Mr.
Leigh: I must admit I am very hurt that the Minister has
not seen fit to accept any of my amendments so far. Despite all the
plaudits that I have given her, and the advances that I have made to
her through my speeches, they have been all cruelly rejected. However,
there comes a moment when one gets angry, and I am a bit angry about
this aspect of the Bill. It first motivated me to take an interest in
the legislation, and I put my concerns directly to the Prime Minister,
face to face, in the Liaison Committee.
The reason why I feel angry is
no secret. I am interested in faith education—specifically
Catholic education, but Anglican education, too—particularly in
London, where such schools are oversubscribed. It is no secret that the
Prime Minister sent his sons to the London Oratory school, which has
always interviewed pupils. I have sent a son there and another of my
sons is going there next year. Some people think that Conservative MPs
have a go at the Prime Minister over the London Oratory only because
they are trying to make a political point. I feel strongly about the
school not because I want to make such a point but because it provides
a superb ethos, and that is precious.
Presumably, the Prime Minister
had to be interviewed to get his children into the school. Having
enjoyed the education that it gives, it is wrong that he
should now put his name to a Bill that will ban that and other faith
schools from interviewing. I feel strongly about the issue and I freely
admit that I speak from personal experience. I cannot believe that the
Prime Minister or the Minister in their heart of hearts really want
this unnecessary clause. My hon. Friends support the
Bill. Some parts of it are really worth while and will provide a small
impetus towards getting more choice and diversity. All that is fair
enough. However, why does there have to be this mean-minded little
clause to ban interviews, just to appease the Bill’s critics? As
my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said
many times, the Bill was going to get an enormous majority in any
event, so the clause was quite unnecessary.
Perhaps I will be told,
“Edward, don’t worry about the banning of interviews;
only a few schools interview now.” But why on earth do we have
to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Given that only a few of the
3,500 schools interview, do we need the clause? I do not think so.
Relatively few schools interview, but I am aware only of faith schools
that do so.
Incidentally, the Bill makes it
clear that interviews can be held to ascertain a propensity for
boarding. I would have thought that a state boarding school, or a state
school that takes some boarders, could use that as a device not only to
ascertain the aptitude of children in respect of boarding,
but—horror of horrors—in a hidden way to select parents
who are middle-class or support the ethos of the school. Apparently,
interviewing is allowed for some things, but a faith school cannot
interview to preserve its ethos.
I have a lot of time for the
Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for
Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and he feels strongly about this issue. He
is very knowledgeable and perfectly entitled to his point of view, but
I understand that he, along with many others in this House and many in
the educational world, is strongly opposed to faith schools. I happen
to think that those people are
wrong. There is a bit
of a hidden agenda. I do not think that many such people are really
opposed to existing faith schools—the very small number of
Jewish schools or the long-established Anglican or Roman Catholic
schools. Some people who oppose faith schools are opposed really to
Muslim schools, not because of nasty, racist views or views against
Muslims or any other such thing, but because they are worried that such
schools will create a ghetto mentality. They are particularly worried
about single-sex Muslim schools, which provide different education for
girls and for boys.
We live in a very politically
correct society, and although nobody dares admit it, I think that many
people opposed to faith schools have that hidden agenda. Others oppose
such schools because they believe that they cherry-pick and use the
interviews, which are supposed to assess Anglicanism or Catholicity, as
a hidden means of selecting middle-class pupils.
I can speak only from personal
experience of a Catholic primary school, a Catholic comprehensive
school and an Anglican school—Lady Margaret school in London, to
which I tried and failed to send a daughter and which also interviewed
at that stage. When I went to those schools to be interviewed with my
children, it was clear that the questions asked were a genuine attempt
to test the commitment, particularly of the child, to the Catholic or
Anglican faith. It will be said by the opponents of such interviews
that when the headmaster or the deputy head asks a 10-year-old child
what he or she understands about Easter, it will be easy—it will
happen in a trice—to work out the social background of the child
and so on. The opponents of interviews say that they are hidden a means
of selecting middle-class parents. 8.15
pm I do not
believe that. I genuinely believe that the London Oratory school and
others that I have come across are trying in a difficult world to
preserve their ethos. That is important. Such schools tend to be
oversubscribed. Many parents living in inner-city areas find it quite
difficult to gain access to really good education unless they are
prepared to pay for a private school—most cannot afford to do
so—or unless they get a priest to sign a chit in order to get
the child into a faith school.
It is distressing to attend
open meetings at such schools as I have done, because one comes to
realise that some are oversubscribed by as much as 8:1. Many parents
will be bitterly disappointed at not getting their children a place.
What can be done by those who run schools that are so oversubscribed?
They are comprehensive schools: that is in the statute. They cannot
select on ability—we are not going to have that debate again. It
is only fair that a Catholic school should give preference to Catholics
and an Anglican school should give preference to Anglicans. I presume
that the same applies to Jewish schools, although I suspect that the
constituency for that faith is much smaller and easier to
manage. If we are
going to give preference, how should it be done? What is the best way
to do it? The best way is surely to interview. It will be said that
interviews cause much stress and difficulty. Frankly, the stress is not
due to the interview but to being turned down—often for what are
thought to be unfair reasons. It will be said that a form can be filled
in by the local priest—I presume that the same applies in the
Anglican world—and that the form is supposed to determine
one’s commitment. If a Catholic school is oversubscribed by 8:1
or 7:1, or even 6:1, we are surely agreed that it should give
preference to people who are strongly committed to their faith. That is
a given, but how does one determine it?
I have seen the form. I also
know that some London parishes are booming because of the great influx
of people from the Philippines, from Poland and from other areas. In
some parishes in the outer areas of inner London, 2,000 or 3,000 people
are coming to services on Sunday mornings. How can the parish priest
possibly know whether or not someone is a keen Catholic? We all know
what goes on. Because parents are so desperate to get their children
into the few faith schools, they will turn up at church a few times, if
possible make themselves known to the parish priest and get the priest
to sign the form because they want
their child to get into a faith school—all because the other
schools are rubbish. It is virtually impossible for many priests to
know who is in their parish and to give a proper rÃ(c)sumÃ(c)
of their faith, so a lot of cheatinggoes
on. Jacqui
Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that because
lots of new Catholics are arriving from Poland and the Philippines,
particularly in the capital, interviewing should remain. How does he
think someone newly arrived from Poland without much English would fare
in an oral
interview?
Mr.
Leigh: That is a fair point. Schools should be very
careful in how they handle the situation, but I think that they are
experienced. My impression is that they make no attempt to disadvantage
people because of difficulties with language. A genuine attempt is
being made to conduct the interviews in an understanding way. They
could be done through interpreters or by using help. They are not
brutal occasions. They are not like House of Commons Committees; they
are not confrontational. The people involved are experienced in posing
questions. Many people can be given help. What the Minister says is not
necessarily an argument against
interviews. The
trouble with not having interviews and basing everything on a form is
that it is difficult to obtain an accurate answer. A Catholic priest
told me that priests do not want to become spiritual policeman. They do
not become priests—Anglican or Catholic—to go through
this heartrending business of having to make a decision. They are faced
with 10, 15 or 20 forms that John McIntosh from the London Oratory
school, or the head teacher from another school, has demanded. They do
not want to have to say whether X is a good Catholic. Such a situation
is ridiculous. It is not what those religions are about. They should be
welcoming to everybody. Priests want this burden placed on the school
and not on
them.
Sarah
Teather: Surely the Catholic priest should simply be
ticking a box to say whether someone is a practising Catholic and not
determining the extent to which someone has a religious
commitment.
Mr.
Leigh: I agree that that is supposed to be the situation.
However, it is difficult for someone running one of the huge parishes
in London to say with any certain knowledge whether or not someone is a
practising Catholic. This the last thing that a priest wants to do;
they do not want to have to tick a box that could affect
somebody’s entire future by saying that he or she turns up every
Sunday. Such a situation would be ridiculous. They should not be
required to do that, because it is unfair on them.
I go to my local parish in
Market Rasen in Lincolnshire. My constituency does not have any
Catholic schools but there is a Catholic primary school in Brigg and a
Catholic secondary school in Lincoln. The issue is different there.
Those schools are not oversubscribed; the parishes are small and
stable; and people are well known in the area. There is not a great
mobility of population. The system works there, but
things are much more difficult in London. It is wrong to put priests in
this invidious position. Why is the clause included? Why
are interviews being banned?
Mr.
Chaytor: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s
previous question the fact that the Roman Catholic Church and the
diocesan authorities have argued, along with the Government, that
interviews should not be part of the admissions
process?
Mr.
Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point
because I was coming to it. I took John McIntosh, the headmaster of the
London Oratory school, to see Cardinal Murphy Cormac-O’Connor
about this precise point. The hon. Gentleman might not agree with this,
but the Catholic Church is terrified of the potential attack on faith
schools and knows that the issue is controversial. I freely admit that
it is controversial, because people get very upset when they are turned
down. We all know
people who have tried to get into certain schools and who have come
knocking on our door. Loads of complaints are received about various
Catholic schools that people have not got into. They complain to the
hierarchy, for which it is an unwanted hassle. By the way, I think that
the hassle will get even worse once everyone has to do things by a form
because there will be nothing then between the Church and complainants.
The Church is worried about this matter. Things have been admitted to
me off the record. People do not want to say this publicly. They say,
“Let us throw this out and give this away so that there will be
no further attacks.”
I freely accept a point that
goes against me: there are people in the Catholic hierarchy who are
opposed to interviews, which are controversial in the Catholic Church,
as they are anywhere else. Just because people are Catholics or
Anglicans does not mean that they cannot take a political point of
view. Some of them oppose interviews.
The hon. Gentleman should not
accept that there is a universal view in the hierarchy, in the Catholic
Education Service and among Catholic schools that interviews are bad.
Most Catholic schools used to interview. Relentless pressure has been
put on them to stop it. One by one they have given up the battle, and
only a few are left. My understanding, from those people whom I have
talked to, is that that was not a right that they wanted to give up.
The change has been gradually forced upon them. Few schools now
interview. I return to the point: a legal case has been fought over the
past year and the London Oratory has won its battle. Why, if it is such
a tiny problem, do we need the clause?
In summary, this goes back to
my belief that it is fundamentally wrong to lay down in statute that
schools should proceed in a certain way. The Minister constantly says,
“We do not want schools to select pupils; we want parents to
select schools.” That works in many parts of the country but in
some parts of the country—particularly in the capital but maybe
in other areas where schools are oversubscribed—it does not.
Where a school is oversubscribed and its primary ethos is based on its
faith it should be allowed, if it wants, to
interview. I am not forcing it to do so. If a school wanted to give up
interviewing it could have done so years ago. Some schools are
presumably quite happy not to interview. All I am saying is that if
they feel from their local knowledge and the way they run their school
that they want to interview, they should. My amendment puts back into
the Bill their right to interview. Mr.
Chaytor: I shall resist the temptation to be drawn into a
debate about the merits or otherwise of the admission practices of
faith schools. I am sure that the Whip will be delighted to hear that.
However, it may be a subject to which we return on Report. I can recall
an interesting discussion with the hon. Gentleman after the Education
Act 2002, which included a significant amendment on faith schools. I am
sure that many such issues will return on Report.
I want to speak to amendments
Nos. 213 to 215, which are simple and straightforward. Amendment No.
215 simply proposes that academies should be brought into the general
prohibition on interviewing. The reason why it is important to do so
follows the arguments that we have already had about academies and why
they should be properly part of the local family of schools, and be
required to conform to the practices to which neighbouring schools must
conform. The
amendment also arises from the use in some academies of what are called
structured discussions. I am not sure whether the term
“structured discussions” appears in the academies’
agreement with the Department, nor am I sure exactly how an interview
differs from a structured discussion. I suspect that the relationship
is similar to that between selection by ability and by aptitude. I do
not want to reopen that debate at this point, but it seems to me fair
and reasonable that the prohibition on interview should apply equally
to academies.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214
would include the term “or written test” after
interviews. That is important because a number of schools still use
written tests. Clearly, the use of written tests as a supplementary
admissions procedure is a form of quasi-11-plus selection. It is
permitted and not explicitly prohibited, and it can take a variety of
different forms, from informally asking students to write about their
family background and summer holidays to more sophisticated written
tests that fall short of an explicit test of academic
ability.
8.30
pm If the
Committee will indulge me for a moment, I will quote from the
admissions policy of one school. I will not name the school because it
would be invidious to name individual schools as part of the
Committee’s debates, but the policy will highlight the way in
which written tests are used. The school is nominally non-selective,
but it is a faith
school.
It spells out the requirements
for submission of a successful application by saying, “Parents
and guardians are reminded they must do the following five things if
their applications are to be considered
properly. First, come to an open session.” The open sessions are
on Wednesday evening, Thursday afternoon or Thursday lunchtime.
Clearly, that limits the number of parents who are available to go to
an open session—and at is at the open session where the
admissions prospectus is available and where information on the school
is given by the teaching
staff. “Secondly,”
they are told, “collect a prospectus from the school and return
it to the school by the date set by the LEA.” Fine: we accept
that. “Thirdly, bring the child for the assessment test on a
Saturday morning. Fourthly, telephone the school to check that the
primary school reference has been received and that it has been used on
the correct form.”
These details might have been
more relevant to the previous set of amendments on the various forms of
covert admissions procedure that some schools use, but I mention it now
because it highlights the use of the written assessment test—not
any old written assessment test, but one that takes place only on a
Saturday morning at a specific time. This represents an aggregate set
of procedures each of which is designed to keep out certain kinds of
parent—those who do not have resources or time, an understanding
of the process or a child with the relevant level of academic ability
to pass the written assessment test.
Given the arguments that the
Government have rightly advanced in their determination to press
forward with the prohibition of interviews—a determination on
which they are to be congratulated—it seems to me entirely
logical to match that prohibition with a prohibition on written tests,
and the skeletal code of practice on admissions that was circulated
last week makes no reference to
that.
| 
