| School Standards and Framework Bill
|
|
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire): There is an important quote from the Liberal Democrat election manifesto of last May, which is relevant to the debate and to which I shall refer in a minute. First, I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. He and I would agree that since 1944, the education system in this country has been a national service delivered locally. We would also agree that the third pillar, which never really got going, was technical schools. There is no point in arguing why that did not happen, but it should perhaps be noted that Germany has always had them and we know how much richer than us Germany is. However, that is very much a historical argument. In a display of what I shall call mischief, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough tried to suggest that somehow or other, the Conservative party wants to take the country right back to the 1940s or 1950s by our attitude to selection and the 11-plus. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford started his speech by referring to his area and to the advantages that its education system is bringing, so I shall start by saying something about my area. Bedfordshire has been comprehensive since 1970. It was a Conservative county council that turned the system comprehensive, and it was a Conservative Secretary of State for Education in 1970 no prizes for guessing who who allowed Bedfordshire to go comprehensive. We are one of the very few counties that have the middle-tier system I shall not repeat my mistake; the system is not the same as the Norfolk system, about which the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk corrected me; our middle schools take pupils from the ages of nine to 13, not from eight to 12. There is no way that the Conservative party in Bedfordshire could possibly have gained an overall majority of one on 1 May if we had advocated a return to the 1940s and 1950s. The system in Bedfordshire is generally settled; it has generally been Conservative-driven. Of course we need to make improvements, but there is no demand from Conservatives and no general demand in Bedfordshire to have a tremendous upheaval and return to a selective system. Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Sir David Madel: In a minute [Interruption.] Well, all right, I will give way now. Mr. Willis: I rise with trepidation; never have I been spoken to so violently. [Mr. Willis] I refer the hon. Gentleman to my constituency and to the excellent schools in Harrogate. I entirely agree with what he has just said. We in north Yorkshire have no wish to change, although there are one or two anomalies there are only two sets of grammar schools in the whole county, for historic rather than any other reasons. What was enormously divisive in Harrogate was when the former Secretary of State, urged on for political motives by certain governors and the head teacher of a school that wanted to go for grant-maintained status. That ripped the heart out of the system; it put school against school and made heads and governors fight each other. Ultimately, the attempt was defeated. The amendments would lead to exactly the same problem where motivated governors and heads wanted their school to become a grammar school, whether in Bedfordshire or north Yorkshire. Sir David Madel: It does not have to be like that that is one of the differences between Yorkshire and Bedfordshire. In the major town in my constituency, Dunstable, two upper schools have gone grant-maintained. People in Dunstable are well aware of the Liberal Democrats' passionate opposition to grant-maintained schools, just as they are aware of their passionate commitment to putting a penny on income tax for schools. As a result of the Liberal Democrat passionate opposition to grant-maintained schools, they never win any seats in Dunstable. They have not won a single seat The Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he has not participated in earlier debates, but I ask him to stick to the amendment. Sir David Madel: I will do that, Mr. Gale, but I am sure that you will allow me a tiny bit of licence The Chairman: Order. I already have. Sir David Madel: I was provoked into making this short speech by the tainting of the Conservative party as wanting to lurch back to the 1940s and 1950s over grammar schools, and I wanted to say in passing that we are well aware of the opposition of the Liberal Democrats to grant-maintained schools. The result is that they gain no seats the Liberal Democrats have not gained a single seat in Dunstable since 1973. Next door to Bedfordshire is Buckinghamshire, which is selective. Thanks to the Greenwich judgment, Buckinghamshire pupils pour over the border into Bedfordshire schools. I do not know whether we want to change the Greenwich judgment, but the point is that despite the hon. Gentleman's opposition to grammar schools and grant-maintained schools, the 1997 Liberal Democrat manifesto states:
The prize is therefore for the grasping in Buckinghamshire. If the Liberal Democrats want to get rid of grammar schools there, they should persuade the electors to change to a different system. Hitherto, however, the electors have said, "No thank you very much; we will stay with the selective system". Thanks to the Greenwich judgment, pupils who do not want to take advantage of that system can pour into the schools of Bedfordshire. The amendment would merely give parts of the country that might, for various reasons, be considering a change to grammar schools, the opportunity to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said that in his area they were perfectly satisfied with the present system and had no desire to choose selection; the same applies to Bedfordshire. Other areas of the country may be different. The Government are struggling to find the middle way on the issue. The best way to proceed at this stage is to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment and allow us to progress in an orderly way, with no more arguments from the Liberal Democrats about grant-maintained and grammar schools. Mr. Byers: The reason why the Conservatives lost the election has been demonstrated in the past hour and a half. They are fighting old battles that mean nothing to the majority of people in our country. As they go through the intellectual exercise of undertaking policy reviews, they will have to look to the future, not the past. If they do not, the target seat of Altrincham and Sale, West will fall into our hands at the next election as may who knows even Maidenhead at the election after that. Mr. Brady rose
Mr. Byers: I want to make progress. I shall give way when I address the main policy points. The most disturbing feature of the debate and one that underpins everything that Conservative Members have said in Committee and on Second Reading is the belief that children can get a high quality education only in the private sector or in a grammar school [Interruption.] The record Mrs. May: Will the Minister give way? Mr. Byers: No, I want to make progress. The record will show that that is what Conservative Members have said, today and on Second Reading on 22 December. I refer particularly to the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for giving way. He has been casting aspersions about Opposition Members that are inaccurate. I have been at pains to make clear my support for all the schools in my constituency, which do an excellent job. At an earlier sitting, I drew attention to the Ashton-on-Mersey school, a secondary modern school that predominantly takes its pupils from a Manchester overspill estate. It has just had an outstanding Ofsted report and is doing an excellent job. I resent the Minister's suggestion that I and my colleagues believe that only grammar schools and private schools can provide decent education. That is not true and I invite him to withdraw that remark. Mr. Byers: The record will show the hon. Gentleman's comments about his own experience. He spoke about how important it was for him, not coming from a wealthy family and therefore not having access to private education to go to a grammar school to get a good education. He may deny it, but the record will show that that is what he said les than an hour ago. We need to address the issue of how we can move forward to an education system that can meet the needs of all our children, not just a few who will be selected on the basis of general ability that is not appropriate for an education system in the 21st century. It would be turning the clock back, not to the good old days, but to the bad old days, when the majority of children were rejected at the age of 11. That is why we made it crystal clear in our manifesto that there would be no return to the 11-plus and that it would be for local parents to determine the future of the 165 existing grammar schools. We did that for principled reasons. We believe that the comprehensive system offers better educational opportunities and a higher standard of education to our children. I will rehearse some figures in a few moments. As for the existing 165 grammar schools, it would have been easy particularly with a majority of 179 to put a Bill through Parliament which abolished grammar schools. We will not do that because we believe that the debate should be held locally. It should be for local parents to determine whether they want to keep their grammar schools.
6 pmMr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is dealing with the nub of the issue. He said that it is for local parents to determine whether they want to have a grammar school. Why should that choice be open to the parents of children at those 165 existing grammar schools and not to a group of parents who might want a grammar school to be established?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 24 February 1998 |
