HC Deb 20 December 1982 vol 34 cc799-806

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

1.14 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

I am pleased, even at this early hour, to have the opportunity to raise the question of the appeal procedure under section 7 of the Education Act 1980. The procedure was established to deal with the problem that arose when parents were dissatisfied with the school that their child was allocated by the local education authority. In some areas there were serious problems of popular and unpopular schools already in existence, but the real importance of the new procedure was in dealing with schools whose intakes were to be reduced as part of the local education authority's positive plan for falling rolls.

Sadly, when the 1980 Act went through Parliament, very little time was given to discussing the appeal procedure or the rules for appeal. The Government were too keen to trumpet the virtues of giving parents more choice and did not want to emphasise that some people would be denied choice, while the Opposition were more concerned to illustrate the impracticality of encouraging choice. The result was that a new type of tribunal was created, with little discussion. Since then the details have been filled out by Government regulations and circulars. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he feels they have worked in their first year, and whether next year the problems will be fewer or greater. Could the Government, in the next few months, give guidance to local authorities to improve their work?

The Minister may believe that things have worked well because it appears that few people have been bitterly upset. He may be able to tell us how many parents are still keeping their children away from school this year, as compared with the past five years, because the parents are so dissatisfied. I suspect that the number is rather fewer, but I believe that the optimism could be misplaced, since the vast majority of families were satisfied with the old system, and most authorities did not last year try to reduce the size of their schools. Once they start to reduce the size of their schools, and particularly of their popular schools, a very different picture may emerge.

The new procedure affected only a small number of people. Of those who appealed, I have had no complaints from those who were successful, but from the majority who lost their appeals I can find no one who felt that he got justice.

I should like to describe the problems that arose in Stockport, because I have some knowledge of them and because I believe that Stockport took particular care to follow the Government's guidance. I should also like to thank the director of education and his staff in Stockport who discussed individual problems with me in the summer and have more recently discussed the whole procedures. Given the problems, I think that Stockport did well with the new procedures, so I want to spotlight them merely to illustrate the problems with the system.

Stockport had its own appeals procedure, which had worked well for many years, and most people to whom I talked in Stockport felt that the old system was less complex and much fairer. With regard to children of primary school age in Stockport, there was only one appeal against the allocation, and it failed. It may be that very few parents realised that they had a right to appeal against the allocation of the school at primary school age. I believe that in Stockport most parents are satisfied with—even quite proud of—their local primary school and do not want to send their children to a different school.

At primary school age there has been one beneficial effect in Stockport. Since Stockport can no longer operate a feeder school policy from the primary schools, we do not have the situation in which parents trail their child to a distant primary school because they believe it is a feeder school of a secondary school to which they want to get the child.

With regard to the transfer from primary to secondary school, in Stockport there were 4,266 pupils, and, very pleasingly, 4,121 got their first choice school, 145 got a school other than their first choice, and 90 of them appealed against the decision. About 2 per cent. of the secondary school children were involved in an appeal, and of those 31 were successful on appeal—about a third.

The problem that most parents have put to me goes along these lines—"We were going to send our child to such and such a school. We were told by all sorts of people, including the Minister, that we should be good parents and specifically make a choice of school, and if we did not we were not doing our duty." The schools sent prospectuses, and often the parents discussed with the child which school he would like to go to, and they then made a choice. They then did not get their choice. They felt that the appeal was a waste of time, and were upset. Now they know everything that is wrong with the school to which they have to send the child, and even the head teacher knows that the parents are sending the child there only reluctantly or under protest.

The second problem is that if one feels that one has no choice, one tends in the years before one's child goes to school to argue, press and push the council to try to make the school into a good one. On the other hand, if one thinks that one has a choice, one may start to look at the faults of the school and by talking to other parents create an unfair atmosphere of discontent about a school in the neighbourhood.

This summer I found myself in the odd position of discussing with a parent the question of allocation, and I was told that everybody knew that the school in question was a poor school. When I pointed out that two of my children went to the school, my constituent not only backed off, with embarrassment, but also began to think that if I was prepared to send my children there, the school could not be too bad.

In reality, the school is much better than that, hut, of a group of parents half had got their child into one school and the other half had been refused, and the consensus of those people was that one was a good and one was a bad school. They did not have much evidence.

The next problem is not one that those of us who served on the Committee of the Bill intended to occur. Most hon. Members thought that there would be one appeal for every family and they would argue the case for their child going to the first-choice school, and if that was not possible to their second, third or fourth choice. If they did not want their child to go to a certain school in any circumstances, they could argue on those lines.

In Stockport, the council read the Act correctly—not as we intended, but as the Act is. An appeals panel was set up for a school, which served for all the appeals for the children denied a place at the school. Each appeal was decided on its own merits. The parents, wrongly, felt that their cases were compared to other cases, but they had no knowledge of the other cases, and so they could not argue that their child had a better case on its merits.

The result was that a family whose first appeal had failed might find that the second choice school had also been filled up following other appeals. Although in theory one could appeal to another school, the chances of success are limited. This problem was even worse for children who wanted to go to schools in different local authority areas, or to come from outside Stockport. Stockport is examining the question of inter-authority movements and trying to change its procedure for next year.

Another problem is that of the questions that could be put to the panel. In Stockport the authority does not give preference to allowing siblings to go to the same school. That is wrong in my view because it causes parents a great deal of unnecessary expenses on things such as uniforms. It also causes problems with holidays and with parents seeing school plays and other events. Parents like to get to know the school and the staff. There are many advantages if children can go to the same school.

However, when the panels in Stockport came to consider this, they looked at the Council's policy and decided that because the council had set out the policy in its admission rules the panels should not question this policy and discourage parents making this kind of argument. It made it clear that it felt that it was its job to see that the council carried out its own rules, and it did not question those rules.

I had also imagined that if places subsequently became available at a school as a result, say, of other children moving out of the area, those children whose appeals had failed might still get places at the school. However, I gather that the Stockport authority believed, on the basis of legal advice, that once an appeal had failed it was not possible to go through the process again and that spare places had to be allocated on the basis of the existing allocation procedure, meaning that the places went to the nearest children who had failed to get places even though they had already accepted places in other schools.

I can see that that has some virtue in that it does not encourage parents to go on up to the last minute hoping that an adverse decision will be reversed. But it seems odd that if a place is available, someone whose appeal has failed cannot take it.

I have also had solicitors complaining to me. They were embarrassed when they were asked by parents to represent them at hearings. They had to charge because their time was involved, but they did not feel that they were the right people to represent parents or children at these appeal hearings.

There are a number of other problems. One is that it was necessary to hear 90 appeals in Stockport. They took up a lot of the time of council officials who had to represent the council at the appeals, and they also took up a lot of the time of the panels. If the problem grows, it will result in administrative strain on the local authorities. It will be difficult to get people to sit on the panels, especially in July and August, which is when appeals have to be sorted out.

There were also difficulties in Stockport because of the presence in the town of one or two single-sex schools. If a council has a policy by which it allocates on the basis of nearness to schools, those children who live close to a single-sex school tend to get more choice than those living some distance away.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are many other problems up and down the country. I believe that there was to be a national survey on the way that the scheme worked in its first year. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more information about how those results have turned out.

Will the Minister say whether any parents have taken local authorities to court over the operation of the procedure? I have the impression that some people in Stockport felt that it was such an unfair procedure that they would like to take the council to court but did not feel that they had the necessary financial resources.

What guidance does the Minister propose to give local authorities to make sure that they can improve the procedure for next year, especially if far more local authorities have cut the numbers of children they are allowing to attend their more popular schools as a result of a positive policy on falling rolls? If this was a trial year, it is very important that the procedures should be improved next year.

1.28 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)

With the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that led to the appeals procedure. He was an assiduous attender. He was always carefully briefed. I may say that it is a pleasure to see present in the Chamber two other hon. Members who served on that Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey).

I make a quick reference at the outset of my remarks to the Stockport authority, which has tried very hard to make the appeals procedure as fair and as just as possible. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockport, North paid it a similar tribute.

I want first to make some general points, then I shall deal with the appeals procedure, and finally I shall pick up as many as I can of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member. He and I have discussed many of these topics outside the Chamber because of our mutual concern about the appeals procedure. Any aspect with which I am unable to deal tonight will be taken up in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

An increase in the parental choice of school was the basis of the Act. There was some difference of opinion in Committee as to the extent of parental choice. I have always believed in the maximum amount of parental choice, although there will never be 100 per cent. I understand the hon. Gentleman's remark that people are disappointed when their appeals do not succeed.

There is a similar disappointment for the people who voted Conservative in Stockport, North and those who voted Labour in my constituency. They might ask what the point is in voting. Whatever people may think of the person who represents them, it is a funny system. People vote and then find that they are not represented. If we are to have 100 per cent. success before we do anything, we shall not have a democratic system in this country. No one will drive home by car, because of the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

The point is whether the system is better than anything else that is available. We believe in parental choice and Opposition Members agree with us to a considerable extent. I believe that a democratic society does not simply mean voting once every five years for a successful or unsuccessful candidate; it means choosing where one lives, the work that one does and where one's children go to school. One grows more mature day by day because one is making decisions for oneself.

I believe that parents will co-operate more with the schools that they choose if the values of those schools are the same as values at home. Parental choice has an improving influence on the schools, in the same way that the fact that some of us may be involved in elections within the next 18 months concentrates our minds in fulfilling not just our national duties but those to our constituents. I believe that parental choice of school strengthens the family because parents are playing an important part.

The Act did five things, and the points raised tonight about the appeals system are important. The first concerned the provision of information upon which parental choice must be made. There was agreement on much of that on both sides of the Committee. Secondly, for the first time parents had a legal right to state a preference for a school. Thirdly, the local education authority was compelled to comply with the parents' preference except under three conditions which were laid down. Fourthly, where local authority boundaries are crossed—they are often artificial, as in my area of London between Harrow, Ealing and Brent which were all originally part of the Middlesex education authority—and a pupil is accepted into a school belonging to a neighbouring authority there must be automatic recoupment between the two authorities. That extends freedom.

Fifthly, there was the setting up of an appeal committee which acts independently of those who took the original decision. The Act sets out a number of specific requirements for the appeal committees, including their constitution and the procedures to be followed. Some general guidance of the new statutory framework was given in circular number 1/81 issued in March 1981 by the Department of Education and Science. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen a copy. If any hon. Member has not, I shall be delighted to ensure that he receives one.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the appeals committee and the working of the Act are the responsibility of the local authority. It is not up to the Government to define narrowly how everything should be interpreted. We established the structure and gave the appeals committees the freedom to make their judgments on local information. We should not tie it down narrowly. We circulated that guidance, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also subject to the approval of the Council on Tribunals. The local authority associations and the Council on Tribunals subsequently held discussions at which the Department was represented on the detail of appropriate appeal committee procedures. Agreement was reached on a recommended code of practice, and copies were circulated to authorities as far back as August last year. Here again, we shall gladly provide any hon. Member with a copy of the code of practice.

Within the statutory framework and in the light of the guidance offered, it is entirely for individual appeal committees to decide how to handle individual cases. An essential feature of the new arrangement is that appeal committees are as free as possible to reach the best decisions in the circumstances of individual cases. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Department to issue detailed guidance on all these matters.

Similarly, it is for individual local education authorities or governors, as appropriate, to decide the appropriate way in which to incorporate the appeal procedures into their school admission process. Details of the chosen admission and appeal arrangements form part of the information that must now be provided to the parents concerned.

The way in which authorities carry out this duty varies widely. Many authorities already had an established system which they have incorporated into the new system. Over the country as a whole, as well as in Stockport, the number of successful appeals has averaged one third. That shows that the appeal tribunals are doing their job and that this is not a whitewash arrangement. However, in Sutton, the percentage of successful appeals is much lower. Here there is a triple system. One can accept the first offer of school, appeal to the chairman informally or formally approach the appeals tribunal. In the third case, the number of successful appeals is much lower nationally than in Stockport. I am not suggesting that Stockport is adopting the wrong procedures. I am merely pointing out that the procedure varies widely.

The appeals procedures ends with the local authority. There was much confusion about that when the scheme came into operation this year. Many people wondered whether there was an appeal to the Secretary of State. There is not.

However, parents retain the right to complain about the actions of local education authorities and governors in relation to school admissions, as in other matters. In response to such a complaint, it will be open to the Secretary of State to intervene under section 68 or section 99 of the Education Act 1944, but I stress that the scope for his intervention under those sections is strictly limited. It is not enough that he should disagree with the decision taken by the authority or governors. Before he can contemplate any action, he must be satisfied that they were acting unreasonably. The number of complaints that we have received, either from Members of Parliament or direct to the Department, is about only a third of what we received the previous year. Here again, our expectations have been fulfilled.

There have been about 300 complaints this year, none of which has been upheld. Each has been looked at, but none qualified under section 68 or section 99 of the Act.

This scheme has involved extra cost, because it did not exist in certain areas and had to be established. A price must obviously be paid for the benefits gained. Given that fewer complaints have been received, and the fact that parents can express a preference even before children have been allocated a school, our information is that local authorities have been even more responsive to the wishes of parents this year. In that respect it has been successful.

Time is getting on, and I do not want to omit replying to the narrow but important points that the hon. Gentleman raised. There is the matter of the informal survey. It is not a matter of a questionnaire having gone out. The territorial officers in the Department of Education and Science are telephoning their equivalents in the local education authorities for a report of what has happened in their areas.

Later a report will be presented to Ministers. At that stage, we should let the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are interested know what the response has been.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many are out of school. We do not know. We did not know before, and we know less now. The hon. Gentleman will remember the long hours that we spent in Standing Committee, when we changed the procedure for compelling children to attend school, putting the procedure more under the control of the local education authorities. As a quid pro quo for more parental choice on one side, it was easier for the local education authority to get children into school. We do not know the figures, but we are asking as part of the informal survey. Again, we shall give the available information to anyone who wants it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

In the informal survey, how far is anyone asking parents what they think, as opposed to the local authorities?

Dr. Boyson

We are not doing a sample telephone call, like William Buckley, who thought that the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory would govern better than the 50 elected members of Congress. Clearly, that was an interesting view. I assume that local authorities are doing so. There is nothing that we can do nationally. I do not think that local education authorities would like us to contact parents direct and ask them whether they were satisfied with what was going on in Stockport or Newham. I assume that they are as responsive to their parents as we are to our voters, and that when they report to us informally they will provide us with that information.

As I said, nationally we have had only one-third of the complaints that we had last year. Thirty per cent. of the appeals in Stockport have been successful. There are one or two narrow issues, of which I shall give my interpretation, and I trust that my interpretation is right. If not, we shall correct it. If the appeal is for the first school and the authority has offered a second school, the offer of the second school will continue to hold until the appeal is accepted or rejected on the school of first choice. I believe that that is the correct interpretation. Secondly, if vacancies occur after an appeal has been turned down because the school is full, I am told that there can be a second appeal. I do not want to create more disturbance in Stockport than there may have been, but I believe that a second appeal can be taken up immediately.

We have had a long night, but it is nice to end in this friendly fashion, with smiles from the hon. Gentlemen as happened regularly in Committee. When we introduced the measure, we believed that it would increase parental choice of school, and by doing so would strengthen the family, the democratic society and also improve schools. This is the first year and mistakes will have been made. After the survey has been carried out, I shall willingly inform everyone present of the results and where we can informally point out to authorities that mistakes have been made and ensure that they do not occur again we shall be delighted to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Two o'clock.