Orders of the Day — Secondary Education (Cheshire)

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 20 December 1976.

Alert me about debates like this

9.9 a.m.

Photo of Mr Alastair Goodlad Mr Alastair Goodlad , Northwich

I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for being here at the end of a long and arduous debate. I particularly welcome her presence as she represents the city in which I was born and brought up and to which I was a frequent visitor until very recently. I am sure that I shall receive a sympathetic hearing for that reason, if for no other.

I seek to bring to the attention of the House the difficulties that have been experienced by two of my constituents, Master Richard Wilkinson and Miss Rebecca McMillan, in obtaining admission to the secondary schools of their choice. I should like first to state briefly the facts about Richard Wilkinson.

Richard Wilkinson is currently not at school at all, and has not been since last summer. He is looking after the rabbits of a neighbour. He was offered a place at the Tarporley County High School although his parents' first choice for him had been the Nantwich and Acton Grammar School because there are already two of the Wilkinson children at the Nantwich School. The siblings rule has hitherto been fairly generally applied in Cheshire. In years previous to this Richard Wilkinson would have been directed, as was his brother, to attend the Nantwich and Acton Grammar School, but unfortunately for him the catchment areas have recently been changed.

The burdens imposed on his family were he to attend Tarporley County High School can readily be imagined. There would be different starting times in the morning and different finishing times. There would be different holidays, different uniforms, different school homework requirements, different sports days to attend—or perhaps such events would take place on the sameday—and difficulties in attending parent-teacher association meetings and school functions.

The primary reason which was given for his direction to Tarporley County High School was that there was not room at Nantwich. The letter of 6th December received from the Department of Educa- tion and Science by Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson states: In the case of your son, exhaustive inquiries have been made of the Cheshire Education Authority who have satisfied us that there are sufficient staff at Nantwich and Acton Grammar School to cater only for four first-year classes, and these classes have been filled in accordance with their normal policies and procedures. I must emphasise that we have regarded the fullness of the school as the most important factor in our consideration, even though the Authority may have mentioned other factors in their discussions with you. In these circumstances, although we are sympathetic to your request and recognise the problems which will result from the attendance of your children at different schools, we have concluded that the Cheshire Education Authority have not acted unreasonably in terms of Section 68 of the 1944 Education Act. Subsequent to that letter the Wilkinson family received a letter signed by the Headmaster of Nantwich and Acton Grammar School, dated 13th December, which stated that he had been shown the letter written to Mrs. Wilkinson on 6th December. He wrote: I notice that you say '…there are sufficient staff at Nantwich and Acton Grammar School to cater only for four First year classes, and that these have been filled …' In fact the decision to reduce the number of classes to four was made by us precisely because we received fewer new pupils this year. We started the year with only 129 first year pupils and we now have 131 pupils. Last year there were 154 and in 1974 there were 191. If the fullness of the school is, as you say, the most important factor in the case, there is no reason why this boy should not have been admitted in September. We could have accepted him without difficulty then, and we can still do so now. There seems to be a difference of opinion and, I submit, an error.

I do not propose to weary the House at this stage by going into a post-mortem on how such an error might have arisen, but in the light of the letter from the Headmaster of Nantwich and Acton School it seems that the county council has not behaved wholly reasonably.

On 18th December a letter was received by the Wilkinson family from Councillor Norman Ribbeck, a highly respected member of the Cheshire County Council, in which he said to Mrs. Wilkinson: I am extremely sorry that I have been unable to help you because I regard your request as eminently reasonable. I hope that the Minister and her right hon. Friend will feel able to reconsider the case of Richard Wilkinson in the light of what I have said.

I turn now to Miss Rebecca McMillan, who is currently attending Tarporley High School, although Helsby School was her first choice. Again, she has a sister, Helen Elizabeth, already at Helsby, and there appears to be another variation on the part of the Cheshire County Council from the siblings rule.

There are a number of reasons why I think the county council has not been wholly reasonable in the case of Rebecca McMillan. First, prior to 1974 Helsby County Grammar School was available to children at Mouldsworth, where the McMillans live, but when the Chester area, which includes Mouldsworth, became comprehensive, the so-called boundaries were adjusted to exclude Mouldsworth children from the school and to send them instead to Tarporley County School.

In 1978 Helsby will become comprehensive and the zonal boundaries will be adjusted to make it available once again for Mouldsworth children. Secondly, there is the question of distance. Helsby School is approximately three miles from Mouldsworth, whereas Tarporley School is over eight miles. All the factors which I mentioned in connection with the Wilkinsons having children at different schools apply equally to the McMillans. I think that the children are likely to suffer as a result of the logistical difficulties imposed on the parents.

Mrs. McMillan is the deputy headmistress of a primary school which is changing its headmaster next term, and she has been notified that the new headmaster will rely very heavily on her during the first year of his headmastership. Therefore the burden on her will be considerable in any event.

The Wilkinsons were given notice in May of this year of their right to a stated choice. Unfortunately, the McMillans were not given such early warning. Originally Rebecca McMillan was not allocated to any secondary school at all. It was not until Mrs. McMillan became aware that other children in the area had allocations that she contacted the allocations officer and an allocation was belatedly made. The allocations officer, she tells me, admitted that Rebecca had been "lost in the system", and that she was never considered in the allocation sequence.

My requests to the Minister and to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in these two cases are in no way intended to reflect adversely on Tarporley High School. Having myself visited the school both before and after its recent improvements and extensions, I can confirm from my own experience what has been said to me from all sides in my constituency—that it is an excellent school, served by an exceptionally able and dedicated staff, which its pupils are indeed fortunate to attend. Nor, may I say, is my appeal to the Secretary of State on behalf of these parents in any way politically inspired. As the Minister knows, both schools are shortly to become comprehensive schools. It is a matter of choice. We are all in this House dedicated to a degree of choice in education, although emphases differ, where it is administratively possible.

These are deep waters and I do not intend to lead the House very far into them at this moment, but I remind the House that to invite the Secretary of State to utilise her powers under the Education Act 1944 is not an egregious request, even after the Tameside decision.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Minister, but I would like to remind the House by quoting the words of the Secretary of State when she replied on 8th December to an adjournment debate raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham West (Mr. Price). She said: The power conferred by Section 68 has been used sparingly. But successive Secretaries of State have directed local education authorities to admit particular children to the schools preferred by their parents in circumstances where an authority's refusal of admission has been regarded as unreasonable. This will be an important point.In the past five years 35 directions have been given in such circumstances, relating to about 90 children. One such direction, relating to the admission of two children to a primary school, has been issued within the past few days. They are issued without regard to the politics of the authority concerned. The power to give these directions is always used reluctantly, because the decision of an elected local authority charged with the administration of education in its area is not lightly to be set aside.I think it right as does my right hon. Friend, that there should he an ultimate remedy available to ensure that the rights of parents are preserved. Taking into account the attitude of the higher courts, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to use the Section 68 powers in appropriate cases and will examine what might be done to improve the arrangements whereby school places are allocated and how parents' views can be properly considered within a non-selective system."—[Officiai Report, 8th December, 1976; Vol. 922, c. 596.] In my submission it is administratively possible and educationally desirable that Richard Wilkinson and Rebecca McMillan should attend the schools of their choice. I appeal to the Minister while there is still time to urge her right hon. Friend to use her powers to intervene on the children's behalf, because I think that the local authority has behaved unreasonably.

9.22 a.m.

Photo of Miss Margaret Jackson Miss Margaret Jackson Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Education and Science)

This debate gives the House an opportunity to consider how choice of school cases is approached, and the constraints on the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in them. Most hon. Members have choice of school constituency cases from time to time and they might find it helpful if they knew a little more about how they are handled.

I should first say that the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in these cases are severely limited. Her powers are conferred by two sections of the 1944 Education Act, Sections 37 and 68.

The first power is that conferred by Section 68 of the 1944 Education Act. This is the one which is most often quoted, but we have always recognised that the power conferred by it is severely limited. Recent court decisions have certainly emphasised this.

It is not so widely understood that the power is available to the Secretary of State only if she is satisfied, and properly satisfied, that an authority has acted or proposes to act unreasonably. It is not up to the Secretary of State simply to say whether she in the same circumstances, with the same factors involved, would have reached the same decision as the authority. She is not able simply to substitute her judgment for that of the authority. She must have evidence that the authority has acted in a way that can be regarded as unreasonable in the legal sense.

In addition to Section 68, Section 37 gives the Secretary of State power to direct a local authority to name any particular school in a school attendance order if such an order is needed, when the authority is unwilling to name a school of the parent's choice because, in its opinion, that school is unsuitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude, or, the child's attendance at that school would involve unreasonable expense for the education authority. I will simply note in passing that no school attendance order is yet in existence, as far as I am aware, in respect of the children who are the subject of this debate—but the matter could arise.

Two cases have been referred to the Department by the hon. Member in recent months. The first is the case of Richard Wilkinson, who wants to go to Nantwich and Acton Grammar School but who has been offered a place by the authority at Tarporley High School. Richard has two brothers at Nantwich and Acton already, one brother at Christledon Secondary and a sister at Duddon Primary. The parents are naturally concerned about having five children at four different schools.

I have great sympathy with the Wilkinsons. The authority's case is that Nantwich and Acton is already full with children who live close to the school than the Wilkinsons and have therefore a prior claim to a place there. I am aware that the acting headmaster of Nantwich and Acton has written to the Wilkinson and to the Department saying that he considers that there is room for Richard at the school. But it is for the authority rather than the headmaster to make the decision and the authority has pointed out that, by normal standards, the school is full, because each of the classes which Richard could enter has already more than 30 children.

The Secretary of State considered very carefully indeed whether the circumstances of this case were such that an exception should be made to normal practice. She was unable to conclude that. under Section 68, restricted as she is by the drafting of that section especially in the light of recent court decisions, she was empowered to issue a direction against the Cheshire authority. She regrets that, as I do. It is because Section 68 is so restrictive that the Secretary of State decided not to issue a direction. For my part, I am continually urging on authorities the need to take the particular circumstances of individuals into account when deciding whether to make exceptions to usual policies or procedures. But if the authority refuses to do that, we have to fall back on an assessment whether, in the terms of Section 68, the authority can be said to have acted unreasonably.

I recognise that many people will say that the authority should have made an exception and that it was behaving unreasonably in this case, but we must consider whether it acted unreasonably within the terms of Section 68.

The other case that the hon. Member has referred to the Secretary of State is that of Rebecca McMillan. Rebecca lives in Mouldsworth, a village about four miles from Helsby, where her parents would like her to go to school. The Cheshire authority has offered her a place at Tarporley High School which is about eight miles from Mouldsworth.

This is a similar case to the Wilkinson case. I have sympathy with Rebecca's parents and would feel much happier if her request for a place at the Helsby School could be granted. But I have to ask whether the authority is acting so unreasonably in refusing to offer a place at Helsby that the Secretary of State could issue a direction to it. The answer to that question must be "No". Under the terms of the 1944 Act we are forced to conclude that we are unable to issue a direction as the authority was not acting in an unreasonable manner when it refused Richard Wilkinson and Rebecca McMillan the school places of their choice.

But this does not mean that 1 am completely satisfied with the way in which we approach choice of school cases generally. I am far from satisfied that we have things quite right in this area. In fact, it is our intention, in consultation with the interests concerned, to see what can be done over a period of time to improve the arrangements whereby school places are allocated, and to ensure that parents' views are properly taken into account. As my noble Friend said during the Lords' debate on the 1976 Education Act, we have not excluded the possibility of future legislation on this matter.

Although I have made plain in these particular cases that we have not felt able to issue a direction to the authority, my right hon. Friend will be writing to the authority asking it to re-examine the cases with great care and to reconsider them, in view of all the circumstances and the substantial points which have been raised by the hon. Member, to see whether it is exceptionally able to accommodate these children. I hope that we shall be able to settle the matter satisfactorily.