The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the name of Paul Davies.

The next item on the agenda is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on grammar schools. I call on Michelle Brown to move the motion.

Motion NDM6094 Neil Hamilton

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Acknowledges the important role played by grammar schools in promoting social mobility and giving children from poorer backgrounds access to a first class education.

2. Notes that a reduction in social mobility has gone hand in hand with a cut in grammar school places.

3. Believes in diversity in secondary education, which gives children the right to a grammar school education if parents so desire, and supports enhanced status for technical and vocational education and the re-introduction of grammar schools in Wales to produce an educational system which provides the best opportunities for children of all abilities.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Who could have predicted 20 years ago that team GB would go on to win 27 gold medals in the Olympics? Probably no-one in the Labour Party. Why? Because the name ‘Labour’ has become synonymous with failure, and because they lack ambition for their own country and people. Instead, they choose to do down the people who have entrusted them with power. In the same way that this Labour Government choose not to bid for the Commonwealth Games, it appears they are also happy to stand in the way of future generations benefiting from an education system that many of them themselves have benefited from. Bit by bit, the ladder is being pulled up from young people. First it was the effective abolition of grammar schools, which, for many young people, especially those from working class families, offered the only hope of a solid career and a good future. Then there was the introduction of tuition fees, which has saddled generations of young people with debt, simply as a punishment for academic success. It is time this Labour Government followed the lead of the UK Government and introduced legislation in this Chamber to allow local authorities to offer a more diverse mix of educational options according to the needs of the area and the desires of the parents. I therefore use this opportunity to call on the Government to do so. To continue to do otherwise disadvantages young people, especially from working-class backgrounds, who will never have the opportunity to attend a top-quality school, while those children born to parents with money can benefit from a private education.

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No, thank you.

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No.

I also call upon my Conservative colleagues to join me in applying pressure on the Government to improve the prospects of future generations of young people throughout Wales, regardless of their financial background.

To those who believe grammar schools are a relic of some sepia-tinted bygone era, I would offer one word: PISA. This December, the latest PISA results will be published, and there are early signs in the corridors of this place that the Welsh Government is already preparing its excuses. Since 2007, Wales has slipped down the PISA rankings. As more countries have joined, Wales has slumped from twenty-second in science to joint thirty-sixth, dropped 10 places in maths, and fallen from twenty-ninth in reading to forty-first. What surprises will PISA bring this time? In 2012, Wales performed worse on average in science, maths and English than did England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. At the time, Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, Kirsty Williams, tweeted:

‘Really sad and angry that 14 years of Welsh Labour Education Policy has led us to these #PISA results.’

Now, as education Secretary, will Kirsty Williams stand firm behind this statement and drive forward a policy that delivers real change?

The time has come for a bold new vision for education in Wales, and at the centre of this vision should be the principle of diversity—diversity of teaching styles, school aims and priorities. In 2006, according to the National Grammar Schools Association, pupils in England’s 164 grammar schools produced more than half the total number of A-grade A-levels in the more robust A-level subjects than those produced by in up to 2,000 comprehensive schools. It is clear that selective state schools produced some of the best performances in examinations, based on league tables. From this experience—[Interruption.] From this experience, as the UK Government’s most senior civil servant responsible for education quality, the previous chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, states, unequivocally,

‘grammar schools have contributed more to social mobility than any other institution this country has known’.

In his statement Chris Woodhead went further and said abolishing grammar schools may also be seen as attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all education system on an area.

Thankfully for children in England, the Government have heeded the advice of the experts and backtracked on the earlier catastrophic decision to prevent the establishment of new grammar schools. But what about Wales? Will the Government—[Interruption.] Will the Government put political dogma to one side and place young people ahead of ideology? Will you do that? When the PISA results were last published the First Minister was quoted as saying to all three opposition parties, ‘If you don’t like it, what would you change?’ So, to Carwyn Jones, on behalf of the disenfranchised and passed-over schoolchildren everywhere, I say, ‘choice’.

Grammar schools provide an opportunity for students from low-income families to escape poverty and gain a high standard of education without recourse to the fee-paying sector.

Member of the Senedd:

Will the Member take an intervention?

No.

Oxbridge intake from state schools has decreased since grammar schools were largely abolished and studies have shown social mobility has decreased. [Interruption.] Listen again: social mobility has decreased since the abolition of grammar schools. If you don’t care about working-class kids, carry on with your policy. To those who say grammar schools are for the elite, we say, ‘Yes, they’re for the academically elite, not the financial elite’. In the same way that grammar schools are, for those academically bright children, an opportunity, we should be developing vocational colleges to offer children who have other aspirations the right opportunities.

Ms Williams’s predecessor, Mr Lewis, previously admitted there could be questions about us taking our eye off the ball in the mid-2000s around the basics in education. He still, nevertheless, insisted Welsh Ministers took heed of previous poor PISA readings in 2009 and instituted one of the most radical and ambitious reform programmes that Welsh education has ever seen. The reality is, though, that there was nothing radical about these reforms. This Government continues to tinker around the edges, akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The idea that another mild policy initiative or bureaucratic reorganisation could achieve the scale of change necessary is a complete nonsense. We need better education for all, but achieving that requires bold steps. As the former chief inspector of schools makes clear, one size does not fit all—it’s still relevant. And the idea that children should be disadvantaged for political reasons is morally wrong and indefensible. Young people need their Government to represent their interests and fight for their future. Denying them choice deprives them of opportunity.

The UK Government’s announcement that they have adopted UKIP policy is welcome, but now, here in this Chamber, we need to work together to create a system that works for all. We need to give local people a chance to have a say over what school systems work in their area for their children. We call on this Chamber to support this motion and on the Welsh Government to introduce legislation to allow local people, where practicable and desirable, to create new grammar schools. Thank you.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. I call on Darren Millar to move the six amendments tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Darren Millar.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete point 1 and replace with:

Is not persuaded that selection in the education system is appropriate for schools in Wales.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Believes that extending parental and pupil choice is the best way to improve standards in our schools.

Amendment 3—Paul Davies

In point 3, delete:

‘which gives children the right to a grammar school education if parents so desire’.

Amendment 4—Paul Davies

In point 3, delete:

‘and the re-introduction of grammar schools’.

Amendment 5—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets that every year in Wales thousands of pupils are turned away from schools that they and their parents prefer because good, successful schools are full.

Amendment 6—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls upon the Welsh Government to free schools up from local authority control and enable popular schools to expand to enable more pupils to access schools that they and their parents choose.

Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move all the amendments tabled in the name of my colleague, Paul Davies AM. I have to say that, unfortunately, we will not be supporting the UKIP motion this afternoon because the Welsh Conservatives, frankly, recognise that Wales is different to England. We believe that the education landscape is different, and, as a result of that, we are not currently persuaded—[Interruption.] We are not currently persuaded that selection in our education system is the right way forward for schools here. Instead, we believe that the education system should be one that thrives on choice—pupil choice, learner choice, and, indeed, parental choice—and one thing that is absolutely woeful at the moment is that many people are denied the choice of school that they want to attend. There are hundreds of pupils, each year in some schools, who are turned away from those schools simply because there are insufficient numbers of places in them. There are barriers at the moment to those schools being allowed to create more places to accommodate the pupils who want to attend those schools. That is wrong. We want to see the Welsh Government take action to remove those barriers so that good, successful schools can thrive, so that they can grow where there is demand for places within them.

Now, we recognise that the Welsh Government has a surplus places policy here in Wales, which is causing local authorities to look at the provision within their areas in order to try and address some of these problems. But, unfortunately, the pace of change in terms of being able to provide for the demand for extra places in successful schools is not currently being met. We want to see an acceleration of the ability of those schools to expand. I hope very much that the Cabinet Secretary will be charitable in her response to our contribution to this debate this afternoon because, like her, I want to see the schools of Wales being amongst the best in the world. I really do believe that we have some schools that are amongst the best in the world on our doorsteps. But, unfortunately, not every school is a great school in Wales. We have to accept that that is a fact and we need to ensure that we have all schools raising their game so that every young person gets the best possible chance in life that their school can prepare them for.

Now, I’m a politician who’ll never say never to any idea. If there is a time in the future where the evidence suggests that social mobility is enhanced by grammar schools or by selection in the system, then I’ll be prepared to look at that. But, at the moment, we’re not persuaded that the evidence is there.

I’ve looked interestingly at the situation in Northern Ireland where, of course, there are more grammar schools within the state system. Their performance in terms of GCSE and A-level attainment is very, very good. But, of course, the other big difference in Northern Ireland is that there are a huge number of faith schools. So, what is it about Northern Ireland that makes the difference in terms of educational attainment and school performance? No one can really put their finger on the button and say it’s absolutely down to grammar schools. I don’t believe that it’s just about selection either. So, I want to see more evidence about this.

I’m not persuaded that the situation in Wales merits a switch to selection in our education system. But, I do believe that the best driver of improved performance in schools is catering for parental choice and extending more parental and pupil choice in its entirety. I wonder, Minister, whether today, in response to this debate, you’ll be able to tell us what your plans are to allow good, successful schools, where there’s extra demand, to expand. I think it’s wrong that many thousands of children each year are not getting access to the schools that they want to be able to attend.

At the risk of offending certain AMs with regard to anecdotal evidence—I see that Lee Waters has just left the Chamber—I would like to say that I may indeed be the only AM present who actually experienced both a secondary modern and a grammar school education, in that I first attended—[Interruption.] I’ll give a pass to my colleague there, who may also have done that. I first attended the former before going on to the latter. I say that because there was also an ability to go from the latter to the former. So, perhaps I have a unique insight into this debate. I can assure this Chamber that, during my time in the secondary modern school, I was taught that I was to be a productive and valued member of society and, indeed, if I obtained my apprenticeship, the world was my oyster.

So, failure of an exam at 11 years old was not the ghastly spectre that some commentators seek to portray, with poor souls being condemned to the dustbin of humanity. Indeed, any pupils who showed distinct academic qualities were transferred to the grammar school as a matter of course.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

What I’d like to do, and I recognise that you’ve had your experiences, is ask you: when you were in the secondary school and they were setting you up with apprenticeships, which I wholeheartedly support, were they actually encouraging you also to become the teachers of those apprenticeships?

Absolutely. This was all about your abilities, and taking each and every pupil by his distinct abilities.

The advent, unfortunately, of comprehensive schools with as many as 1,500 pupils has seen an abandonment of those pupils who are given practical skills rather than academic. Apart from an over-concentration of IT education, practical subjects have all but disappeared from the school curriculum. This has the inevitable result of a huge deficit in skilled electricians, plumbers, toolmakers, et cetera, which we have experienced over the last few years, together with a whole generation of disenchanted youngsters who believe that their worth to society is negligible. By separating the truly academic pupils from those with more practical skills, we can concentrate on bringing out the potential of every pupil, irrespective of their academic abilities. There should, of course, be a transfer of pupils, as in my day, but perhaps on an expanded format. An examination at around 11 years of age should not be seen as a system of segregating the achievers from the non-achievers, but simply a method of identifying individual pupils’ abilities, preferences and proclivities.

The UK Independence Party are notoriously allergic to facts and expert opinion. So, let’s give UKIP a few facts on grammar schools. Firstly, grammar schools do not promote social mobility. They didn’t in the 1950s and they don’t now. The Institute of Education has shown that social division, as measured by wages, is greater in selective areas of England than in comprehensive areas. Simply put, grammar schools entrench social division.

Secondly, grammar schools do not give kids from poorer backgrounds access to a first-class education, because those kids simply don’t get into grammar schools in the first place. Only 2.6 per cent of free-school-meal pupils in England make it through the door of a grammar school. That’s compared with about 15 per cent in comprehensives. It was true in the 1950s and it’s true today.

Thirdly, there was no golden age of grammar school education that we could return to, even if we wanted. In 1959, the heyday of selective education, when grammar schools educated the brightest 20 per cent, nearly 40 per cent of grammar school pupils failed to get more than three O-levels. Only 0.3 per cent of working-class kids managed to get two A-levels—0.3 per cent. Any school in Wales turning out results like that would be put in special measures pretty quickly. There was no golden age. Grammar schools trampled on the life chances of poorer kids in the 1950s and they trample on them now. That’s why we don’t want them in Wales. But, as I said, UKIP don’t do facts, do they? So, let’s ask them a few questions instead.

The first question: who will decide which school in an area becomes the new grammar? On what criteria will that decision be based? Your motion makes it sound as if all those that want to can convert to a grammar school. ‘Give children the right to a grammar school’, you say. You do realise grammar schools work precisely by denying that right to the majority, don’t you?

The second question: when that decision is made, what will you say to all the governors, teachers, parents and pupils of all the other schools in the area in order to convince them that their school would be better off as a secondary modern? And don’t give us the snake oil about the enhanced status of technical and vocational education—a secondary modern is what they will be.

The third question: how does UKIP intend to shoehorn the Welsh-medium sector into this new system that they want to import from England? In many places, Welsh-medium schools are fewer and farther between. How far will UKIP expect kids to travel each day to access a Welsh-medium grammar? Will it be 20 miles, 50 miles, more? The truth is you haven’t given Welsh-medium education a single thought.

The fourth question: how do you propose to impose this imported system on local authorities who have tertiary systems? Are you proposing the sidelining of our FE colleges? How much is it going to cost to reverse those carefully planned reforms in those areas?

It’s depressing to stand here today and make counter arguments to a zombie schools policy that should have been long dead and buried by now. But if we have to fight for the future of our children to be protected from UKIP’s policies beyond the grave, then we will. Welsh Labour remains committed to a twenty-first century schools policy which is grounded in facts and evidence. We seek to learn from the best. The best-performing schools system in Britain is not found in the selective system of the county of Kent; you find it in Scotland, where there is not a single grammar school. Consistently, the best-performing system in Europe and the world is found in Finland—100 per cent comprehensive.

The policies that will lift our schools system are not to be found through time travelling to the past. They are with us now: promoting excellence through our consortia and through Schools Challenge Cymru, raising the expectations of teachers through the new deal, addressing the gap between the least well-off and the rest through the pupil deprivation grant and Flying Start. We demand and are working for a system that delivers greater rigour and better standards for all, not just a few, because every child deserves that. UKIP can say what they say in this motion only because of one thing: it’s because they believe this—that only some are deserving; only some schools, only some teachers, only some children, and for the rest a secondary modern will suffice. We have all seen how UKIP’s evidence-free rhetoric can damage the consensual work of decades. It’s time for everyone who cares about social cohesion and social justice to make a stand—reject this vacuous motion.

I applaud the contribution of the Chair of the education committee. She’s perfectly right to underline the fact that the proponents of grammar schools for reasons of enhanced social mobility seem to be stubbornly resistant to the facts. You seem obsessed with the situation in England. Let’s look at the facts in England, because there less than 3 per cent of all pupils who go into grammar schools are entitled to free school meals against the average of 18 per cent in other schools in the areas where they’re located. In Kent, where we have the greatest concentration of grammar schools, they reported that just 2.8 per cent of pupils attending grammar schools were eligible for free school meals, compared to 13.4 per cent in non-selective Kent secondary schools. Socio-economically disadvantaged students who are eligible for free school meals or who live in poor neighbourhoods are much less likely to enrol in grammar schools, even if they score highly on key stage 2 tests. Those are the statistics from Kent.

I have to say, you know, that all the top education systems in the world are comprehensive. We heard of Finland in the previous contribution—Korea, Canada and others. We no longer live in a world where it makes sense for just 20 per cent of the population to have access to high-quality academic education. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission report from last year concludes that income inequality in the UK between different social class groups has increased significantly since 1979, but it concludes that those are based on three common social and economic drivers: firstly, structural changes in the jobs market; secondly, the enduring and increasing impact of background on adult outcomes; and thirdly, an unequal access to higher education and professional jobs—no mention at all of the cut in grammar schools as a factor. Indeed, the report goes on to say that the old 11-plus created a social divide at the end of primary school. It was rightly criticised for the advantages it conferred on some children over others.

I have to say that I am surprised that the Tories, at a UK level particularly, are aping UKIP on this particular issue, and they have no mandate, clearly. David Cameron categorically ruled it out when he was Prime Minister. He said that it isn’t a good idea, it isn’t a sellable idea and it isn’t the right idea. But that means that I’m even more confused now by the Welsh Conservative attitude, because we have an education spokesperson who a matter of days ago was saying we shouldn’t rule it out. The previous education spokesperson said that grammar schools should be introduced in Wales when David Cameron was actually ruling them out. Now Theresa May is ruling them in, and you’re bringing forward amendments contradicting your own party policy. I mean, you couldn’t make it up.

There’s a thing called devolution; perhaps you haven’t recognised it. We have different policies in Wales than what our party has in England, because our education system’s different; Wales has different needs. Now, what I did say the other day is that we should never say never and never completely shut the door on any ideas. We’re not prepared to do that. You appear to be able to forecast what the future might have to say in terms of evidence, but, frankly, stop ranting on about England; tell us what your policy is on these things here in Wales.

We can forget the 11-plus exam, we’ve got 11-plus different attitudes towards grammar schools just on these Conservative benches here, right. You know, you can call yourselves an opposition party—you’re an imitation party, I have to say, aping and imitating UKIP on too many policies as far as I’m concerned. Let’s be clear on this one, right. Research shows that, where there are grammar schools today, access to them is limited to the most well off. And attainment for those who fail to get into grammar schools is below the national average. They encourage educational inequalities and that’s why Plaid Cymru wants to ensure that all children have access to the same opportunities, no matter what their background, and that’s why Plaid Cymru will be voting against the proposal this afternoon.

When I first entered teacher training college, the education landscape was very different to that we see today. The academically inclined did go to grammar schools, but those who were more suited to a vocation went to a secondary modern school. State grammar schools were educating hundreds of thousands of pupils, offering a free education comparable to that of fee-paying schools. Unfortunately, those who were ideologically opposed to any form of selection launched a campaign to destroy every grammar school in the country and introduced the comprehensive system. The comprehensive system put an end to academic selection and forced all pupils to go to their local school, even if that meant larger class sizes and inferior education. Under the comprehensive system, we have seen a levelling down, I feel, of pupil attainment. Larger class sizes have meant that there is less one-to-one contact between teacher and pupil, and in many instances, the role of the teacher has been reduced to that of a facilitator rather than an instructor.

Study after study has shown the social engineering project that is the comprehensive system is failing. We have had an accelerating decline in standards and we are falling behind our peers in international league tables.

Will you take an intervention?

No, sorry, Llyr, I won’t.

The demand for grammar schools in those few pockets where they still exist has skyrocketed. So, we are not looking at what people want again, we’re looking at imposing something that they may not want. Unfortunately, those grammar schools only exist in the wealthier parts of southern England and, together with rising house prices, this has seen fewer and fewer pupils from poorer backgrounds attending grammar schools.

This has been seized upon and taken as evidence that grammar schools limit social mobility and should therefore be opposed. Excellent education shouldn’t be the proviso of the rich—those who can afford to pay for private education or move to an area with excellent schools. Excellent education should be available to all and should challenge our brightest children as well. Excellent education is the true path to social mobility.

This is what the UKIP motion before you today proposes. We want to see the reintroduction of grammar schools in Wales to produce an education system that provides the best opportunities for children of all abilities and from all backgrounds. Why should children from poorer backgrounds be denied a first-class education? Why should children who are not academically gifted be denied a top-class education, which is focused on technical and vocational subjects? And why should politics continue to hamper our children’s future?

If we were really committed to removing privilege, we would have abolished private education rather than waging a war on grammar schools. But, given that many politicians went to private school, this was never going to happen. Grammar schools will offer parents a choice: a choice to send their children to a school that offers an education on a par with that of the private sector; a choice to send their children to a school that will challenge them and maximise their potential; and a choice to send their children to a school that doesn’t care about their social background, but offers them social mobility.

I urge Members to support our motion, but I would like to say I am not a person who went to a grammar school. I failed the 11-plus, but it doesn’t hold you back, because you go to a secondary modern school and then there’s something in between that I went to: Y Pant School. It offered me the same opportunities as a grammar school, educationally. If you really want to pursue education, you can bring that to the attention of teachers. But on coming out of teacher training college, it was extremely disheartening to see that, all of a sudden, you didn’t know who pupils were—you had a photograph in front of you to remind you of them. That’s not conducive to learning. That’s not conducive to the vulnerable in society—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

I thank you for taking the intervention. You went to have teacher training, I did teacher training, and believe you me, I knew every single pupil I taught. I didn’t need photographs—

In comprehensive schools?

In comprehensive schools. I went to a comprehensive—

With 3,000 pupils—

I taught in a comprehensive, I knew the pupils and, what’s more, the education they received was second to none. It’s not about grammar school education, it’s about the delivery of education.

I totally disagree with you on that point. I think that smaller class sizes and smaller schools—you help the most vulnerable in those schools, but you lose them in the comprehensive system. Thank you.

This motion truly does go to the heart of what UKIP is really about, which is selection and segregation. Circular 10/65 is an important landmark that shaped education in this country in the second half of the twentieth century. Fifty-one years later, it still stands as one of the defining progressive achievements of the radical 1964-1970 Wilson Labour Government, and we will talk about a few experts and a few people who have got merit in my speech. Anthony Crosland was the education Secretary who sent an important memorandum to local authorities. The document instructed local officials to commence converting grammar schools into comprehensives. Anthony Crosland was a giant of the Labour movement and was unashamed in his determination to abolish regressive and retrospective grammar schools, and I share Crosland’s viewpoint. I am very proud to rise in this debate to oppose this UKIP motion that seems to have been dusted down from the Conservative Party HQ cupboards from the 1950s, although I take it they don’t actually agree.

It is important to remind us of the text of this memorandum, one of the most beautiful, I think, ever written, and it goes like this:

‘It is the Government’s declared objective to end selection at eleven plus and to eliminate separatism in secondary education. The Government’s policy has been endorsed by the House of Commons in a motion passed on 21 January 1965’.

And this is important:

‘this House, conscious of the need to raise educational standards at all levels, and regretting that the realisation of this objective is impeded by the separation of children into different types of secondary schools, notes with approval the efforts of local authorities to reorganise secondary education on comprehensive lines which will preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children; recognises that the method and timing of such reorganisation should vary to meet local needs; and believes that the time is now ripe for a declaration of national policy.’

The need to, as the memo says,

‘raise educational standards at all levels’ is as vital today as it was 51 years ago and as has been pointed out by other Members in this Chamber. It is absolutely lamentable that members of UKIP in the National Assembly for Wales not only want to banish their national leader in Wales, the newly independent AM, Nathan Gill, they want to banish the children of Wales back over half a century to an era of short trousers, class divides and a world of limited opportunities.

Who was responsible for replacing this circular? Let me guess: one Margaret Thatcher, on a par with Theresa May, who currently still supports that, when she became education Secretary in 1970, and this is contextually important. You have all you need to know when UKIP are cheerleading for Margaret Thatcher, and they have the cheek to portray themselves as the heirs to Labour in the south Wales Valleys. Post Brexit, they have nothing to offer the people of Wales but Tory policies and the notion of a Maggie Thatcher airport, but I digress. As President Obama once famously said, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

We all know of independents who sit on councils who are too afraid to run under the banner of the Tories. Now, we have UKIP Wales—a home for reject Tory politicians whose leader in Wales sits as an independent—with the Tories, their friends, in the Chamber, opposite. So, what is inspiring—[Interruption.] I didn’t catch that. What is inspiring this regressive flight of fancy from the UK Prime Minister? Let’s ask a serious, serious question. What is inspiring her now that UKIP members are up with her?

It’s certainly not a popular desire amongst the people. Only one in three people in England thinks that the UK Government is right to increase the number of grammar schools and select more pupils by academic ability. We have heard here this afternoon why, because as far as education pedagogy goes, it is outdated, it is regressive and it does not work. Let us look to Finland for answers; let us not look across the border to England. If you respect and understand, there’s a YouGov poll for ‘The Times’, and it says that the policy was backed—which is to get rid of grammar schools—by a mere 34 per cent of those polled, with the remainder not signing up to it.

So, social segregation by education is varied. It’s only those in denial who remain. They’re sort of trying to exhume the corpse, like a desperate Heathcliff raging for his Catherine in ‘Wuthering Heights’, although the Member for Mid and West Wales is an unlikely Byronic hero.

So, what are the views of the education experts? I said I’d speak to those. On this issue, the proposer, Theresa May, has managed to actually unite, in opposition, former Labour and Conservative education Secretaries, the teaching unions and the parliamentary Labour Party. So, Prime Minister May was actually unable to quote during Prime Minister’s question time last week a single expert who backed the extension of grammar schools. Let’s take a look at the esteemed and lauded, then, Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of England’s education watchdog, Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. Sir Michael has stated that the selective model of schooling is, and I quote, ‘a profoundly retrograde step’. This is the head of England’s watchdog.

Will you take an intervention?

I’m sorry, I won’t. And further, that its record of admitting children from non-middle-class backgrounds was ‘pretty woeful’. We’ve heard those words already—pretty woeful. I know that the members of UKIP would like us to live in Michael Gove’s world and his parallel universe. That former Tory education Secretary declared earlier this year,

‘I think people in this country have had enough of experts.’

Well, let me tell this Chamber that the people of Wales who are passionate about the well-being of education for future generations still believe in experts, and, in particular, they believe in educational experts and they believe in headteachers. So, when the head of Ofsted in England tells a gathering of London councils’ education summit—

You do need to bring your contribution to a close now.

Okay. The question that I would put to those clamouring for a return to selection is: do you really want to segregate the pupils of Wales? The answer is clear: you wish to segregate and separate the children of Wales. I strongly oppose this motion.

Some interesting turns of phrase then. I think the Labour Party did abolish grammar schools when the Labour Party was a Labour Party. I’m not sure what it is now. In terms of the debate, grammar schools are clearly a bad idea. They’re divisive; you write people off at the age of 11. The evidence is there that the system didn’t work, but that’s not to say that what we have today is working. I think it was the First Minister who said in the last term that the Government had taken its eye off the ball. I would agree with that because I think the education that many of our children get now just isn’t good enough. The buildings are not in good enough condition, there are too many cuts, there are too many redundancies, out-of-classroom activities are limited—and I speak as a teacher with 23 years’ experience. The biggest problem in education is the market, which was introduced by the Conservatives and continued by the Labour Party. If you look at the market of qualifications, they simply don’t work. What we need are some gold standards that everybody can aspire to, because, at the minute, there’s a plethora of qualifications and some private companies making a shedful of money on that.

I look at the target-driven culture—[Interruption.] I’m not giving way. The target-driven culture is a bad thing. It’s a deprofessionalisation of teaching, and I think that’s common across the board.

Just some ideas, really. If you look at Estyn, I think the value is questionable. I think we’d be far better off having very experienced teachers on sabbaticals inspecting, but more in a mentoring sense, rather than trying to catch people out. I think the whole—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I won’t. No. The whole thing about education in Wales is that, for me, it’s too politicised, and I think what I would like to see, really, is an all-party commission for education that is looking 20 years ahead, because everything in Wales today is very, very short term. If you look at Finland—. Well, the education Secretary is shaking her head; I don’t know why. Everything is short term. If you look at Finland, they’ve got class sizes of 15. So, if you’re going to introduce smaller class sizes, in essence, great, but by one or two? You know, what is the point? I think the expenditure there needs to be questioned, because, if you’re going to reduce class sizes by a dozen, fantastic; let’s get on with it, let’s be radical.

Modern languages: we’ve got a great opportunity in Wales to bring everybody up bilingually from the age of three onwards. Why not? Every child should learn Welsh from the age of three. They should learn a European language as well—Spanish, French. When they get to the age of, maybe, teen years, why not learn a language from an emerging economy? They do it in Holland; why can’t we do it here? But, to get the skills needed, again, you need, roughly, I’d say, a 20-year plan.

I’ll draw my remarks to a close now, but I just want to say one thing, because everybody is talking about education. I’ve heard it all round the Chamber, including from me, but I’ll pose a question rather than answer. And the question is: what we actually want from our education system? Until we know that—. And I don’t just mean higher standards and, you know, political rhetoric. What do we actually want in terms of education? What do we want from those children coming out the other end? And until we answer that question, until we know exactly what we want and where we’re going, I don’t think we’re going to be successful.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to contribute to the debate. Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have listened with interest and, at times, despair to all that has been said this afternoon. Now, whilst undoubtedly the motion is in order, this is a debate that we should not be having. The debate should not be whether we should reintroduce grammar schools in Wales—part of an outmoded, divisive system of education that was abandoned in our country nearly 50 years ago. The debate should be on how we make sure that all—and I mean all—of our children have a first-class education. My focus is on improving education in all of our classrooms, in all of our schools, for all of our pupils. And, frankly, I am less than interested in structures. That is not my priority. It is the quality of education that makes a difference to young people’s lives, and not what type of school they go to. And I certainly, Presiding Officer, don’t think that looking backwards to a highly rose-tinted past is in Wales’s best interests.

The motion proposed by Michelle Brown flies in the face of international evidence. Two weeks ago, I visited the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD. I met with world-leading experts such as Andreas Schleicher, and the international evidence from the OECD is clear: selection in schools systems is not—and I repeat, not—linked to improving scores. And neither is it linked to increasing social mobility. This has been reinforced by evidence from the Sutton Trust that has already been referred to today by Lynne Neagle, the Chair of the education committee, and Llyr Huws Gruffydd. They found that less than 3 per cent of grammar school children were on free school meals, compared with 20 per cent across the rest of the country. And even the current OFSTED chief has held his head in despair at proposals across the border and has said that they do nothing—and I repeat, grammar schools do nothing—to improve social mobility.

Presiding Officer, when the OECD undertook their review of education in Wales in 2013, they did not pull any punches. They were very clear and very direct about the challenges facing our education system, and they are challenges that I am up for tackling. They identified very clearly what needed to change, but they also identified that our comprehensive system here in Wales is one of our strengths. Why would we want to change that? That is why I will support Paul Davies’s first amendment to the motion here this afternoon. But, just like Llyr Huws Gruffydd, I am slightly confused, because it was only a fortnight ago that the Tory education spokesperson was saying that there was plenty of evidence to support grammar schools in terms of social mobility, and, I quote,

‘Parents and young people should not be denied the opportunity to choose a grammar school’.

Now, I am putting that down to a very enthusiastic press officer who maybe got the line out before Darren had seen it. [Interruption.] But I welcome very much indeed today the very clear statement that the Conservatives will not support a return to selective education.

Our drive to improve standards is evidence based, from the curriculum reform—. And I would say to Mr McEvoy, if you want to know what this Welsh Government wants out of its education system, then read Donaldson. It is quite clear—quite clear. From curriculum reform to improving pedagogical practices, that’s what we are about, and I am keen to ensure that we are making the right progress. That is why, when I did meet the OECD, I asked them to return to Wales and advise me on whether we do have the right strategies in place to respond to their review published in 2014, and they will be doing that this very autumn.

I am serious about learning from the best around the world in the interests of Wales, and that is why I do oppose Paul Davies’s second amendment to the motion. Our policies are about raising standards in all of our schools, so that every child, no matter where they live, has the best possible learning experience. [Interruption.] No, Darren.

Parental choice shouldn’t just be about who can clamour the loudest to get into the best schools. Every school in Wales should be outstanding, and the OECD again, Darren, recognises that high-performing schools systems have at their heart systems of co-operation, and not the competition that is implicit in your amendment.

I do, however, support Paul Davies’s third and fourth amendments this afternoon. It is right that secondary education should be diverse. It is right that secondary education should have a rich academic and vocational offer. It’s right that we should have an education that provides the best opportunities for all young people.

Will the Member give way?

If I could make some progress, please. As well as focusing on quality of teaching and learning, Wales actually has a very positive story to tell on the vocational offer. For some years we’ve had a very strong policy in the 14-19 learning pathway, which provides learners with a broad-based curriculum. I’ll give way.

Thank you. If the comprehensive system has been so wonderful, and has worked so well, why are we now talking—? Every time I hear anybody talking about education in this Chamber, it’s to change things, to alter things; that things have to be done better. Why is it now, after 50 years of the comprehensive system, you are suddenly waking up to the fact that vocational and academic qualifications are two different things, and there are different pupils who have to be used on those two different academic abilities?

And those pupils have access to a broad-based curriculum in our schools at the moment. But I for one am not prepared to rest on my laurels, Mr Rowlands. I want even better schools in Wales—for my kids, and for all the children of this country. We’ve got some great examples of schools collaborating with FE colleges, which, as Lynne Neagle says, seems to be completely forgotten in the diatribe that we’ve had from UKIP this afternoon. We have engineering and manufacturing being offered at Coleg Menai. Cardiff and Vale College is working really closely with the capital city’s local authority to deliver vocational courses in the east of the city. Bridgend College offers twilight courses for all learners between 14 and 19, and they’re helping to deliver A-levels on behalf of Pencoed Comprehensive. We have really strong relationships, and I want to see those developed.

Turning to Paul Davies’s fifth amendment, I emphasise that we again are working hard to raise standards in all schools. We have an ambitious reform programme. We’re working with international experts and engaging in key OECD projects, such as the international early learning schools and schools as learning organisations, and assessing progress in creative and critical thinking. And we’re working with the teaching profession. I want every school to be outstanding and no pupil and no school left behind.

Paul Davies’s sixth amendment calls for the introduction of free schools and academies, and I believe that’s just another form of selection. I strongly oppose this policy. I’m committed to a comprehensive education system that serves every learner in Wales. Again, I will reiterate, that we have to follow the evidence. There simply isn’t any evidence that free schools or academies are a panacea to raising standards. The Policy Exchange 2015 report states that the claims of free schools pushing up standards is simply not backed up by evidence, and a House of Commons education committee report stated that there was no convincing evidence of the impact on attainment. Indeed, the committee recommended that the UK Government should stop exaggerating the success of these schools.

The best of Wales is a tradition of self-improvement, democratising knowledge and educational leadership. Our education reforms takes inspiration from those values. The next few years are crucial in achieving the ambitions that are shared and demanded across Wales: introducing a new curriculum made in Wales, but shaped by the best from around the world; one that will ensure our young people are able to lead fulfilling, personal, civic and professional lives in a modern democracy.

I want every parent to be confident that their child goes to a school that helps them grow as capable, healthy and well-rounded citizens. To achieve this, teachers must be supported to be the best that they can be, raising the standard of the profession as a whole. Teachers share an individual, professional and national mission to help our children succeed. Working closely with the profession, we will raise teaching standards and opportunities for development. I, Presiding Officer, will not be diverted from this course and neither will this Government. I’m afraid that this call for grammar schools is nothing more than a diversion.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

We’ve had, I think we can all agree, a spirited and entertaining debate. I’m disappointed that Rhianon Passmore doesn’t see me as a Byronic hero, but that of course is only today. If she’d known me 40 years ago, she might have come to a different conclusion. But, I’m very happy to swap nineteenth-century literary allusions with her: she has reminded me, from the passion with which she delivered her speech today, of a character in ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, Madame Defarge, the tricoteuse who sat at the bottom of the guillotine and who sent in coded messages to the committee of public safety by the speed of her knitting to identify those who were to be condemned to the guillotine. So, it shows at least that she has had a decent education that she understands the point of my barb.

But, we started the debate with the entertaining spectacle of my friend, Darren Millar, standing on his head. It is difficult to see why the Conservative Party in Wales should differ so markedly in its policy on education from the new regime in England, because Theresa May has justified the change in policy fundamentally on the basis of parental choice. That is something that I think ought not to be denied to the people of Wales. About seven in 10 Britons, according to the UK Government’s press release, want to see the ban on new grammar schools lifted and eight in 10 believe that grammar schools can boost social mobility when undecided voters are removed from the mix.

Of course, we have had from various contributors to the debate—Llyr Gruffydd and Lynne Neagle; both of whom I greatly respect as parliamentarians—we have had from them various allegations that the system of grammar schools is to be condemned because they deny the children of relatively poor parents access, and that is true in England because there are only 163 of them left. In England, what you get is selection by wealth rather than selection by ability, because people move into the catchment areas of the best schools. That is something that cannot be supported. Of course, we don’t have that problem in Wales because we don’t have grammar schools. But, that also means that we have a system that is one size fits all.

We’ve had, from Lynne Neagle and from Rhianon Passmore, a blast from the past about the enforcement of comprehensivisation. Anthony Crosland was mentioned by Rhianon and, of course, he was famous for his declaration that he wouldn’t be satisfied until he had destroyed every effing grammar school in the country. His policy was one of enforcement and the removal of choice from parents. That’s not something that I think, in the modern world, we ought to support.

We’re not proposing in this motion to go back to the situation as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. I went to a grammar school, the Amman Valley Grammar School, in the 1960s and it was a world of grammar schools and secondary moderns. David Rowlands and Caroline Jones showed that maybe it wasn’t quite as inflexible in their areas as it might have been in others. All that this motion is doing, it’s not a call to go back to grammar schools and secondary moderns as they were, but to introduce a much more flexible structure to the education system, like, for example, in Germany, where you’ve got four different types of secondary school, according, basically, to ability or whether you want a more academic or technical and vocational education. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about dividing children at the age of 11 into sheep and goats; we want a system of flexibility because children develop at different speeds at different ages, of course. The big problem with the grammar and secondary modern system in my day was that it didn’t have enough flexibility, and the secondary modern schools were indeed the cinderella of the education system. Nobody is asking to go back to that. What we want is an upgraded and modernised version of the system of parental choice, which, in other countries, is uncontroversial.

The big problem with Kirsty Williams’s approach to education is that she insists on having a straitjacket in the education system, whereby even if you live within the catchment area of a school that does not provide children with a decent education, they’re forced to accept that outcome and they can’t move between them. What this motion tries to do—and some of the Conservative amendments we approve of—. What this motion attempts to do is to say that it’s parents, ultimately, who should be the drivers of education policy, rather than politicians and bureaucrats. That, in a modern and democratic world—[Interruption.] Well, I’m not sure we’ve got time to do that. We have, have we?

Yes, you have.

Could you clarify your position through this motion in terms of Welsh-medium grammar schools?

Well, there is a problem, obviously, with Welsh-medium schools—[Interruption.] Of course there is, simply because, at the moment, and this goes back to the earlier debate that we had on the Welsh language—maybe, in certain parts of Wales, it wouldn’t be such a problem, but, in other parts of Wales it certainly would, being able to provide this provision. So, ultimately, it can’t be the same kind of choice that you have in the private sector, such as that Kirsty Williams enjoyed, where parents have absolute freedom of choice to send their children to wherever they want.

Mr Hamilton, I read with interest your comments on my parents’ choice. I think it’s very remiss of you to attack my parents, who are no longer alive and therefore can’t answer for their decisions. Surely, what would be much more relevant, Mr Hamilton, are the choices that I’ve made for my children, and I’m very proud that they attend comprehensive schools in my constituency.

Kirsty Williams miss-takes the purport of my comment. I was in no way attacking her parents—I applaud them, actually, for the choices that they made. It obviously worked. But what I want to say is that all parents ought to have that kind of choice. They are the ones who should decide for themselves, as she does for her children, the kind of education that she wants for them. That’s what this is all about. Of course, we can’t replicate that in a state education system. There has to be some kind of administrative decision-taking system, but we ought to maximise the ability of parents to be the real drivers of the way the system works. It’s taxpayers’ money that provides the education system. Ultimately, taxpayers ought to have a bigger say in the system of decision making and the policies that are carried out.

So, this is, perhaps, the first of many debates that we shall have on education. Many caricatures of UKIP’s opinions have been given today by a variety of Members, but we’ll have the opportunity, perhaps, to allow the scales to fall from their eyes by greater experience of us in future debates. So, I shall regard this as merely an exploratory debate on the subject, and I hope that we’ll be able to explore further highways and byways in due course. But, ultimately, this is all about parental choice and maximising the freedom of parents to decide for themselves what policies in education are best for their children, and the outcomes that flow from that, I think, unambiguously will be an improvement on the current system.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer all voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

It was agreed that voting time should take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.