of academic selection. That amounts to trying to cheat the people of Northern Ireland of a clear say over the future of the education system in the Province.
Despite the language and the promises about the proposals being designed to improve children's education, they are driven by another motive: ideological prejudice. The central proposal, which is to dismantle that part of the Northern Ireland system that works best, is both paradoxical and a flagrantly destructive way to go about education reform.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the debate and to the views of people in Northern Ireland and that even at this late stage the Government will show that they are willing to think again.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner) : I will speak fast; I will take no interventions—solely because in the time available I want to try to answer the many questions that have already been raised.
I welcome the opportunity to address the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I was astonished by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He must forgive us for wondering whether he read anything but extracts from the document, as he cited only the two criteria suggested as possible tie-breakers—after all the other criteria had been exhausted—as the most likely means that would be adopted for admitting children to post-primary schools in Northern Ireland. That is less than worthy.
Hon. Members will know that on 28 January I published for consultation options for admissions arrangements to post-primary schools in Northern
2 Mar 2005 : Column 274WH
Ireland. As we are in consultation, I am in listening mode; it would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to pre-judge the consultation process, but I want it to be based on facts, not on the rumours or speculation that are regularly reported. The consultation is not about re-running the old arguments about whether the transfer tests should end; it is a consultation on how we should proceed after 2008, when the transfer tests have gone.
While responding to the points raised in the debate, I should like to take this opportunity to lay the facts before the Chamber. I assure hon. Members that their views will be taken into account along with the other responses to the issues covered by the consultation. I intend to publish a summary of the consultation responses after they have all been received and analysed.
Today, and over the past weeks and months, I have heard much about schools, and how the new admissions arrangements may affect successful schools. I am no different from any other hon. Member present in that I greatly value good schools, and I respect and admire the work of their teachers and other staff. However, my focus is not and should not be on schools; it is and must be on children. My focus is not the school's success but the child's. What matters is not a school's position in a league table, but that more children are achieving better results and realising their potential.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be aware that, even in his own constituency, there are wide variations. In some schools almost all pupils achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, but in others, the figure is below 20 per cent. and even as low as single figures. I cannot believe that he is therefore satisfied that the present arrangements are serving all pupils in his constituency equally well and that they are being given the best opportunities to realise their potential.
Even before the consultation was published, there was a great deal of public comment, widely reported in the media, about the proposed new post-primary arrangements. Many have said that they want an education system that gives every child a good education regardless of their social background, the area in which they live or their wealth. Many have said that we need a system that opens up opportunities for every child rather than closing them down, gives all children an opportunity to realise their potential, and leaves them with a positive attitude to education that will have a lasting effect. Likewise, many have said that we need a system that recognises the value of different types of learning, including academic, vocational and work-related learning. We need a flexible, realistic and relevant curriculum that recognises and rewards those different types of learning and provides clear progression routes for all young people, whether it is into further or higher education or the workplace.
I cannot stress too strongly that I agree wholeheartedly with all of those remarks; they are exactly what we are trying to achieve, and I believe that the new arrangements for post-primary education will provide all of those things. However, there appear to be misconceptions, confusion and uncertainty about the new arrangements, so let me clarify what the new arrangements are not about.
First, let me say, as I have said many times before, that the new arrangements for post-primary education are not about abolishing grammar schools. There is a
2 Mar 2005 : Column 275WH
clear demand for an academic style of education, as evidenced in the responses to the Burns consultation and in correspondence that I have received. Grammar schools have a key role in the new arrangements and will continue to provide that style of education. However, like all good schools, they are about much more than whom they admit. Parents consider them to be good schools because of the curriculum that they offer, the pace of teaching and learning, the facilities and range of opportunities available, the quality of teaching, the leadership, the tradition and the sense of community. Changing the admissions process will not change those aspects of a school or the value that a school can add to the education of their pupils.
Secondly, the new arrangements are not about imposing a "one size fits all" approach. I want all pupils to have access to the entitlement framework and to a wide menu of general and applied courses. Schools will decide how to do that—working with other schools and the further education sector—and what the precise mix of courses will be. Those arrangements will be developed at local level to respond to local needs. That is hardly a centrally imposed, "one size fits all" approach, as has been suggested.
Thirdly, the new arrangements are not about introducing a comprehensive system. We all recognise that pupils have a range of different educational needs. I want there to be a range of school types, each offering a distinctive approach. I want all schools to develop their curricular strengths, to become centres of excellence and to share their expertise and experience with their neighbours. Parents and pupils will choose the approach and the courses that best meet the child's educational needs and his or her interests, aptitudes and aspirations—
Lady Hermon : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, because I had understood that we were having an Adjournment debate about admissions arrangements for post-primary schools in Northern Ireland. Is it acceptable that the Minister will not take a single intervention in what is supposed to be a debate on a very important issue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have been lenient with the range of the debate already. The Minister must be allowed to respond to the many points that have been made in whatever way he sees fit.
Mr. Gardiner : Parents and pupils will choose the approach and the courses that best meet the child's educational needs and his or her interests, aptitudes and aspirations, rather than trying to shoe-horn them into either an academic or non-academic pathway.
If those are not the features of the new system, what are? The new arrangements will focus on the child. Each child is unique. They have different learning needs; they mature at different rates and their interests can change over time. The system must be able to recognise and respond to those needs.
Kate Hoey : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister simply to be reading from
2 Mar 2005 : Column 276WH
a prepared speech that is not reflecting what has been said in the debate? It is rather patronising, because it implies that we know nothing about education in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I must point out that, had I been of the opinion that the Minister was out of order, I would have drawn him to order. I resent people questioning my judgment.
Mr. Gardiner : The new post-primary arrangements will raise standards for all by building on the strengths of the current system while addressing the weaknesses; by providing flexibility and choice in schools and courses, enabling young people to keep options open; by engaging and motivating young people, recognising and rewarding their achievements at different levels and in different types of education; and by giving all young people an education that is relevant to the needs of the economy and society in the 21st century.
Today's debate focuses on how children will transfer from primary to post-primary schools. The Costello working group concluded that no form of academic selection would remove the high-stakes, high-stress element and that academic selection at age 11 is itself educationally unsound, as that age is too young to commit pupils to particular educational pathways.
Mr. Trimble : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to challenge your judgment; I seek your advice. Several hon. Members have spoken in the debate. Would it be possible for you to find some way in which to encourage the Minister to respond to specific points that hon. Members have made rather than make a generalised speech? His speech is in and about the subject matter, but it does not deal with specific points that hon. Members have made.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I remind the Chamber that the Minister must respond to a debate of about an hour and 15 minutes in something like 13 minutes. In my view, that is a Gargantuan task and, if certain points are not covered in his treatise, I am fairly sure that the permanent secretary, who is also present in the Chamber, will be engaging in correspondence on the Minister's behalf.
Mr. Gardiner : It is clear that hon. Members want to take up as much time as possible in the debate with points of order, so that I cannot answer their questions.
As hon. Members will know, in January 2004 the Government accepted the recommendation that future transfer arrangements should be made on the basis of informed parental choice—parents making informed decisions about the school preferences that they should express on the transfer form. I believe that it is the right and responsibility of parents to make the decision about the most appropriate schooling for their child. I trust parents to make that choice. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley and those who agree with him must explain why they think that they know so much better than the child's own parents.
Let me be clear. I know that sometimes parents will get things wrong, too. They are capable of deluding themselves about their child's talents and capabilities,
2 Mar 2005 : Column 277WH
but no one cares more about getting that individual decision right than the parent. Parents are not infallible any more than educationalists are, but they have the right to make mistakes for their child. Other people do not. We expect doctors to recommend a course of treatment for a child, but we would not allow a doctor to enforce a decision against the will of the parents. Why should it be different in education?
Advocates of academic selection have suggested that there are suitable alternative methods of selection; they have done so today. However, Northern Ireland has never been satisfied with its various systems of academic selection. That has been a feature of the education system for more than 50 years and, during that time, it has gone through several changes, each time in search of a better system. But the problems still exist. Methods used have included different types of tests as well as combinations of tests and forms of teacher assessment, all of which were found wanting. None of the suggestions that I have heard recently differs significantly from those already tried, tested and rejected.
The key word in the phrase "informed parental choice" is "informed". So how will parents be informed? The pupil profile will be central to that process. It will provide parents with clear and objective information about their child's progress, achievements, interests and aspirations. It is being piloted extensively by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment to ensure that teachers are satisfied that it is manageable and usable—
Mr. Carmichael : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to you for taking this point of order. At the commencement of his speech, the Minister said that he would not take interventions because a lot of points to which he was required to reply were raised during the debate. It was apparent to me, even from this distance, that the Minister was speaking from a typewritten text. Presumably, points raised during the debate will have been added to the manuscript. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to require the Minister to place a copy of the speech from which he has just been reading in the Library, so that we may see it and make our own judgment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman is taking time from the next debate.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |