§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish in England a system for administering school admissions similar to that for administering university admissions so as to provide an independent and coordinated method for parents and guardians to choose nursery, primary and secondary schools for their children, and to appeal against any refusal of admission to schools; and for connected purposes.I hope that this is a slightly less controversial matter. My Bill would establish in England a system of dealing with school admissions which, put simply, would be similar to that currently used for university admissions. It would relate to applications for nursery, primary and secondary schools. It would also deal with one point relating to appeals against refusal of admission.So that nobody thinks that this Bill has other matters hidden behind it, I can tell the House that it would not create more selective schools or fewer selective schools, and it would not abolish existing selective schools or change the status of grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges. The Bill would not reduce or increase choice, and would not reverse the Greenwich judgments. It would not even ensure that hon. Members followed party policy when choosing schools for their families. Those are all perfectly proper matters for consideration, and I have strong views about all of them, but they are matters for another occasion.
The Bill also would not take away the greatly valued power that each school has within the law of establishing the criteria for its own admissions. It also would deal with a severe problem that arises under the current system. I hope that it would produce a system that worked better and which would be more honest, as well as producing fairer, better and speedier results.
There are four interrelated problems. First, many parents and children often fix their sights on one school and believe that by applying, pushing, hoping and praying, they will get in. Sometimes, too late, they realise that they cannot gain admission to that school, and that any other school they might have wanted has filled its roll.
Secondly, the administration for dealing with school applications is something that many parents find difficult because it is so inconsistent. For example, when parents in my borough make an application to a school—it may be the school of which I am the chair of governors—they will be advised by the head teacher to make applications to other schools. They might not do so, or they might do so later. There will be different dates for applications to different schools, and there will be different forms in the different schools. There will be different criteria, and some may interview. It is a nightmare for parents to get round the circuit, even if they want to go round the circuit at all.
Thirdly—this is perhaps the most serious issue—many parents, head teachers and staff arrive at the end of the summer term with several children having nowhere to go. I have been to many school-leaving events at which the head teacher has said in formal remarks, "Mr. Hughes, please help us, because we still have three 11-year-olds without a place." Nothing is more depressing for those children or their parents as they are leaving their primary school than to be surrounded by others who all have somewhere to go. That is in addition to children who have had an offer with which they are not happy. I will also deal with that.
613 Fourthly, in some schools there is no guaranteed independent appeals system. I see the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on the Treasury Bench, and I am grateful to her for attending. In answer to a written question about the proportion of primary and secondary school children in England who gained admission to their school of first choice in 1994–95, she said—I accept the theory—
This information is not collected centrally. Surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and by The Times in 1993 suggested that some 90 per cent. of parents gained a place at their first choice school." — [Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 221.]I am not in a position to quibble with those figures, but if that is right, then 10 per cent. are unhappy and, if that is the national average, then in some parts of the country, the number of those who do not gain admission to their first choice school will be much greater.From my experience—I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the House—in London and other urban areas where people may live near local authority boundaries and where many cross-boundary issues may arise, considerably more than 10 per cent. do not get into the school of their first choice. That does not mean, of course, that that 10 per cent. obtain a place at the school of their second choice. They may not obtain a place at the school of their second, third or fourth choice, and that problem raises big questions.
At this time of the year, this issue is probably the second most common problem raised at my surgeries. This morning, I signed 10 letters to schools on behalf of parents in my constituency. Heads have raised the issue with me every year since I was elected. I checked last might with the head teacher of the school for which I am chair of the governors—St. James's Church of England primary school in Bermondsey. Mrs. Robinson, the head, said—I am using her words—that the current system is awful, far worse at the secondary stage, a nightmare and a system gone potty. That is the opinion of a senior primary school head who knows the system well.
Our school has a good system, and we interview all the parents, and also explain that they should apply to other schools. Even so, at the end of the final year in primary school, many children do not have a place. I accept that part of the problem may arise because parents fail to understand that they have to exercise a choice, but it is untrue to say—and we should be honest with people—that there is a freedom of choice of school. That is not true in this country. There is only a freedom of choice of a school if supply is greater than demand at that school, and the children meet its criteria. Parents can choose a school, but they may not get the school of their choice. We should be honest, as we are with people who apply to universities. Applicants make a list, and they may get their first, second or third choice, or they may not.
The present system does not serve children, parents or schools well. In collaboration with colleagues on both sides of the House, we should consider a system for all publicly funded nursery, primary and secondary schools, whatever their status and whether they are local authority schools or church schools, grant-maintained schools or CTCs. The system should have a standard form, with, say, 614 five choices, which parents must submit by a certain date, fixed in advance. The scheme would be administered centrally, or locally by local authorities—the location is not important—and parents would be allowed to hold only one place. Some children are not offered places because other parents hold places that they never intend their children to take.
The criteria for admission would be given to parents from the start, as for university admission, and a clearing system would operate at the end. That would allow the system to work across local authorities, because parents might want to apply to three schools in their borough and two in other boroughs, or to some local authority schools and some Church schools.
The system would establish a common starting time, and each of the choices could be dealt with in turn, so that the clearing system could start in July. Parents would also be offered counselling and support. We must deal with the differing standard of application forms, because some have adequate information and some do not—I have checked with heads and staff that that is so—and we must try for the best practice.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that only city technology colleges have no independent right of appeal on admission decisions. I am trying to persuade the city technology college in my constituency—Bacon's Church of England CTC—to introduce an independent right of appeal. One of the Minister's predecessors nearly conceded that such a right should be enshrined in legislation. It is important for parents who do not get a place for their children at the school of their choice to know that somebody entirely independent adjudicates on the decision. One secondary school in my constituency has a waiting list of 180, and the competition for places in some schools is very fierce.
Little can be more sad, more unfair or more undermining for 11-year-old youngsters, their parents and the parents of five-year-olds than not to obtain a place at the school of their choice, to which their mates and their peer group are going. It is most oppressive if, at the end of the last year before school admission, children do not have a place at any school at all. I hope that the House finds the Bill acceptable, and that I may be given leave to introduce it.
§ Madam SpeakerDoes the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
§ Mr. HughesYes, Madam Speaker.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has elucidated a serious problem, of which no hon. Member can be unaware because we encounter it in our lives and in those of our children—and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in our advice bureaux, where we encounter the enormous pressure and heartbreak of those who attend.
The hon. Gentleman's idea is a Liberal party one, which sounds better the less one examines it. How could it possibly be an advantage to nationalise the appeal system? What would be achieved by that? How could a national body lay down criteria that would help in his constituency or in mine?
615 One of the problems about first schools in my constituency is the priority roads scheme. It is difficult for the local authority to solve such problems, and I am not attacking it, but, if Harrow council cannot get the priority roads scheme right in Pinner, how could a national body do it? Getting that right is the solution to the problem of overcrowding in some of the schools in my constituency.
The hon. Member said that he did not mind whether the system was administered locally or nationally, but how could it possibly make rules that would be suitable for the very different areas that hon. Members represent? The hon. Gentleman's motion contains the word "independent". That sounds good, but increased independence for the appeals system can have real meaning only in the context of its effect on an individual over-subscribed school.
There is an independent appeals system, certainly in the borough of Harrow, and no doubt in the borough of Southwark. But the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned related to the inadequacies of the system that is run by Southwark. Southwark should put that right, and not a word he said about changing the framework of the structure would be solve any of those problems. It has to be done much more locally. The Bill is a curious policy move by a party that pays lip service to local autonomy. There is no doubt that the proposed legislation would be costly, bureaucratic and unworkable in practice.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about choice, so let us examine what the Liberal party means by that. Its education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is in his place, wants to remove the right of parents to choose religious grant-aided schools.
§ Mr. Don Foster (Bath)No.
§ Mr. HughesThe hon. Gentleman says no in the Chamber, but he says yes outside. As usual, the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.
They want to remove powers from schools and give them to councils, but I would prefer the powers to stay with the schools. They want to remove the right to choose grant-maintained schools, and they are firmly against city technology colleges. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with pride about the CTC in his constituency. Liberal Members must decide whether they are in favour of them or against them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take the same view locally as his party takes nationally.
Liberals want to destroy the choice that is provided to poorer families by the assisted places scheme. They have made a specific pledge to take that away, despite the effect that that would have on the 80 per cent. of recipient families on lower than average incomes.
Perhaps Labour Members support the Bill. We all know about Labour and choice. I have a list running to two pages of Labour spokesmen who know all about choice for their own children but do not seem to know much about choice for anybody else. I support those Labour spokesmen who have done the best for their children and have made choices—whether of public, independent, grant-maintained or grammar schools or schools on the other side of London or in any other conurbation.
I support what they are doing, because they are doing the right thing as parents, and they should be protected from the wrath of members of the real Labour party who 616 have ganged up on them and said the nastiest things possible. [Interruption.] Oh—they have not? Well I could, of course, if I had time, list the two pages of quotes from Labour Members and, indeed, councils run by the Labour party, against those Members.
My criticism is with the policy. Because Labour Members know all about choice for their own children, understand the value of choice and wish to exercise that right as parents, how can they possibly support policies that would take that choice away from their constituents? How can they do that when they know that it is something they want to exercise for themselves?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, summed it up when he said:
I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing, and send their children to another school outside the area.I know the effect that that has had on parents in west London, where I live, who wish to send their children to the London Oratory school—a linked school. Parents in west London are extremely angry that people from the other side of London have made it a popular school and managed to send their children there, denying the opportunity for local parents to do the same. That is a fact. It is also a fact that local Labour Members of Parliament have not lifted a finger to help those parents.Perhaps it was also summed up by one of the Labour "luvvies" with whom I had the pleasure of having lunch a few years ago—a prominent supporter of the Labour party, who wanted all the choice, all the public schools, swept away. When I said, "But didn't you send your children to public school?" I was told, "We would have sent our children to school in Switzerland, so it would have been all right for us." That is the reality of Labour Members: choice for themselves but not for other people.
The Labour party, if it chose to support the Bill, would have to explain its record in power, a period when it had a very bad effect on education, supported as it was by the Liberals. When Labour and the Liberals were in power, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion. Spending as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by one percentage point. Spending on universities fell by 12.6 per cent. in real terms. The number of full-time students in higher education fell, and teachers' pay rose by only 6 per cent. in real terms—a fifth of the rise under my party in power.
That is Labour and the Liberals on education: not a candy-floss pretence that they want choice. What they mean is "choice for us, but none for other people." If hon. Members want choice, they will reject the Bill, and vote for the Conservatives to give them choice in education.
I oppose the Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
§ The House divided:Ayes 34, Noes 40.
617| Division No. 136] | [3.58 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Beggs, Roy | Chidgey, David |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Cohen, Harry |
| Dafis, Cynog | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James |
| Davies, Chris Littleborough | Rendel, David |
| Flynn, Paul | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Ross, William (E Londonderry) |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Harvey, Nick | Smyth, The Reverend Martin |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Tyler, Paul |
| Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) | Wallace, James |
| Lewis, Terry | |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| McCrea, The Reverend William | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and |
| Maddock, Diana | Ms Liz Lynne. |
| NOES | |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Body, Sir Richard | Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) |
| Booth, Hartley | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Leigh, Edward |
| Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Cash, William | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Pawsey, James |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Riddick, Graham |
| Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Fry, Sir Peter | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Gallie, Phil | Stewart, Allan |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Sweeney, Walter |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Whittingdale, John |
| Harris, David | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter | |
| Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) | Lady Olga Maitland and |
| Hunter, Andrew | Mr. Bob Dunn. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.