| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.45 pm
Mr. Fallon: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 179. I do so on behalf of my constituents who are parents at the Judd school and those who are parents at grammar schools in Dartford, Tunbridge Wells and elsewhere in Kent. Those are the parents who will be disfranchised under the ballot proposed in the Bill.
Many of those parents may have supported the Labour party at the general election, in Dartford and elsewhere in Kent. They may have been beguiled by that Labour slogan, "Standards, not structure", yet here we are, nine months later, debating structure, rather than standards. Any hon. Members who doubt that have only to look at clause 96(7):
When we proposed ballots for grant-maintained schools, we did not get the ballots and the rules for them entirely right. We subsequently revised them. However, two points are clear. First, we had the courage to write those ballots into the Bill. That is not the case in the present Bill. Pieces of paper were simply circulated in Committee. I defy any hon. Member to read the four relevant clauses and say how the ballots will work. They are being left to subsequent regulations.
Secondly, we made sure that where there were to be ballots for grant-maintained schools, they involved the parents of the schools. That was our cardinal principle. We did not enforce grant-maintained status. It was one of the options for status under the Education Reform Act 1988. The schools could have been local authority schools, city technology colleges or grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Rowe:
Does not the method chosen by the Government, of making regulations later, raise the--I am sure unworthy--suspicion that they are waiting to analyse the results of their various focus groups, so that they might create the type of ballot that they think will give them the answer they most want?
Mr. Fallon:
That may well be the case. I suspect that, in those four clauses, old Labour is still at work, and Labour has not properly thought through how it can move to the new Labour ground of effective consultation.
It is noteworthy that, even in those local authorities where Labour took control and which have retained grammar schools, those Labour-controlled local authorities did not propose abolition of grammar schools, although they had the opportunity under the current statute to do so. Those Labour-controlled local authorities feared the reaction of local parents. Now, those precise parents will be the only group in their local area to be disfranchised. That is what Labour means by democracy.
Unless we pass amendment No. 179, those four clauses will be another example of the politics of envy. If Labour Members really believe in excellence, they should be attempting not to abolish but to extend--to build on the success of grammar schools, to build on the support that parents give to grammar schools, and to rejoice in that support--and to determine how they can strengthen the relationship between parents and their schools in other schools across our country.
Mr. Fabricant:
I rise not in defence of any grammar schools in my constituency--I have none--but in defence of those constituencies, including Lichfield, which may want the opportunity to have a grammar school.
First, however, I join the clarion call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who asked why Labour Kent Members were not in the Chamber for this debate. I should like to know where the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) is. I was there for the Wirral, South by-election and heard him say that grammar schools were safe in Labour hands. It should be noted that he is not in the Chamber tonight.
Amendment No. 177 would deal with the asymmetry of the legislation, which says that there should be a ballot to get rid of grammar schools--
Mr. Fabricant:
The hon. Gentleman says, "Good," from a sedentary position. However, if he supports balance, fairness and opportunity, which he talked about often enough in the general election--he nods assent now--why will he not also support balance in allowing grammar schools in areas that have none--[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I shall heed your earlier admonition not to respond to sedentary interventions, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), has just said, "Because you lost the general election." He defiantly tells parents, "You fell for our con. You voted Labour. You actually believed our promise that choice was safe in our hands. Now hear what we arrogantly say: there can be only one-sided ballots--to get rid of grammar schools, not to create them."
As I said in an earlier intervention, arrogant Labour Members and the Minister without Portfolio attack the BBC--perhaps rightly--for dumbing down, yet they belong to the very party that wishes to destroy centres of excellence. What hypocrisy. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] He came in earlier, but scurried out.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, there is a one-way ratchet. Once the decision has been made to get rid of a grammar school, history and excellence are destroyed.
I have a constituency interest--
Mr. Bercow:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Fabricant:
I am a generous person, and I shall give way shortly.
King Edward's school in Lichfield was founded 500 years ago. It was a grammar school, and Dr. Johnson was educated there. I know that some parents of pupils there would like the opportunity to choose whether it should be a grammar school again, but that opportunity is not being made available.
Mr. Bercow:
My hon. Friend referred a few moments ago to the Minister without Portfolio. Is he aware that the Minister benefited from a grammar school education? Does not he think it appalling and typical that the Minister is not in the Chamber now to witness the dirty work that he expects others to do in his name?
Mr. Fabricant:
I thank my hon. Friend, but the Minister without Portfolio is not the only one who benefited from a grammar school education--the Minister for School Standards, who wants to be the hangman for opportunity in this country did, too. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Devonport, is another, and I am told that there are more.
A great opportunity is being destroyed. There is to be no opportunity to vote for a grammar school, and although there is to be an opportunity to get rid of a grammar school, it is not the parents of children who attend that school who can make that decision. Why not? If I were a suspicious person, I might say that it is because the Minister for School Standards, who benefited from a grammar school education, believes that, if those parents were balloted, they would want grammar schools to maintain their status. So what do the Government do? They are so determined, for dogmatic reasons, to destroy grammar schools that they disfranchise the parents of children at those schools and allow only the parents of children at the feeder schools to vote. They know that the majority of the parents of children at feeder schools would want all their children to attend a grammar school, and therefore think that the ballot would come out in their favour.
The Bill is ill thought out, as well as being asymmetrical and unfair. There is no mention of a quorum. How many people are going to be allowed to vote to do away with history? Will it be five or 10? If that many parents vote in favour of a change of status while the others stay at home, will that be sufficient to destroy certain schools and history, simply because of the politics of envy?
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, there is no control of funding. What is to stop the National Union of Teachers and other pressure groups paying for campaigns to make sure that schools with an excellent history are destroyed in the way that I have described? There has been no consideration of this point, either in Committee or in the Bill itself. If, despite all the odds that the Minister has set up to try to destroy grammar schools, the ballot fails and a grammar school is maintained, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to prevent another ballot from taking place five or 10 minutes later.
The Bill is ill thought out, and it shows the intrinsic weakness of new Labour. When it comes down to it, new Labour is no different from old Labour. All the Labour party wants is to destroy choice, opportunity and excellence; it wants to level down, and it despises the excellent.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will do what Shirley Williams and old Labour could not do, and abolish all the remaining grammar schools? Far from being new Labour, this "new Labour" party is old Labour, with all the venom and spite involved.
"In this Chapter 'grammar school' means a school for the time being designated under this section."
Grammar schools reflect not just the designation of Ministers or the prescription of councils. They reflect above all the consent of their communities and the approval of the parents who send their children to them. By disfranchising parents from the ballots that will decide the future of those schools, the Government are proposing a monstrous unfairness. I want the Minister to reconsider that disfranchisement.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |