2.32 pm
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot anticipate what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) will say in his Adjournment debate, the subject of which is two schools in my constituency, but the purpose of closing those schools is to create a city technology college. The girls' school has voted against that; the boys' school has voted for it. The Government's proposal is that one CTC should be constituted from those two schools—
Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell me the point of order for the Chair.
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I felt that it was necessary to give you that explanation because, as a result of what has happened, the Inner London education authority and the London borough of Lewisham are now taking the matter through the courts. There is an appeal hearing in the High Court, which I understand is still going on. Therefore, I wonder whether the matters are sub judice.
I understand the hon. Lady's point and am grateful to her for giving me notice of it. I also understand that a case is now before the courts and the matter is, therefore, sub judice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and the Minister will take that into account in their remarks.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Greg Knight.]
2.34 pm
I do not intend to deal with the subject matter of the case that is still before the courts. It is. as will emerge during my remarks, one of five lawsuits brought by the Inner London education authority. That is some measure of the way in which the authority has tried to frustrate the consultation process in schools becoming a CTC. The Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Hatcham are two voluntary-controlled schools which are administered by the same foundation and have had the same governing body for about 100 years. During the past two years they have undertaken a consultation procedure on whether they should remain voluntary controlled, become grant-maintained or become a city technology college.
The story of that procedure is an amazing story of an attempt by a Labour-controlled authority—ILEA—to frustrate it. ILEA has attempted to manipulate the governing body and to remove CTC supporters from the governing body, and has aided the parents group, which is opposed to the CTC, both financially and in other ways that are improper, if not illegal. It has brought five lawsuits in an attempt to frustrate the procedure and spent upwards of £250,000 of public money in pursuit of what can be described only as party dogma. ILEA did all those things not only during the consultation period but after democratic decisions had been taken to proceed with turning one of the schools into a CTC. I suggest that that is not only profoundly undemocratic but shows that the Labour education authority—the largest in the country—was not prepared to accept the democratic decision of governors, parents and teachers. It is a scandal of municipal bullying, misuse of public funds for party political purposes and attempts to prevent democracy and flout democratic decisions. It is a tribute to those members of the governing body who are not Labour party appointees that they have pursued an extremely beneficial development in the education of Lewisham children. The story started in 1988. In April the governing body considered a paper on whether the schools should become a city technology college. It was agreed that there would be a lengthy period of public consultation and that parents would be asked their views on the proposals before any decision was taken. At that stage the governing body was made up of 21 people, including 10 appointed by ILEA—of whom eight were Labour party appointees and two were Conservative party appointees—five foundation governors, two head teachers, two other teachers and two parents. ILEA suspected, rightly, that the governing body would break 12 to nine in favour of the CTC proposal. Only 24 hours before the meeting was due to take place, ILEA's legal adviser told the four teacher governors—the two head teachers and two other teachers—that they could not vote, on the strange ground that they had a pecuniary interest in the outcome. That matter subsequently went to court. It was the only one of the lawsuits that ILEA won. Although I do not question the decision of the court, it was extraordinary that an education authority which said that its policy was to promote the involvement of teachers in the administration of its schools, sought to disqualify all four teachers on the governing body from taking part in the decision. The teachers were known to be three to one in favour of the schools becoming a CTC. The effect of ILEA's action was to reduce the majority from nine to eight. The eight Labour appointees then voted and behaved as a block throughout the consultation procedures and thereafter. All the other nine governors—the two parents, the foundation governors and the two non-Labour appointees—voted consistently the other way. At the meeting it was agreed that consultation would take place on all three options—the schools becoming a CTC, adopting grant-maintained status or remaining as they were. The meeting was in May 1988 and it was decided that the consultation should continue until 17 December. A public consultation document was issued in July. There was a public meeting and parents' meetings in each of the schools. Written representations were made and teachers and parents had meetings in both schools. It was agreed that if the governing body proceeded with either the CTC or grant-maintained option, there would be further consultation on the preferred option and a parents' ballot. There were two groups of parents—those opposed to and those in favour of the CTC option. Quite improperly, ILEA sought to help and promote the interests of the group that was opposed to the CTC. It paid for and produced what must be an extremely expensive leaflet setting out the opposition case. It connived in making available to that group a list of the names and addresses of the parents of the children at one of the schools. ILEA helped and promoted in a variety of ways the interests of parents who were opposed to the CTC. It was agreed that during the consultation period there would be a regular governors meeting every month to review progress. The eight Labour party appointees on the governing body attempted to ambush this procedure twice in five months by calling emergency meetings with some 72 hours' notice, in the hope of frustrating the proceedings. It became clear at the end of the consultation period that a significant majority of the parents, staff and teachers were in favour of the schools becoming a CTC. It was agreed that there would be a governors meeting on 20 January to make a decision. At this stage ILEA pulled one of the most disgraceful stunts of any education authority or local authority of which I have knowledge. Its first action, which was not especially disgraceful, was another attempt to frustrate the process. It challenged the consultation procedure. At the end of the procedure, which had continued for six months, it was challenged on the ground that it should have been longer. ILEA lost that case at the High Court and at the Court of Appeal. Its second action was a real scandal. ILEA wrote to all 10 appointed governors on 3 November:That is an outrageous interference with the independence and discretion that is normally accorded to governors. At this stage the eight Labour party appointed governors were behaving like puppets. They responded by saying that they would support the authority. The other two governors, one of whom had been a member of the governing body for nearly 30 years and was a Member of this place—the other one is an extremely hard-working deputy chairman of the board of governors—said that they would not do so, as a result of which they received another letter on 22 December in which the threat was repeated in rather more obvious terms. The clerk to the authority wrote:"I ask you to indicate that as a representative of the authority you will support the authority's policy on the schools, namely to continue their status as voluntary controlled status schools".
At a meeting on 17 January, three days before the proposed governors meeting to make a decision, ILEA proceeded to remove the two governors without giving them a hearing. While that was going on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science wrote to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Science, who had objected vehemently, and I think rightly, to Conservative local education authorities attempting to pack their school governing bodies with 100 per cent. Conservative governors. My right hon. Friend wrote to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thought that there was a similar case to be considered and whether he would decry and denounce what ILEA was doing. The hon. Member for Blackburn declined to do so for reasons that seemed to me to produce false distinctions. At the end of the day, he was not prepared to criticise ILEA for its behaviour. The two governors challenged ILEA's decision in the High Court. They won at both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. It is one of the worst examples of abuse of municipal power and the misuse of ratepayers' money that I have come across. The governors meeting was finally held and it was agreed to recommend the CTC option, which the consultation process that had thrown up as the most popular. It was agreed that there would be further consultation on the details of the option at a parents' ballot on 13 May. The ballot took place and it was won by 58 to 48. The teachers of both schools had previously voted in favour of there being a CTC. The governors therefore proceeded at a later meeting in July to issue a closure notice and to go ahead with the reconstitution of the schools. One would have thought that at that stage, after democratic decisions of the parents, governors and teachers, that ILEA would say, "We advanced our side of the argument in the consultation procedure and we lost." No, it was not prepared to do that. Shortly before the final governors meeting ILEA attempted to remove one of the parent governors. That was done in early July. The parent's child was due to leave the school in about a month's time at the end of the summer term. She had had her final interview with the head teacher. The ILEA had the nerve, the brass neck, to say that the parent no longer had the right to be a parent governor although her appointment was clearly to last for the whole school year. The matter was taken to court by the parent governor. ILEA settled on terms requested by her at the door of the court. It agreed to reinstate her and to pay her costs. That is another example of municipal bullying. ILEA then took yet another action. It ordered the governing body to split into separate governing bodies for the two schools despite there having been one governing body for over 100 years. It thought that it might win a governing body vote in the girls' school, although it knew that it would lose in the boys' school. The Secretary of State refused that application. ILEA went to court and again lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. ILEA has subsequently challenged the Secretary of State's decision to issue a closure notice. That is the subject of the existing lawsuit and I shall not dwell on that. It is presently in the Court of Appeal; I understand that the hearing is taking place and judgment is awaited. Earlier this year, the governing body had to be re-elected and reconstituted under the new rules set by the Education Reform Act 1988. That meant there would be five elected parent governors, instead of two. Those parent governor elections took the form of a direct contest between those who were in favour of the CTC and those against. The pro-CTC parents secured four of the five places, and failed to gain the fifth place by only three votes. One would have thought that was an overwhelming endorsement of the governing body's decision. However, even in the face of that further democratic decision, ILEA has taken several other steps. It has pursued the appeal, the subject of the outstanding case. The five governors whom ILEA is entitled to appoint to the governing body are all Labour party appointees. Not one representative or appointee has been nominated by the minority parties. ILEA has tried again, by administrative measures, to split the governing bodies and the governors have refused. Lewisham, which will take over education responsibilities in April, is making noises that it might do the same. I hope that it will not, because if it splits the governing bodies, in a year's time there will be the most awful chaos. That would involve new governing bodies being formed in April 1991 and parents' elections, which would take about six weeks. Therefore, in the middle of June, two years later, there would he a vote on whether the schools should become CTCs. At that time the closure process will already be 19 months down the road, the CTC will be due to open in September 1991, teachers will have been hired, money spent and pupils promised places. I hope that it will not do that, although I am not filled with great hope in the light of some of its other actions. It is threatening to refuse builders access to the sites while they remain technically local education authority administered schools. At the end of last year, the Audit Commission published a report directed at local education authorities' new responsibilities. It made the crucial point that local education authorities must take note of the Education Reform Act 1988. It said:"I am writing pursuant to our previous correspondence to inform you that the authority is minded to consider your removal from the governing body."
—in preferences and alternatives—"LEAs should recognise these shifts"
Apparently, it is not difficult for ILEA to reconcile that, although one would have thought that it should be. I hope that the London borough of Lewisham will adopt a more constructive attitude. That was an abuse of power by the Inner London education authority on a quite outrageous scale. It attempted to prevent teachers from voting, whom it pretends should be more involved in the running of schools. Its eight appointees behaved like Labour party puppets throughout the procedure and voted as a block. They cannot possibly have all individually agreed on every single issue that came before the governing bodies during that year and a half, but they all voted the same way. It attempted to call three emergency meetings at short notice to reverse decisions that had been taken at meetings of which more reasonable notice had been given. It aided and abetted, in an improper and inappropriate way, the group of parents opposed to the school becoming a CTC. It challenged the consultation in court at a late stage in an attempt to frustrate the procedure. Above all, its attempt to remove the two governors who refused to toe the Labour party line, is one of the most outrageous abuses of municipal power and misuse of ratepayers' money that I have ever witnessed. After the decision had been made and democratic votes had been taken by the teachers, governors and parents, ILEA refused to acknowledge that decision. It tried to remove a parent governor and split the governing body. It has challenged the Secretary of State in court and even after the new parent governor elections were overwhelmingly won by those in favour of the school becoming a CTC, it pursued that lawsuit and threatens, along with the London borough of Lewisham, to split the governing bodies in a year's time. In pursuit of this vendetta it has spent more than £250,000 of ratepayers' money. That was an abuse of power, which showed that it had undemocratic objectives of pure party dogma. It is difficult to understand how that can have continued after a democratic decision had been taken. The campaigning that went on before was perhaps the cut and thrust of politics, although it was at the very least bullying for a rich local education authority to use its resources, money and power in that way, but it was totally wrong for it to do so after a democratic decision had been taken. I should like the Government to do two things to stop this frustration. First, the governing bodies should not be able to vote for the revocation of closure notices which the Secretary of State has issued to be effective without the Secretary of State's approval. If any such processes succeed in frustrating the wishes of the governing bodies of the schools, those closure notices should not be able to be revoked without the consent of the Secretary of State. Secondly, governing bodies should not be able to be split by their local education authorities against the wishes of the members of the joint governing bodies without the Secretary of State's approval. The consultation procedure has shown that those two processes are weapons which those who oppose schools becoming grant-maintained or city technology colleges have in their hands in an extremely unfair way. Throughout the whole of this sorry saga the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority has flouted democratic procedures, packed the governing body or attempted to do so, misused public money and refused to accept democratic decisions. I am sorry to say that that vexatious harassment continues to this day."and adapt their procedures. Refusing to do so, campaigning against alternative types of provision and refusing to co-operate with the new CTCs or grant-maintained schools, is hard to reconcile with the LEA's duties."
2.51 pm
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I congratulate his constituents on being represented by him. It is acknowledged on both sides of the House that he is an independent and determined representative of his constituents' interests in education and other matters. As a good representative of his constituents he cares very much about educational opportunities and that is why he is a strong supporter of the proposal that there should be a city technology college in Lewisham.
It is sad that there should have been the history of bitterness and disagreement that my hon. Friend has described. I deplore the obstructionism and the negative, ungenerous and reactionary attitude of the Inner London education authority in the face of proposals that are certainly intended to benefit children and young people in that part of London and would undoubtedly be to their benefit. It is sad that there should be that disagreement, and it passes belief that the assertion should be made that nothing should change in the face of the significant educational disadvantage which too many children have for far too long experienced in parts of London. Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was pleased to agree with the Haberdashers' Company in its generous proposal to participate in establishing a city technology college in the present Haberdashers' Aske's schools. As legal proceedings are continuing in the Court of Appeal, clearly it would be inappropriate for me to comment on matters that are the subject of those proceedings, as you have already advised me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend outlined the complex and disturbing history of those events fully and usefully, so I shall not dwell on the history of the proposal. At the end of his remarks my hon. Friend asked me two specific questions. They are important and, of course, relevant to the circumstances that he described. I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider with great care the suggestions that he made. I should like to set the Lewisham CTC project in the context of my right hon. Friend's programme to establish a network of city technology colleges. All such schools are established in pursuit of the same broad aims, and have fundamental characteristics in common. Each school will also have its own distinct character, and the potential to make an important contribution to education in its area. Provision was made in section 105 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for the establishment of city technology colleges. These are independent non fee-paying schools, established in urban areas, for pupils aged 11 to 18. They are required to offer the national curriculum but place special emphasis on mathematics, science and technology. They are established and maintained by sponsors drawn from business and industry, and other sponsors such as livery companies. Capital funding is through a partnership between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the sponsors. My right hon. Friend supports the running costs of CTCs on a basis comparable with expenditure on secondary education by local education authorities in similar areas. Why has my right hon. Friend sought to establish CTCs? It was the overall purpose of the Education Reform Act 1988 to improve quality and to widen parental choice in education. The city technology college programme addressed a particular problem in education in this country—the fact that children of average and below average ability have been performing less well in mathematics and science than those in some of our competitor countries—West Germany, for example. That problem has been particularly apparent in inner urban areas. There is an issue, not just of academic attainment, but of whether, in comparison with what happens in some other countries, our young people are adequately prepared for their role in the entrepreneurial and technological society in which we live. Opportunities are becoming more widely available for young people in schools to understand and experience the world of business and industry, and the changing technology, changing markets, and changing management practice in those environments. Such opportunities need to be extended and reinforced. Ways of achieving that include involving business sponsors in the management of schools and approaches to teaching and learning that take account of the impact of new technology in today's world. City technology colleges are adopting those approaches. The CTCs already in existence are making a determined and vigorous attack on the problems that I have outlined. Three colleges have opened. Altogether, 12 have firm opening dates for this year and next. Parents in the areas where city technology colleges have opened, or are about to open, are responding positively to the wider choice and new opportunities offered to their children. Admissions to the schools have been heavily oversubscribed in every case. The numbers of applications for teaching posts in CTCs have also been generally very high, and it is clear that many teachers are strongly attracted to the opportunity to teach in those schools. The curriculum of a CTC will place particular emphasis on mathematics, science and technology, and the use of information technology to support the curriculum in other subjects. The organisation and management of the schools will also normally involve extensive use of new technology, familiarising pupils with everyday uses in businesses and other organisations. CTCs will nevertheless teach a balanced curriculum. It will be possible for CTCs to achieve those two objectives because they normally operate a longer school day than other secondary schools—and in some cases, a longer school year. That approach makes heavy demands on teachers and pupils alike, but, at the admission stage, the schools ensure that parents fully understand that entering a CTC involves a special degree of commitment to the opportunity offered, including a broad spectrum of opportunities post-16. The Government's intention is that CTCs will demonstrate new approaches to enabling secondary pupils of all abilities to achieve higher levels of attainment, particularly in mathematics, science and technology. The schools will be exemplars. It is intended that they should build on the good practice that is being developed, but which has not yet been sufficiently widely replicated. CTCs will develop innovative approaches that other schools will want to adopt. As a result, we expect that standards will be raised across the system. I hope that Lewisham children will have the opportunity to benefit in that way. Each CTC will be consciously part of the national network of CTCs aiming to make a significant contribution to this country's education. A CTC also has an important role as a local school. It will inevitably develop working links with other schools in its area. Those will necessarily include close and fruitful relationships with feeder primary schools. It will be important, for example, for primary teachers, pupils and parents to understand and indeed to "taste" what a CTC offers to pupils within its catchment area. Without such contacts and co-operation, parents and pupils will not be able to exercise a free choice or be prepared for the opportunities available. CTCs will also seek to develop mutually beneficial relationships with other secondary schools and with local colleges, with a view to sensible sharing of facilities and joint teaching initiatives. In establishing CTCs, the Government have added to the diversity of educational opportunity in this country, on the basis that problems which have been with us for a long time need to be approached in a variety of ways, with opportunities given for experiment and innovation. Wherever CTCs are situated, and whatever the political views and priorities of the local education authority, it should be remembered that CTC places are open to young people of all levels of ability in their designated catchment areas, and that a new and exciting type of opportunity is involved. It is, therefore, clearly against the interests of local children and the likely wishes of their parents if local education authorities adopt the attitude which some, sadly, have adopted of not only opposing the establishment of a CTC in their area but of ostracising it once it is established. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I find deplorable the reactionary, ungenerous, defensive and negative attitude of far too many in the educational establishment—whether they be councillors, officers or, regrettably, teachers—who have not been willing to be generous in their recognition of the attempt made by others who have taken advantage of the opportunity offered by the Government to exercise their democratic right to vote for independence in the grant-maintained sector. They have not been willing to recognise the generosity of benefactors such as the Haberdashers' Company, which is willing to give generous resources to the benefit of education in areas where all too often it has not been of the standard that we want for local children. It is absurd to deny local children the opportunity of a CTC. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, I look forward to the establishment of the Haberdashers' CTC and to a new and exciting phase in its long support of education in Lewisham. That will be to the benefit of children in Lewisham.I asked my hon. Friend two specific points, which he said he would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the withdrawal of closure notices and the splitting of governing bodies without someone else's consent. Does he agree that those methods of frustration should not be available to people who oppose these procedures?
I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on those two points, which are enormously important in the context of the events that he outlined. It would be wrong, however, for me to express a view on the proprieties or practicalities of the law. I am more than happy to undertake to draw those important considerations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can think carefully about the appropriate policy.
In the meantime, I very much share my hon. Friend's view that a CTC in Lewisham represents a splendid opportunity for young people there. I am sure that friends of education and children in the borough of Lewisham will look forward to the successful establishment of this important educational enterprise.Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.