| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to sustain their claim that they are not hostile in principle to the continued existence of grammar schools, the best way in which they could prove their case would be to provide in the Bill for a minimum turnout requirement in the ballots?
11.30 pm
Mr. Brady: I should be happy to have a minimum turnout requirement. However, I suspect that, for once, I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think that the best way for the Government to demonstrate their good faith would be for them to accept the amendment. Doing so would clearly demonstrate that they believe in the principle of local decision making, that all parents should have an equal right to make decisions of that sort and that all parents should have a choice. It is most unfortunate that the Government do not accept that argument.
If the Government seek to defeat the amendment, as I fear they might, they will be putting their cards on the table and making it clear to the British people--especially those in constituencies where grammar schools exist,
or those in nearby constituencies--that the Government harbour the same hostility toward grammar schools as Labour Back Benchers. In some ways, I should welcome a more honest and open approach from the Government than the weasel words which we have heard so far. In opposition, the Labour party says one thing when a by-election is pending; in office, it does another. That is most unacceptable.
Amendment No. 179 would be a crucial improvement to the Bill. It would tidy up the anomaly whereby in those areas where there are only some grammar schools and not a wholly selective system parents of children currently attending grammar schools are not able to vote in the ballot. That is utterly unacceptable to the parents of such children--they have a clear and direct interest in those schools. The words that the Government employ in their outline of the balloting procedures are clear: they say that the objective of the procedure is to give the choice and decision on the future of those grammar schools to those parents who have a direct interest in the future of those schools. However, the Government are still not prepared to allow those with the clearest possible direct interest--parents of children attending those schools--a vote on the future of those schools.
Amendment No. 179 would remove an anomaly. It would create fairness and it would be seen to be fair. The Government should recognise that there would be some clear benefit in that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood referred to a letter from the heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools. They draw attention to several serious anomalies and unfairnesses in the proposed balloting arrangements, and it would be constructive to consider one or two of them. The heads of the Reading and Kendrick schools say:
All those arguments point clearly to a balloting arrangement that is ill thought out and patently unfair, and which will not be well received in those parts of the country that are still pleased, proud and fortunate to retain grammar schools and selective education.
Finally, I shall discuss amendment--[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I said that I had reached the final amendment that I would discuss; I did not give any hint about the detail in which I would discuss it. It is amendment No. 160, which is especially important to parents in my constituency.
It is vital to enshrine in the Bill provisions to ensure fairness in the balloting procedures, not just for the normal maintained county grammar schools, some of which are to be found in my constituency, but for the denominational grammar schools in my constituency.
There are two Roman Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. Under the Government's outline proposals on the balloting arrangements, the future of those schools will be decided not by the parents of children attending those schools, or by Catholic parents in my constituency, or even by Catholic parents throughout the borough of
Trafford; their future will be decided in a single ballot, which will apply to Catholic schools and to non-Catholic schools. The Government's approach shows no consideration for the position of Catholic parents in my constituency, or in the borough of Trafford.
Amendment No. 160, which would allow the Government to take separately balloting arrangements on denominational grammar schools, has a vital purpose in restoring some fairness and balance to the Government's proposals. It would give Catholic parents the decision on the future of Catholic schools.
I suspect that such a position arises in very few parts of the country. Altrincham and Sale, West may be the only constituency in which there are two Roman Catholic grammar schools. Therefore, it is especially important--[Interruption.] I know that the hour is late, but the Secretary of State has had plenty of time out of the Chamber, and he could have had a strong cup of coffee to sustain him through this time. It is very unfortunate that he should yawn volubly during discussion of a crucial matter for the future of Catholic schools in my constituency. That is clear evidence of the trivial approach that he and his colleagues have taken to the future of denominational schools.
Mr. Blunkett:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House, in words of one syllable, how allowing children into a Catholic secondary school without an 11-plus threatens the school, the pupils or the ethos of the Catholic religion that they seek to obtain? Will he withdraw his remark, on the ground that he is seeking to frighten people into believing that selection is essential to keep the school open or to continue to have Catholic education available to those children?
Mr. Brady:
I am pleased that I now have the close attention of the Secretary of State. I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks, because they represent the views of parents, as expressed to me when visiting the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman bats aside such serious and legitimate concerns.
Mr. Byers:
I have a simple question: does the amendment have the support of the Church education authorities--yes or no?
Mr. Brady:
The amendment has the support of the Catholic grammar schools in my constituency. The Minister should accept that it is my responsibility to represent the interests of my constituents, and I shall do so.
Mrs. Browning:
Having visited the Catholic grammar schools in my hon. Friend's constituency just two weeks ago, I am concerned to hear that Ministers believe that parental preference and the views of teaching staff are secondary in the way in which the Government assess what they would call fair and just. When the Government took office, we heard, "Fairness and justice; fairness and justice; fairness and justice." There is nothing fair and just
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is an excessively long intervention.
Mr. Brady:
I thank hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her intervention. Not only is there nothing fair and just about the way in which the Government are approaching the matter; it is not consistent with the principles that they have previously stated. Once again, the Government are failing to take into account their stated principle that the parents with a direct interest in the future of a school should decide the future of that school.
This is another clear instance of the Secretary of State--who is now indulging in ribald laughter instead of taking the point seriously--giving the right to vote in the ballot and make a decision not just to the parents with a direct interest in the future of the Catholic grammar schools, but to all the parents in the borough of Trafford. That is a clear breach of the principle that the Government have previously stated.
Mr. Levitt:
If the only Catholic school in an area is a selective school, and a Catholic parent wishes to send his child to that Catholic school but the child fails the selection process, what choice is there for that child to attend a Catholic school? None at all.
Mr. Brady:
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to mention another of my excellent local schools--the Blessed Thomas Holford school, which is a fine Catholic secondary modern. Currently, if children do not get into the Catholic grammar schools, they have the option to go to the Catholic secondary school, which achieves results rather better than most comprehensive schools. It is another clear example of how a selective education system works, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not want me to pursue that point further.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), I can say only that I am pleased to have a variety of Roman Catholic schools in my constituency--[Interruption.] The Government proposal will limit choice, certainly for my constituents. That is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is looking puzzled, so I shall explain why. This might be relevant to the point raised by the Secretary of State, who has again disappeared from the Chamber.
The two Catholic grammar schools in my constituency were independent until last year. They were so impressed by grant-maintained status that they chose to opt into the state system so that they could take children regardless of their ability to pay. They are now providing free grammar school education to my constituents within a Catholic environment. As a result of the Government's proposals for the removal of grant-maintained status and the threat to grammar school status, at least one of those grammar schools, St. Ambrose college, is giving serious consideration to the possibility that the only way to protect its status as a Catholic school and as a grammar school is to leave the maintained sector again.
"If feeder schools are Junior rather than Junior Mixed and Infant, this means in some ballots Years R/1/2 parents will have votes, in others they will not. The right to vote will be determined by the detail of primary organisation. This is demonstrably both inconsistent and unfair. A common provision is needed."
They also make clear the fact that the Reading and Kendrick schools have received children from more than 150 feeder schools during the past few years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |