HC Deb 21 October 1986 vol 102 cc1033-9

`( ) The duty imposed on the governing body under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Education Act 1980 shall apply notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of that section if in the opinion of the governing body compliance with the preference would not prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources at its schoor.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a technical clause of a micro-incremental nature compared with the more ambitious new clause 27. It is important for thousands of parents throughout the country when they apply for their children to attend particular schools. It is important because the spirit of the Bill as I understand it, is to strengthen the position of parents in the education system.

The most important right of all for parents is the right to choose, and yet every year thousands of parents fail to get their children into the school of their choice. There is growing frustration in every constituency. The Minister will know the problems in my area. We have discussed the problems of Abbey school in the west of my constituency and of Whinfield school in the east. Schools are over-subscribed and parents cannot send their children to the schools of their choice. In desperation parents go to their Members of Parliament for advice.

Why does this happen? It is not because of the education system, but because of our 1980 Act which provides, not choice pure and simple, but heavily qualified preference. It allows a parent's preference to be overridden if the local education authority believes that compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of a sufficient education or the efficient use of resources within an education authority area as a whole.

Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what he said a few moments ago, the problem does not stem from the fact that a school is over-subscribed — because the headmaster and governors might be keen to taken on an additional two or three pupils—but because the local authority overrides the wishes of both school and parents?

Mr. Fallon

My hon. Friend, as always, puts the case slightly better than me, and has rightly identified the source of the problem. It is the extent to which the local wishes of schools and parents can be overridden.

Some six years on from the 1980 Act, it is obvious that the less popular schools have attracted fewer applications as more and more parents apply for the more popular schools. However, children are directed to the less popular schools where, every year, more and more places are, unfilled because the local education authority feels that the resources are not being efficiently used.

The proof that the system is not working lies in the number of appeals. My hon. Friend the Minister told me in answer to questions that there are some 10,000 appeals every year. Many more parents may not wish to put their children through the distress and agony of appeal. Even if the appeal is successful—and only half of them are—distress is still caused by the uncertainty. If the appeal is unsuccessful, there is distress among children who are separated from their friends who have been successful. Indeed, brothers and sisters are separated as education authority after education authority declares as a matter of policy that the kinship connection will no longer apply, and that that in itself is a reason for overriding parental choice.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply a question of the distress caused or the popularity of a school, but one of educational standards? I know of children in my constituency who have a particular aptitude, and there may be a school that is strong in that area, but because the child is unable to attend that school the standard of education that he achieves in music, mathematics or whatever is not as high as it could otherwise have been. Therefore, in addition to the distress caused to children, educational standards are suffering.

Mr. Fallon

My hon. Friend's remarks strengthen my case. They also strengthen my view that, if the 1980 Act is left unchanged, educational standards will not be maintained, the distress suffered will increase and the frustration of parents will multiply. If we do nothing to amend the Act, we shall do nothing to improve the attractiveness of the less popular schools, which will become even less popular and will receive fewer and fewer applications.

The purpose of my amendment is simple. I prepared it in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Education—ACE—which has done a great deal of work on school appeals and parental preference. The amendment would confine the operation of the veto to governors of a school and allow them to decide whether the addition of a few more pupils each term would prejudice the efficient use of resources, not within the entire county area, but at the school itself.

Mr. Norris

Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem is that the defence of prejudice to efficient use of resources is trotted out by education committees as a standard defence, generally supporting a particular planned admission limit at a set level? The appeal is based on the idea that some additional proportion of children may be allowed without prejudice. Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be value in trying to define those limits of prejudice? I understand that many authorities consider that one extra pupil per form of entry is almost recognised as not constituting prejudice and that more than that would do so. Is there any value in going down that road to try to reduce much of the uncertainty and unsatisfactoriness of the present appeal system?

Mr. Fallon

Yes, I think that there would be considerable value in trying to devise limits to the exercise of that prejudice, but the framers of the 1980 legislation — I have read through the Hansard reports of the Committee proceedings of that measure—had it in mind that each case should be considered on its merits irrespective of the limit that had previously been devised.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that governing bodies of schools in his constituency, as in mine, are often most anxious to allow the extra one or two pupils that would be permitted but are overridden by the presiding authority?

Mr. Fallon

That is exactly the position. I think that my argument is becoming stronger as I continue to give way to my hon. Friends' interventions. I do not want to take too much of the time of the House, however, because there are many more debates to follow this one.

The purpose of the new clause is clear, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had a great deal of time over the summer to think about it. I have had a great deal of time, too, to think of what arguments he can possibly devise to resist the clause. It cannot be said that the problem is minimal. There are 10,000 appeals every year, and I believe that that is 10,000 too many. Only half of the appeals are successful, and I cannot accept that that is satisfactory. All of them should be successful if we are interested in genuine parental choice.

Secondly, it cannot be said that the new clause destroys the arrangements for admission limits generally. That could be said, too, of the appeal procedure that is in the 1980 legislation. If an appeal is considered on its merits by the tribunal, as it should be, the school may then have to take an additional pupil over its limit. The 1980 Act preaches the admission limits arrangement. Thirdly, it cannot be said that the clause would harm the more popular schools. The governors themselves would have the power to refuse the upper second limit. That in their view would he unreasonable, would strain their resources and would prejudice the efficient use of resources at their school.

Finally, it cannot be said that the clause would interfere with the general county-wide assessment. The general effect on the wider system would be a matter for the local education authority to consider when it decided its original admissions policy. This is a simple and practical amendment that stands at the margin of choice, and if it is carried several thousand parents every year will benefit.

Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)

It has long been a principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Those are the words of the White Paper "Better Schools" and not mine. The White Paper was a useful reaffirmation of a principle that has been honoured too much in the breach. The Government's 1980 legislation valuably strengthened the application of that principle but, unfortunately, it did not go far enough. Section 6(3)(a) of the 1980 Act contains a form of words that has allowed, once again, the officials to know best.

The exercise of choice by parents is a right that they value, and the more that they have of this right the more they value it. Where they do not have it, it does not mean that they do not want it. On the contrary, they do. The exercise of the right of choice must also have a beneficial effect on schools. Where the right operates effectively, it requires teachers to make their schools attractive to parents and children.

The right of choice is not always so popular with the producers of education. Life becomes a little untidy and unpredictable for administrators in areas where there is parental choice. From the point of view of some teachers, they ae exposed to an external evaluation that can make itself felt effectively, and that, too, can be somewhat uncomfortable. The right of parents to choose is bound to be tenuous enough in practice. In reality, in many places there is, only one school to which it is practical for parents to send their children. It is worth stressing in that context that school closures reduce choice. Each time a school closes, the element of effective choice is further narrowed. That is just one reason why we should be sceptical about a policy of encouraging school closures.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

My hon. Friend referred to the practical choice, the logistics, where there is perhaps, only one school to which a parent can send his child. Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) referred often occurs when someone new moves into the area? Obviously, that person wants to send his kid to the local school. In the interests of the kid, the headmaster and the Government are quite likely to say that that is a good idea, but the local authority steps in, ignores the declaration o human rights which says that parents have prior right to the choice of their children's education, and says, "No."

9.15 pm
Mr. Howarth

I think that my hon. Friend is right. Too often, parental choice does not seem to be highly regarded by local education authoriies. In the same way, I think that, too often, the schools that are chosen for closure are the popular schools. I think that my hon. Friend suggested in his earlier intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that local education authorities are somewhat apt to alter planned admission levels to prop up the unpopular schools. We hear too many instances of that reported by the Inner London education authority, and recently I have heard it reported in Wiltshire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster will accept that the new clause will prevent that kind of practice and that it puts the onus on the schools to use their resources well and to give wider opportunity. I hope that he shall be able to look favourably on the new clause.

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

I do not wish to delay the House for long, because I think that we have two treats ahead of us—first, the forthcoming debate on the next batch of amendments and, secondly, the Minister's reply to his hon. Friends on this issue. Some hon. Members have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister may not be completely unsympathetic to some of the broader ideological and philosophical arguments that underpinned the speeches made by Government Members. I look forward, with more than usual enjoyment, to the way in which the Minister reads the brief on this occasion and the sense of commitment that comes out in that reading.

I shall put on record one or two comments about the Labour party's views on new clause 13. Basically, the clause attempts to rehearse and repeat many of the arguments that we have heard on previous occasions about education vouchers. The Right wing of the Tory party is bringing the free market philosophy to education. It has tried this argument on a number of occasions. On other occasions it probably had the intellectual and philosophical sympathy of the previous Secretary of State, but thankfully it did not have his practical support. On this occasion, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said — I wonder a little about the almost Keynesian language used — this is a micro-incrementalist amendment to the Education Act 1980. I very much like and appreciate such language. It may be a part of the dampening process that is going on within sections of the Conservative party.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong, for a number of reasons, to push the new clause. We believe that he is wrong fundamentally because it is part of that overall philosophy. It is part of what I would see as the portakabin approach to education, whereby one builds up a series of popular schools, which become well-resourced as against other schools, and parents make a fairly obvious choice towards those schools. It has no planning and no ability to consider the allocation of resources between schools in a particular local education authority, nor does it have the ability to consider the allocation of resources between education authorities. We welcome the comments by the hon. Gentleman, who said that he opposed school closures and was worried about the policy of closing schools. If he thought through the basis of his own free market arguments, he would see that that would probably lead to more school closures and a greater emphasis on what I have called the portakabin approach.

The hon. Member for Darlington said that the new clause shifts the basis of appeal and power from the local education authority to the Government. That is clearly its purpose. He said that there are 10,000 appeals against school allocation but he did not—I listened carefully—say how many were rejected by local education authorities. His argument would have been stronger if he had cited those figures. It would have been stronger still if he had taken the opportunity to make it clear that his new clause would not provide parents with an absolute choice. There is a danger in the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric in that it gives parents the impression that new clause 13 would provide an absolute choice. It would do nothing of the sort. New clause 13 provides that the governors can opt out of parental choice by showing that that the decision they take is in line with efficient education and use of resources. That clause is badly drafted. It will help the legal profession and lead to a great deal of argument. It does not provide parents with an absolute choice in the way the hon. Member for Darlington suggested.

We would oppose the new clause if it were pushed to the vote but I suspect that the Under-Secretary of State, with the skill and arguments that he will use on this occasion, will be able to persuade his hon. Friends to see the correctness of his position and we will not have a vote. We oppose the measure for reasons which we have already stated—because we feel that it is not workable and does not make good education sense.

Mr. Dunn

I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to his new post as Opposition spokesman on education. I congratulate him on the courtesy and moderation with which he always delivers his speeches. He could almost be one of us.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

That will not go down well in his reselection process.

Mr. Dunn

In that case, I shall withdraw that remark if it would lead to the hon. Gentleman being deselected, because he is quite a nice man really.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central and from my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I should like to take us back to the Education Act 1980. It was a major, pioneering Education Act, as my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who served with me as Back Benchers on the Standing Committee, would confirm. That legislation did a great many things in the context of parental rights and appeal. It gave some protection to planned admission limits in a way that had never existed before. It must be right for Conservative Members to pay tribute to the framers of that legislation for what it did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington rightly pointed out that there were about 12,000 appeals a year of which more than a third were successful. It is not generally appreciated that, if a parent's appeal is upheld and the school of the parents' choice is agreed by the independent appeals committee, the school is obliged to take the child. If one, two, five or seven appeals are upheld, the school is obliged to take all those children. That did not obtain before the passage of the 1980 legislation. Under section 15, if a local education authority wishes to reduce the planned admission limit of a school, 20 per cent. or more of the previous admission level, it is required to publish notices and to bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State who adjudicates upon that wish.

There is debate, rightly, within our party and in the House about whether a figure of 20 per cent. is sufficient. I am not prepared to go down that route tonight except to point out to my hon. Friends that the protection of 20 per cent. under section 15 did not exist before. Consequently, there is no turning back, in any sense, or turning away from the reforms that we have initiated in the Education Act 1980 and those we are implementing in the passage of this Education Bill.

I can help my hon. Friends by referring to a significant provision already in the Bill. Clause 31 contains new provisions requiring the local education authority to consult the governing body before determining each year's admission arrangements. These will include the proposed intake target. The governing body will thus, for the first time, have a new opportunity to make its views known on these matters and the LEA will be required to give these views serious attention. As a function of the governing body, this matter will fall to be mentioned in the annual report to parents under clause 28 and, if parents wish, can be the subject of a resolution at the annual meeting under clause 29 which, again, the LEA would have to address seriously. More generally, of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to increase the influence parents have over the way in which their children's schools develop as part of local provision. I would regard this as a powerful extension of parental choice.

I understand the thrust of the points made by my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones). However, I ask them not to press this new clause to a Division because I think that we have made significant gains in the Education Act 1980 and in the Bill which will shortly be enacted.

Mr. Fallon

I am grateful for the support I have had from Conservative Benches for the new clause. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said three things. I understood that the number of successful appeals was about 40 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister said it was about one third. I understand that it has varied slightly over the years. However, that still leaves far too many unsuccessful appeals. Both sides of the House, and those who framed the 1980 Act, should be interested in reducing the number of unsuccessful appeals. The hon. Gentleman also said that my amendment does not provide absolute choice. We cannot provide that. That is why I want the governing body of the school to decide ultimately. Finally, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central quibbled with the wording. He suggested that it might be a lawyers' paradise. It is exactly the same as in the 1980 Act; it simply transfers the responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Minister told us earlier tonight, with his usual modesty, that he was the nicest person he knew. It is only because he is so nice that I am now going to say that I did not think much of his reply. I hope that the points that have been made and the support that my case has attracted will not be lost. I hope that he will reconsider his argument. It is because the rest of the Bill improves school management and gives parents greater involvement in schools that the frustrations built into the 1980 Act — because it is preference not choice — will increase. The more popular schools will become even more popular as a result of this Bill and more parents will apply to them.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider the operation of the 1980 Act. It has now been running for six years. At the very least he should offer to review the workings of the appeals procedure. Perhaps when Mr. Mitchell has finished reviewing the closure procedures he could be prevailed upon to review the appeals procedures. If he does that, my new clause will not have been moved in vain.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to