§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
10.11 pm§ Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)It gives me great pleasure this evening to raise the matter of secondary school allocations in the Chorley area in Lancashire and to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who have adjoining constituencies to my own and who have similar problems to some that I shall be raising.
Secondary schooling is the most important step or change in any child's school career, and the maximisation of children's abilities at the delicate age of 11 when they move from primary to secondary school is of paramount importance. Education is the best investment of all and it is up to us, as representatives of the people, to ensure that the allocations are fair and appropriate, and that the best is brought out of all children according to their abilities.
My worry is that, in the Chorley area, parents are asked for their first, second and third preferences of secondary schools, so they spend a lot of time with their children and put in a lot of effort going round the various secondary schools of varying natures in my area, in the borough of South Ribble, and perhaps across the border in Bolton. They may develop an affinity with a particular school, and their child likes it, so they put down their first, second and third preferences on a form supplied to them by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.
The unfairness is that many of my parents, particularly in the north and east of the Chorley constituency, have not been getting any of their first three preferences. That is unacceptable and a total waste of time and effort, and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister this evening whether it will be possible for her to lean on Lancashire county council and obtain some change.
I wrote to the chief education officer in March. I quote his letter to me of 19 March:
In general the county council is unable to guarantee a place at one of the three preferred schools, although it is only a very small percentage of children who cannot be offered a place at any of their parents' preferences. In Lancashire"—Lancashire as a whole, not the Chorley area—first preferences are up to 92.6 per cent., second preferences 3.5 per cent., third preferences 1.2 per cent., no preference 2.7 per cent.".The chief education officer confirms, however, that the information is not readily available for Chorley because it is held according to schools. I would ask that the first, second and third preferences be allocated on a postcode area basis. They should not really relate to schools; what matters is where parents live, as shown by their postcodes. They should be given the preferences that they want.Parental choice is paramount. It is the policy that the Government for the past 17 years have proudly boasted and honoured. I greatly welcome the policies in yesterday's White Paper, which will allow more selection by schools. That in turn will permit a 442 50 per cent. increase in the intake of grant-maintained schools. I regret the fact that, a few years ago, the Government flirted with the idea of allowing more popular schools to expand, to the detriment of those that were less popular. The results can be seen in Chorley. All the schools there do well in the performance league tables, but several are more popular than others, and that gives rise to a larger number of preferences.
I accept the difficulty for the county council, but it is not too much to ask that each child be allocated one of its first three preferences. One problem is that the local education authority changes the rules every two or three years. Three years ago, villages to the south and east, towards Bolton, were affected. Schools there with a history of working in conjunction with local families from the surrounding villages suddenly found that the ground rules had changed—and that the time for the appeals procedure, April to June, had already arrived.
No one likes change; people like to know what the ground rules are. This year changes affecting the north and east of my constituency have been made. Is the LEA carrying out any consultation? I do not think it should just change the rules and then force the changes on heads, parents and children. That is quite wrong. The guidelines and policies should be transparent, and people must have their say. If they think the system fair, fine; if not, they should be able to make their views known through their elected representatives and then bring about change.
Yesterday's White Paper stresses that some LEAs are defensive and try to protect their own methods of working. I am delighted to note that the Government intend to force much more education spending—as much as 95 per cent. of it—down to school level, and not allow LEAs such as Lancashire's to channel only 85 per cent. down to the schools. The more money is spent at school level, the better value for money we get and the more local the decision making will become. Thus, we shall get away from the red tape and bureaucracy that are so much a part of activities at county hall in Preston.
I am not satisfied that the appeals procedure is entirely independent. I find it, for instance, unacceptable that heads are kept out of it. They should have a major input to appeals procedures, so perhaps the situation needs reviewing.
I care very much about the children in my constituency, and I have found the county council unresponsive, uncaring and bureaucratic in its past dealings with allocations to Catholic and Church of England schools or to voluntary-aided schools. The council has defended its patch and released only the minimum amount of money to schools. It has unfairly given less money to areas such as South Ribble and Chorley than to other parts of the county. Therefore, I condemn its actions.
However, I praise the efforts of the Education Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate this evening. I commend the Secretary of State for yesterday's White Paper. It is the vision for the future. The future is our children. What could be more important than ensuring that they get to the schools that they want and choose in their 443 preferences? My key question is: is it possible for the Minister to force Lancashire to honour at least one of the three preferences?
§ Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for raising this subject in the Adjournment debate and for allowing me to contribute to it. Consistently, Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament have led the fight for the protection and development of education in the county of Lancashire, in the face of what can be described only as the inept administration of the Labour party in county hall. The Department for Education and Employment has received many letters from Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament about the administration of Lancashire's education authority.
My hon. Friend has raised yet another example of the council's bungling. Over the years, parents have visited my surgery because they have been extremely upset about the fact that their first choice, and sometimes their second choice, of school has not been acceded to—I am sure that most hon. Members have experienced this.
One understands the pressures. One understands that, as a result of Conservative education policy over the years, we are developing some good schools. For example, I refer to Leyland, St. Mary's in my constituency—it has become a grant-maintained school. It has been extremely successful and a lot of parents want to send their children there.
As my hon. Friend said, across the constituency boundaries of South Ribble and Chorley, parents in South Ribble are being offered schools in Chorley, and parents in Chorley are being offered schools in South Ribble. That is unacceptable because it is inconvenient. As my hon. Friend said, we are concerned at the apparent lack of care and attention—particularly in the area of appeals—that has been given to our constituents and to their children. I have had parents and children visit my surgery because of the way that this matter has been dealt with—some have been in tears.
I join my hon. Friend in seeking to press the Minister to listen to the pleas of Lancashire Conservative Members of Parliament. We are speaking out, yet again, for the schools, for the children, for the parents and for the teachers—for those who share our concern about education.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate and on raising this subject. I also thank him for allowing me to contribute to the debate. The Lancashire education authority has priority for places at Turton school in my constituency. That popular school is over-subscribed. I am concerned about the Bolton education authority's policy of not giving priority to sibling links. It is a grossly anti-family policy, and it causes considerable distress.
This week, I wrote to Mr. Jackson of the Bolton education authority about one particular case. I said:
I understand that Robert is very distressed at not being able to go to the same school as his sister and his friends, after attending Eagley Junior school in Bromley Cross all his life. I 444 believe Robert's GP has written to advise you of the stressful effect this is having on Robert, and I fully support any request that Robert be reconsidered for Turton.I would be grateful if the Minister used her influence to ask the Bolton education authority to reconsider its policy. Few education authorities do not give priority to sibling links. I believe that there is considerable support throughout the constituency, and throughout the other parts of Bolton, for a change in policy so that priority can be given to sibling links. We wish to avoid the stressful situation where one sibling goes to one school, but another sibling is unable to go to the same school. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the issue her consideration.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) for raising his concerns, and I shall do my best to respond to him and to the concerns raised, rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). I know from the amount of correspondence that I receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that he takes a close interest in education matters, on which he works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents.
We have of course come a long way since 1979, when parents had no right to specify their preferred choice of school. Schools could be half empty, but parents still might not have been offered a place for their child, and they had no right to appeal against the decision on where their child was to be educated.
The Government gave parents the right to express a preference for a school. We required admission authorities to satisfy that preference unless the pupil did not meet the religious or selective entry requirements. We later introduced legislation that required schools to admit up to their standard number or any higher admission limit that was set. Admission authorities could no longer keep spare places at popular schools to safeguard less popular ones. If a school had spare places, eligible pupils had to be admitted.
Not only did we strengthen the initial admissions process for parents, but we strengthened their right of appeal. All appeal committees must now contain a lay member, and representatives of the admission authority cannot be in the majority. Parents now have more confidence that their appeals will be heard by an independent and impartial panel that will carefully weigh up the needs of the child against the implications for the school.
Parents now have more rights, more information, and access to a wider choice of different schools under a Conservative Government than ever before. The Government have tried to remove the artificial barriers which, in the past, have all too often stood in the way of parental choice. Evidence suggests that some 90 per cent. of first-choice applications are successful, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has voiced his concerns about the admission arrangements in place in Lancashire, and especially the problems that his constituents have faced in getting their children into a school of their choice.
It is never easy when popular schools are over-subscribed, as I know has been the case for a number of schools in Chorley. The Government firmly believe 445 that responsibility for admissions rightly lies with admission authorities, and that admission arrangements should be determined at local level. Admission authorities are able to respond directly to the wishes and needs of parents and pupils.
That said, we expect admission authorities—the local education authority in the case of county and controlled schools, and the governing body in the case of voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools—to determine arrangements that are clearly and accurately described, so that parents can judge the chances of gaining a place for their child at the school before expressing their preference. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley will pass on to his education authority the requirement for arrangements to be expressed clearly.
Lancashire local education authority is responsible for determining the admission arrangements for its schools, following an annual consultation with the governors of schools. During that consultation, the governors, if they wish, can propose changes to the school's arrangements for admission. Such proposals may include a change to the over-subscription criteria, or may suggest an increase in the school's admission number for that year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is right to highlight the problems that can arise when admission authorities change admission arrangements without adequate consultation or notification. He will wish to know that yesterday my Department issued a revised circular on admissions that provides up-to-date guidance on admissions, and explains the basic principles that the Government consider important in the management of school admissions, including local determination, diversity, clarity, consultation and co-ordination. But it is for the authority to finalise arrangements, after taking into account any views put forward by governors, and to set out the admissions policy, giving the number of places available at the school and the criteria to be used in the case of over-subscription.
In the case of county and controlled schools, Lancashire LEA gives priority to first-preference applications. In cases of over-subscription, the authority considers first those applications with sibling links, then those with medical, social or welfare reasons, and finally the admission authority allocates the remaining places with reference to the distances between the home and the parents' first-preference school and between the home and the nearest alternative school at which a place is available.
Lancashire LEA must allocate places in accordance with the published arrangements for its schools. It is, of course, unfortunate that, when a school is over-subscribed—as was the case with Parklands High school—some parents may not receive a place, as the school can be filled with pupils with higher priority for places.
I have looked into the situation that has arisen in Lancashire. It seems that the authority received more than 270 first-preference and an additional 260 second-preference applications for 206 places at Parklands High. Southlands High was also over-subscribed, with 169 first and 127 second-preference applications for only 187 places. A voluntary-aided school, St Michael's—with which my hon. Friend will be familiar—was also over-subscribed with applications.
446 I understand from the authority that a number of parents in the Eccleston area in particular who expressed a first preference for Parklands were not offered a place, as they live closer to another school, Bishop Rawstorne CE school. In applying its admission criteria, the authority was unable to give them priority for the available places. However, those parents were allocated places at the school of their second choice.
I am also aware of the difficulties that some parents who live in the north-east of Chorley have faced in obtaining a place at Parklands. Again, that appears to be because they live closer to another school, Albany, which still has places available. I understand that the authority is in discussion with those parents about alternative places for their children.
There is also a question over the number of pupils that Parklands can accommodate. The governors of the school can, of course, place a formal request with the authority to publish a higher admission limit. If the authority refuses to comply with that request, it is open to the governors to make an application to the Secretary of State for an increase in the school's standard number.
I hear my hon. Friend's plea to ensure that parents receive at least one of their three preferences. In the allocations to Chorley schools this year, only 4.5 per cent. of parents—including those who applied from outside the area—have not received a place at a school for which they expressed a preference. Of those, nine parents live in the Chorley area. Unfortunately, it is never possible to guarantee places where many more parents have expressed a preference for a school than there are places available.
When parents are unsuccessful in gaining a place, they may wish to exercise their right to appeal to independent appeal committees. Appeal committees offer parents an important second chance, and they must consider any appeal in light of the evidence available and on the merits of the case before them.
I turn now to the case of Mrs. Finney, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred. I understand that Mrs. Finney's son, Robert Rogerson, was unable to get into the school she chose—Turton school. I ask my hon. Friend to ask Mrs. Finney whether she wishes to approach the LEA to place Robert Rogerson on the waiting list for Turton school. I understand, and sympathise with, his constituent's problem.
About 40 per cent. of appeals are successful. I believe that, through that route, several parents have been successful in gaining places at schools for which they expressed a preference. Although I stress that I appreciate the deep disappointment that parents feel when they are unsuccessful in gaining a place at a school of their choice, the number of such parents remains small. However, it is a significant issue for the parents concerned.
But the Government have shown that they are committed to extending parental choice by the steps that they have taken, which have ensured that as many parents as possible receive their first choice of school for their children. Indeed, I was glad to receive the warm welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley for the White Paper that was published yesterday, which is another step forward and another plan in an excellent education policy that will provide choice for parents—more choice, and choice where there is none.
447 Finally, I shall take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, who expressed concern. My right hon. Friend often speaks out on behalf of his constituents, and I understand his heartfelt plea about the way in which the LEA is managed. I hope that I can throw a little light on the problems that my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned.
Both will wish to know that, thanks not least in part to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, the new chief education officer in Lancashire, who was 448 appointed in January 1996, is currently seeking views from schools in the area about how their admission arrangements could be improved. I think that that is proof that the representations that Members of Parliament make in this place can make a difference, and I look forward to hearing the successful review of the admission arrangements in Lancashire.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.