| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: First, I must apologise for not hearing all of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I am afraid that a large family crisis will forbid me from staying to the end of the debate; but, having spoken at Second Reading, I felt that I should say something now. Those parts of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that I managed to hear both in the Lobby and in this Chamber worry me because no one on the Opposition Benches is prepared to consider breaking the rigidity of our present system and that is something that we really must consider.
As noble Lords know, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and I had somewhat of an exchange over the continental system, so I should like to make the facts clear. Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Austria and Germany have the old, tripartite system. France, Italy, Spain and Scandinavia have comprehensive education up to age 16 although with repetition of years. If you fail a year, you have to repeat it. Furthermore, they do not have an examination that is equivalent to GCSE. In other words, an integral part of what we call their comprehensive system is a form of selection post-16. Although I say that at boring length, noble Lords opposite do not seem to realise it.
This Bill seeks to break the log jam. I understand noble Lords opposite want to keep a comprehensive system to the age of 18, providing vocational and academic qualifications. If they oppose the Bill, they must explain to the House how they think that such a comprehensive system will be better than those provided by all our continental neighbours, even those without the tripartite system who have selection post-16 and who, it is generally agreed in every survey, produce better results than we do. We are harping on old arguments and I have not yet detected any constructive proposals from the Benches opposite.
This Bill may not be perfect--I am a Back-Bencher and I can say that--but it is a step in the right direction. Unless we are prepared to think about it we will go
steadily further down. In the Second Reading debate I quoted Galileo. I now quote the old saying about the Bourbons:
- "[They] have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing".
Lord Henley: I do not intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, by making what amounts to a Second Reading speech on the first amendment of the day. However, I pick him up on one or two points. I am amused to hear that the Labour Party now supports competition. I am also amused to hear of his prowess on the rugby field. Perhaps he was referring to his school's prowess. I do not know whether the noble Lord himself took part when Cardiff High School used to thrash so many English and, I daresay, Welsh public schools. As an Englishman, one wonders whether the same would be true now of the Welsh and English national teams. One will have to wait and see.
I should also like to deal with one point raised by the right reverend Prelate. He spoke of skill shortages that faced British industry. He was quite right to say that it was necessary to get the education system right so that it could deal with any skill shortages that might arise in the future, but I can assure him that there are no skill shortages at the moment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Desai--who was briefly in his place earlier today--the British economy is in fine shape. I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us that.
The right reverend Prelate also made the valuable point that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had not really told the Committee what the amendments were about and had hardly addressed them in his speech. It may assist the Committee if I say a word or two about the amendments before a decision is reached on them. The noble Lord alleged that the Bill was about serial change and was a creeping barrage against the comprehensive principle. I assure the noble Lord that it is not that. It is about giving more power to schools and admission authorities to consider developing choice and diversity within those schools. I do not believe that that is a matter to which the noble Lord can object. One of the central purposes of the Bill is to give admission authorities greater flexibility to introduce or extend selection without needing central approval; that is to say, it is deregulatory in nature. That is what Schedule 1, to which Clause 1 gives effect, and Clause 3, which is referred to by one of the later amendments, provide for.
We believe that it is right for admission authorities, whether governing bodies or LEAs, to have extra flexibility to respond to what parents want. However, it is important to remember from where we start. Under present legislation LEAs and governing bodies must publish statutory proposals for any alteration to a school that would amount to a significant change of character. In relation to selective admissions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has taken the view that to select up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake does not constitute a significant change of character and that therefore the usual procedures
need not be followed. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 would enable the admission authority of any county or voluntary school to introduce selection or to vary the proportion of selective admissions by up to 20 per cent. rather than the existing 15 per cent. of a school's intake. We have yet to hear from the Opposition exactly what it feels about specialist schools. Does it believe that specialist schools should have the right to select a certain proportion of those by ability or aptitude within their own particular speciality? For technology colleges and other specialist schools the threshold would be 30 per cent. These are simply extensions to the flexibility that admission authorities already have. I see no reason why particular county or voluntary schools should be denied access to them, which is exactly what Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 seek to do.Schools that have significantly enlarged their capacity tend to be popular schools or schools that happen to be in areas where there has been population growth. To penalise such schools seems to be particularly objectionable, but that is exactly what these amendments seek to do. Similar points apply to Amendment No. 48 in relation to grant-maintained schools. As for Amendment No. 55, there is no reason why introducing or extending selection should require significant enlargement or adaptation of premises. I suspect that in most cases governing bodies who decide to take this path will not want to commit themselves to major building work. However, there may be cases where governing bodies decide to combine selection with expanding the school's premises or, where pupils are selected by aptitude for a particular subject, providing specialist adaptations to support that particular subject. That is particularly appropriate for those schools within the specialist schools programme. We have no intention of preventing that. That does not mean that schools that want to carry out such projects should have any automatic right to capital grant from the Funding Agency for Schools beyond their normal formula allocation. But if the governors can find funding that they need from a variety of sources available to them I see no reason why they should be prevented by law from combining selection with expansion. Obviously, the noble Lord does not share my view because that is exactly what this amendment seeks to do. Presumably, the noble Lord is afraid that popular schools which introduce selection will become even more popular and draw away more pupils from other less popular schools. As a central planner, no doubt the noble Lord regards that as a bad thing, but I certainly do not.
If a school expands as a result of introducing or extending selection it must mean that it is giving parents what they want. I regard that as a very good thing and is much of what this Bill is all about. We want many more parents to be able to put their children into popular schools, like the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and Mrs. Harman. If it means that there are surplus places at unpopular schools there are ways of dealing with that.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that it is necessary to press the amendment, but if he does so, I advise my noble friends and others that it should be rejected.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: In opening what I believed would be a pretty long haul and some fairly late hours, I felt that it was my duty to set the scene in which this amendment was tabled. After all, this is the first amendment of the first day. I am sorry that my ecclesiastical analogy caused such concern on the spiritual Benches, but I intended merely to illustrate the seductive power of gradualism in the move towards selection which this whole Bill represented. As to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, we believe that selection and growth during the school experience of one child represent too much disruption in the ethos of a school to be tolerated together. The central point is that schools now need a period of peace and quiet.
I could spend a great deal of time dwelling on the minutiae of each amendment, but there is no need to do so. The Minister has described them carefully and accurately, as he always does. But, sadly, I find the reasons that he has put forward for rejecting them unconvincing. I must ask the Committee to express a view upon the matter.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 125.
Addington, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Barnett, L.
Bath, M.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blease, L.
Borrie, L.
Broughshane, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Calverley, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Craigavon, V.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
David, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Ezra, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Fitt, L.
Gallacher, L.
Geraint, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Gregson, L.
Grey, E.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hayman, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Judd, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Kirkwood, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lockwood, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Molloy, L.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Ogmore, L.
Oxford, Bp.
Paul, L.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Richard, L.
Ripon, Bp.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Rochester, L.
Russell, E.
Serota, B.
Sewel, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller.]
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitty, L.
Wigoder, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Winston, L.
Aberdare, L.
Acton, L.
Addison, V.
Ailesbury, M.
Ailsa, M.
Alexander of Tunis, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alport, L.
Ampthill, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Annan, L.
Balfour, E.
Barber of Tewkesbury, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Berners, B.
Blatch, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Brigstocke, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Butterworth, L.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Carnock, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Chichester, Bp.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Courtown, E.
Cox, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cuckney, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.
Davidson, V.
De Freyne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Donegall, M.
Ellenborough, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Gainford, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Hayter, L.
Henley, L.
Holderness, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hooper, B.
Hylton-Foster, B.
Ilchester, E.
Lauderdale, E.
Lawrence, L.
Layton, L.
Lindsay, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.
Marsh, L.
Merrivale, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L.
Nelson, E.
Newall, L.
Noel-Buxton, L.
Northesk, E.
Oliver of Aylmerton, L.
Palmer, L.
Palumbo, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peel, E.
Pender, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Porter of Luddenham, L.
Pym, L.
Rankeillour, L.
Rees, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Rowallan, L.
St. Davids, V.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheppard of Didgemere, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stockton, E.
Strange, B.
Strathcarron, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Sudeley, L.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Tenby, V.
Terrington, L.
Teviot, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Torphichen, L.
Trumpington, B.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Westbury, L.
Wilcox, B.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 2:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page