James Munson

ollowing
F the
announcement that the Prime Minister wants to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor there has been much discussion about our Constitution. At one time, before the days of spin, the British Constitution was a Briton's greatest boast. As the historian, John Adolphus, wrote in 1810, "The great interests of the state, the stability of law, and the full enjoyment of freedom, can never be impaired, while Great Britain preserves inviolate that source of greatness, and spring of happiness — her inestimable constitution." Mr Adolphus could never have foreseen the European Union and New Labour when the word "constitution" refers not to our own balanced, limited and historic Parliament but to the a gaggle of Eurocrats working in secret to create a new empire.
Much of the Constitution which Adolphus admired has been destroyed. The proud and, in its way, representative House of Lords is no more. What remains is neither fish nor fowl, a plaything of a cack-handed Prime Minister obsessed with "modernisation".
The House of Commons is now a chamber so controlled by party and so emasculated by loss of sovereignty, that it bears little resemblance to the past. Even MPs seem to regard the Chamber as something of a farce.
One part of the Constitution, however, remains intact the Monarchy. In secular terms it has demonstrated that development which Cardinal Newman saw as the heart of Catholic teaching and authority. As yet, the controlling ideologues of New Labour have not dared to attack it and its powers and influences, controlled by the usages of centuries and wielded only for the common good. It remains what it has always been. the heart of our Constitution and at its heart is this Kingdom's identification as a Christian land.
All this was brought home to this writer last week when he had the privilege of watching the procession of Garter knights wind its way through part of the annual triduum of services. This order of chivalry, the oldest in Christendom, dates back to 1348. It has developed through the centuries without losing its essential basis. In the last century two important events took place.
Under George VI it was agreed that the Sovereign alone would appoint new Knights: politicians and their spin-doctors would have no say. Secondly, in 1948 the Queen's father commanded that the ancient ceremonies should be revived and held annually at Windsor.
From that date till now the Knights assemble for luncheon in St George's Hall and process down the hill. past the great Round Tower, preceded by the Military Knights of Windsor, the Officers of the Order and followed by the Yeoman of the Guard. The route is lined by men of the Household Cavalry.
The ceremony laid down by George VI has been studiously followed but it has developed. It was the Queen who chose the first Catholics since the Reformation to be members: The Duke of Norfolk and Lord Longford. Then she commanded that for the first time women should be admitted; Margaret Thatcher therefore became a member and this year Princess Alexandra was inducted. The Order, at one time a preserve far peers who struggled, sometimes for years, to add KG to their names, now is a mixture of old and new: the current Duke of Wellington is a member as is Lord Sainsbury. The honour must be earned.
In the service the second prayer asks for God's blessing on "our land, and to kindred nations in allegiance to our Sovereign" and asks God to help us to "treasure our inheritance" in religion and government. Here is the living heart of our Constitution. As I left Windsor Castle I recalled the words of Edmund Burke when speaking of "our country and our race" and the place of the "Monarchy, not more limited than fenced by the orders of the State". He wrote that it was embodied in "the proud Keep of Windsor, rising in the majesty of proportion" and he hoped it would preserve England "from all the pickaxes of all the levellers of France." He did not think to include Brussels and Downing Street.
The recent expulsion of Ryan Bell from Downside School was disappointing news for all of us who have followed his progress. Ryan was given a "Second Chance" through the Channel 4 programme of the same name, having been expelled from his London comprehensive for being "rude, disruptive and unmanageable".
I first learned of Tabernacle School in Ladbroke Grove though Robert Whelan's Catholic Herald article last year. Like Downside, Tabernacle is an independent school with a strong Christian ethos. That, however, is where the similarities end. Downside is a Catholic school; Tabernacle is run by a charismatic black church. Downside is one of England's oldest and most distinguished public schools; Tabernacle was established less than five years ago. Downside has its own buildings set in extensive grounds; Tabernacle has had to rely on the goodwill of local charities and churches for its succession of temporary premises. Downside pupils are generally extremely privileged; their Tabernacle colleagues mostly live on council estates in North Kensington. This is reflected in the two schools' fees; it costs £18,000 to board at Downside; maximum fees for Tabernacle's day pupils are £3,000 (with significant reductions given to many parents). Downside has 335 pupils; Tabernacle just 42,
Both schools can be proud of their efforts to offer second chances to black boys who have failed at London comprehensives. Yet what for Downside was a one-off experiment is an everyday reality for many of Tabernacle's pupils. Unfortunately many black boys are more in need of second chances than ever before. Last year the performance of black pupils at GCSE declined when it improved amongst all other ethnic groups. Many of Tabernacle's pupils have been excluded from mainstream schools, but find that its small class sizes and the firm but fair discipline enables them to fulfil their potential.
This Labour Government claims to be committed to social justice and creating a diverse schools system. Yet it is systematically crippling small independent schools, many of which are serving families and communities much less affluent than we might expect.
Last year's Education Act gives the Secretary of State the power to regulate virtually every aspect of independent schools. This new power will be brought to bear in September through the new DIES regulations on the registration and monitoring of independent schools. Schools like Downside and Eton will easily meet the additional costs of the proposed regulations. However their unreasonable demands threaten the very existence of schools like Tabernacle,
0lie of the key grounds used to justify the regulations is safety although the Government gives no evidence that safety is compromised under the existing rules. Nevertheless even the smallest community schools will be subject to an intensive inspecdon regime. No one wants children to be put in unnecessary danger, but imposing such exacting standards on schools that may comprise as few
as six pupils seems absurd.
Equally unnecessary is the much greater reporting requirements that will be imposed on independent schools. David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools, argues that for a market in education to work effectively, it needs reliable and easily available information. Therefore he justifies further encroachment into independent schools on the basis that Ofsted will provide parents with an essential new service. But if the current official reports are so made quate in providing parents with necessary information, why are so many parents clamouring to educate privately? Is it not because they choose schools not on the basis of official reports but rather on visits, exam results and testimonies from other parents? It is unjust for Ofsted to charge schools (and therefore parents) extra for more detailed reports for which there is little demand. These reports will also disproportionately hurt the smallest schools, Tabernacle's headteacher, Paulette Wilson, teaches a full timetable. The obligation of providing Ofsted inspectors with a much more lengthy report will compromise her ability to fully prepare lessons and run her school.
David Bell and Education Secretary Charles Clarke should also be reminded that effective markets require competition from new providers. Even with the current regulations, the number of independent schools being established is very small, generating steep fee inflation as an increasing numbers of parents chase a finite and relatively static number of places.
Perhaps the most dubious aspect of the draft regulations is the requirement for schools to pre-register long before they intend to open, giving exhaustive details of how they will comply with Oftsed's demands. Groups establishing new schools already face many hurdles. Few will be prepared to gamble huge amounts of time and money on establishing a new school if Ofsted can delay their opening indefinitely on spurious grounds. It currently costs tens of thousands to establish a new school; under the new regime it will cost hundreds of thousands.
Unlike this Government, Conservatives do not believe that raising educational attainment can be centrally driven by Whitehall. We recognise that it is about restoring the professional autonomy of teachers, taking effective action against disruptive behaviour and facilitating true diversity and choice for parents.
Conservatives will introduce the State Scholarship to enable a flourishing of state-funded independent schools ram by charities, community groups and faith communities. We will give parents in hard-pressed areas the right to use the money that would be used to educate their child in the state sector to send them to a state-funded independent school. Recently I have had the privilege of visiting excellent supplementary school projects serving disadvantaged children such as the Eastside Young Leaders' Academy in Newham. I believe that many groups such as Eastside would eagerly avail of the opportunities State Scholarships could give them to establish and run schools.
The consultation on the draft regulations ended in May. Before implementing them in September, 1 would ask Charles Clarke to consider two things. Firstly, regulation only ensures that procedures are followed; it does not guarantee socially just outcomes. Secondly, he must consider the impact these measures will have on excellent schools like Tabernacle. Has he or his department estimated how many schools could close, and how many children be deprived of a good education? It would be a bitter irony if a Labour government inadvertently forces the closure of those independent schools most helping children from less affluent backgrounds.
My top priority is improving state schools for all. However let's not overlook the contribution of the independent sector in providing excellent education to many young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If implemented in their current form these regulations will inflict a scandalous act of educational vandalism. It's not too late, Charles, Paulette Wilson of Tabernacle School and other headteachers would be delighted to help the DIES make the amendments that will safeguard everyone's interests.
I sincerely hope that you will take her up on this offer.