HC Deb 16 March 2001 vol 364 cc1361-8

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

2.32 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

This is a timely opportunity to have the privilege of raising in the House the subject of secondary school education in west London. I have used the term "west London" advisedly in the title of the debate. Although the problems that I shall describe are especially serious for Ruislip-Northwood and the Hillingdon borough, they transcend borough boundaries and must, therefore, be set in their wider context.

My constituency has a range of excellent secondary schools. It contains the Bishop Ramsey Church of England school in Ruislip, Northwood school in Northwood Hills, Haydon school in Eastcote-Pinner, Queensmead school in South Ruislip and John Penrose school in Harefield. Dolay Martyrs school, Ickenham, is situated just outside my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It is a Roman Catholic Church school that receives a significant number of pupils from my area.

The problem that is currently of special concern to my constituents is their inability to secure places for their children in local secondary schools of their choice. The problem is especially prevalent in parts of Eastcote, Ruislip Gardens, Ruislip Manor and South Ruislip, where many people face significant problems unless they can claim priority for their children on medical or sibling grounds. Most usually, disappointed parents are offered places for their children in John Penrose school, which is located in Harefield. The school is a long way from Ruislip or Ruislip Manor and is fairly inaccessible. Other parents are offered places in Hayes Manor school, in the extreme south of the borough of Hillingdon.

I raised related issues when, some two and a half years ago, I took a deputation—my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge did the same—to see the Minister for School Standards about education problems in Hillingdon, especially in respect of secondary education.

We discussed at that time the possibility of constructing a new school in Ruislip, and Hillingdon borough council local education authority hoped that Her Majesty's Government could let us know by now whether the capital funding for the project was available. Local education authority officials have been in discussion with the Department for Education and Employment, and a site has been identified at Sidmouth drive, although planning permission has to be secured first. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.

Parental feeling is strong. Indeed, several parents of pupils at Lady Banks primary school in Dawlish drive, Ruislip Manor have got together. Many have written to me to argue forcefully against the effects of the Greenwich judgment, which permits cross-borough migration of pupils to the school of the parents' choice, often to the detriment of the exercise of that same parental choice by those who live in the borough where the school is located.

In my area of west London, the difference between the sort of secondary schooling in Harrow borough and Hillingdon borough makes the problem especially acute.

In Harrow borough, people feel strongly that the current system should be changed. The Minister may remember that sixth forms disappeared when the borough changed to comprehensive education in the early 1970s. Education to A-level was then provided by sixth form colleges, which have subsequently been replaced by tertiary colleges. The reputation of the tertiary colleges is good, but they are not popular with all parents, who may prefer a post-16 sixth form in a school environment, where children gain authority as prefects and in other positions of responsibility. Such opportunities are not available in tertiary colleges.

Parents therefore seek places at 11-plus schools in neighbouring boroughs, such as my borough of Hillingdon, where school education to sixth form level is available. That leads to unfilled places in middle schools in the Harrow borough and resentment from parents in Hillingdon who cannot, as a consequence of the migration of pupils from Harrow, secure a place for their children in the Hillingdon school of their choice.

Successive Governments have upheld the Greenwich judgment. It was passed in 1989 in the Court of Appeal, which upheld a High Court ruling that a local education authority could not lawfully pursue a schools admissions policy that preferred children living in its area to those outside. There is little information about the impact of the judgment on parental choice. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) tried to secure such clarification in a written question on 11 January. The Minister for School Standards replied: My Department does not collect detailed information on the provision of school places by local education authorities in England; education in Wales is matter for the Welsh Assembly. It is for local education authorities to ensure sufficient school places to meet demand."—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 630W.] We understand that, and my local authority is doing its best, hence the dialogue with the Department for Education and Employment about a new school in Ruislip.

Even if the new school was authorised tomorrow—I hope that it is—that would not solve the immediate difficulty. Other west London boroughs have also identified a problem. I cite an Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 28 May 1998. He said that overcrowding in schools in Richmond upon Thames borough had been aggravated by the Greenwich judgment. In the same debate, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said: The Greenwich judgment has created an acute problem for some London boroughs, particularly Richmond"— I would say, "especially Hillingdon"—

and I urge the Minister to consider possible solutions. Within the borough, we have tried everything that we can possibly do. I myself have been a councillor in the borough and have struggled with the problem. Although we have tried, we simply do not know what to do, to be fair to our own children."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 925.] The problem with the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is one that we share in Hillingdon: the schools are especially good in both boroughs. Children come flooding into Hillingdon, not only from Harrow but from Hertfordshire in the north and from the London borough of Ealing in the south-east. The then Minister in the Department for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said in his reply that the Greenwich judgment has opened up opportunities for parents and children. That is a somewhat contentious remark. He went on to say:

in some cases it means that children can go to more local schools, which just happen to be over the road in another LEA area. The difficulty is that, for someone in Harrow, Northwood school or Queensmead school in my constituency could be "just over the road". However, children who live in my constituency in the same road as those schools could be denied a place in those schools. That is most unsatisfactory. The Minister concluded: Cross-border movement works both ways. Local education authorities import and export."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 927.] In Hillingdon, we only import. I have no evidence of an exodus of pupils from Hillingdon to the neighbouring boroughs that I have mentioned, although one or two pupils go to grammar schools in Buckinghamshire and in Watford on the basis of competitive examination. However, they are special cases.

In short, there are widespread difficulties in secondary education in my borough. I took advice from the local education authority when trying to summarise what the difficulties were, in addition to the issue of parental choice. The advice that I received was this: The teacher shortage is very serious and set to get significantly worse at Easter. The pool of available supply teachers continues to shrink as these staff are appointed to cover vacancies … The teacher shortage is seriously affecting standards, directly and indirectly. The direct effects include the use of temporary (often overseas, inexperienced or non-specialist) supply staff for classes often already affected by rapid teacher turnover and lack of continuity … Added to this, we how have"— the prospect of— the industrial action of the NUT and NAS/UWT … Hillingdon is very badly affected by the teacher shortage for a number of reasons. We fall outside the extra funding for inner London even though our house prices are"— as high as those in many inner London boroughs, and, in some parts of Ruislip-Northwood, even higher. The local education authority went on: We do not score highly on the DfEE's indices of deprivation which do not recognise the significant pockets of socio-economic disadvantage"— that exist in the borough—in Hayes and Yiewsley in the south, and in Harefield, parts of Northwood Hills and South Ruislip in my constituency.

The formula for applying for the education grant is subject to an extraordinary paradox that I find incomprehensible. According to the LEA, Hillingdon suffered a £1.9 million cut in DETR support … by the introduction in the ceiling on the increase in Revenue Support Grant for education which did not, therefore, match the 7.6 per cent. increase in Standard Spending Assessment which reflected growth in school rolls. There is, therefore, a fundamental problem of funding, which I hope that the Minister will address.

I took advice not only from the local education authority but from the schools themselves, in which there was a unanimity of view. The head teacher of one school said: I am sure you are aware of the serious impact of the recruitment problems which were fully aired at the meeting with the Director of Education and others. So concerned was the local education authority that it called in my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), the director, the chairman of the education committee and the heads of all the schools to thrash out initiatives that could be taken. The head teacher said that although there are affluent areas in Hillingdon, the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing and Hounslow have excellence in cities additions to their funding that we do not enjoy in our borough.

Another head teacher cited the very high cost of housing in west London and the low level of the London weighting allowance. He said that for mortgage purposes and based on an income multiple of three times salary, the increase in the London weighting allowance would give an extra £6,000 on a mortgage, which was almost inconsequential in this part of London". He also referred to low pay and the fact that particular specialisms, such as languages, maths and science, have recruitment problems.

Retention is always a difficult problem. The stress and strain of bureaucracy and form filling are acute, so people all too often leave the profession early.

A good summary of the situation was given by another head teacher. The aspects that caused him concern were a salary increase that in total adds up to about 6 per cent. while his likely budget increase is about 4.5 per cent.; the inequalities between our borough and Ealing and Hounslow, which enjoy excellence in cities funding, whereas we do not; the shortage of teachers; the long-term problems of teacher recruitment and retention; the painfully inadequate London allowance compared with house prices; and the need for affordable housing for young staff.

A catalogue of difficulties affects my borough of Hillingdon particularly severely. However, they are not just Hillingdon problems: they go wider than that and are made more acute by the difference in the education system between Harrow and Hillingdon, and the difference in treatment between Hounslow and Ealing and our borough of Hillingdon.

I hope that the Minister will address some of those issues, and give us hope about the new school in Ruislip.

2.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for raising an issue that is at the heart of the Government's agenda for education, and is important to all of us. We are committed to raising standards of education for all children. In west London, as elsewhere, we are taking action to drive up standards, and we support initiatives that underpin that commitment.

I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—I say that not colloquially, but geographically. In the early to mid-1970s, I lived in Hillingdon off Long lane. Our first child was born in Hillingdon hospital, so I have some understanding of the patch. I used to teach at Brunel university just down the road from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Since we have been in government, we have made a clear commitment to raising standards. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gave us the framework within which we could accelerate our drive to raise standards in all our schools. Our record since then shows consistent and effective action through all stages of the education process. We need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach his full potential.

We shall further reinforce that action. Last month, the Secretary of State published the Green Paper "Building on Success". The proposals in that paper will allow us to pursue the improvements we have already made.

With regard to secondary education, we have set out a challenging agenda. All schools are to have their own mission and ethos. Young people who want a career based on technical skills will be able to choose a predominantly vocational programme from age 14, where it suits them. More schools are to be provided by Churches, major faith groups and voluntary and community groups in response to local demand from parents and the community. There is to be greater autonomy for successful schools—including more flexibility over pay and conditions and the curriculum—and a new source of help for weak and failing schools. A centre for gifted and talented youth will promote provision for gifted children in schools and establish intensive summer schools for them. More attention will be paid to school ethos and education with character for secondary pupils in and outside school.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems experienced by parents and children in finding a local secondary school. Our actions and proposals will address those problems by raising standards and enabling new provision.

We are pursuing the development of city academies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced plans for two such academies in west London. In Brent, a city academy based on the Willesden high school site will have a sports specialism. In Hillingdon, a new city academy at Evelyns community school will have a technology specialism, with state-of-the-art computer facilities linked to high-tech business and to Brunel university.

Equally, we need to ensure that schools are supported by their local education authorities. LEAs have a duty to promote high standards. They must prepare education development plans, which set targets for pupils and for the quality of teaching, leadership and management in schools. Where an LEA cannot provide that support, the Secretary of State reserves the power to secure proper performance of the LEA's functions.

The hon. Gentleman made some valuable points about the availability of school places. I know that concerns have been raised by some parents who have been unable to get children into their first choice of school. I recognise that the position in west London is complicated by the movement of pupils between boroughs, which is in line with parental preference—something supported widely in the House. It would not be right to treat any parent expressing a preference less favourably simply because they live on one side of a local government boundary.

It is a difficult issue, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He thought that only a few parents in Hillingdon chose to send their children to schools in other LEA areas; knowing Hillingdon as I do, I wonder whether it is a few. However, parents would no doubt object to their freedom to do so being ended.

Mr. Wilkinson

The Minister and I have something in common: my son was born in Hillingdon hospital, too. If there are two applicants of equal merit for a school, should not preference be given to the one who lives in the same local authority area as the school?

Mr. Wicks

Our difficulty is that the Greenwich judgment has put the emphasis on parental choice. It would have to be a matter for the LEA and the school's policies. However, I recognise the difficulties.

Although the law gives parents the right to express a preference for the school at which they would wish their child to be educated, it has never guaranteed every parent a place for their child at the preferred school. I understand the frustration of parents whose application has been unsuccessful. We would like all parents to gain a place for their child in a school that is satisfactory to them.

In my constituency of Croydon, North, I find nothing more difficult than talking to parents who would dearly love their son or daughter to go to a certain school and having to explain to them that, because of the rules of arithmetic, it is not possible. After all, if a school has more applications than places, it cannot admit every applicant. In the circumstances, places have to be allocated among applicants according to the school's published oversubscription criteria.

Admission arrangements for all schools must be published annually by each local education authority in a combined booklet. Information on the number of places available and applications made for them in the previous year must also be shown to help parents assess their chances of obtaining a place at their preferred school.

Parents who are refused a place at a school have a right of appeal. That is important. Under the new admissions legislation introduced by the Government, appeal panels are completely independent of the admission authority that decided the application. Their decisions are binding on the admission authority and can be overturned only by the courts. That is a step in the right direction.

Some schools have always been more popular than others. Our view is that the only satisfactory way to meet parental preference is to raise standards in all schools, so that the choice that parents have to make is between equally good schools. Our policies are focused on achieving that aim. However, as the House will appreciate, that cannot happen overnight.

In west London as a whole, there are enough places to satisfy demand based on current patterns of pupil movement; LEA returns from west London as a whole show that that is the case. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that, in Hillingdon, numbers are increasing and the demand for secondary school places is expected to exceed supply in future years.

LEAs have a duty to provide sufficient school places for their area. The Government believe that decisions about the organisation and supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education. We have established a new framework for local decision making. The School Standards and Framework Act introduced a new framework for local decision making in school-place planning.

LEAs must prepare a school organisation plan covering a five-year rolling period. That sets out how the LEA proposes to deal with surpluses and deficits of school provision and what provision it intends to make for pupils with special educational needs. The plan sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area. Those might include proposals to enlarge or to establish schools.

A school organisation committee has been established for each LEA area. The role of the committee is to consider the plan and to take decisions about statutory proposals affecting the local organisation of school places.

In thanking the hon. Gentleman for raising this important subject, which has a resonance for all of us in London, I should refer to today's announcement by schools Ministers that LEAs have been given the green light to spend more than £650 million on school capital projects through the private finance initiative. The money, which includes an extra £200 million of PFI credits from the Budget last week, has been provisionally allocated to 21 local authorities to support public-private partnership projects due to reach contract signature in 2002–03. A total of 174 schools will benefit and there will be more than 20 new schools.

The increased amounts available for school projects are part of the total capital investment in our schools. The projects range from building completely new schools to sports and information and communications technology facilities to renovations in primary, secondary and special needs schools.

On the plan for a new school in Ruislip, the hon. Gentleman recognised that I might not be able to agree to the proposal tomorrow. That is the case. I can agree to it today. The projects include a brand new secondary school in Hillingdon, located in Ruislip. The scheme is for a five-form entry school to include adult education facilities and a dual-use library.

Mr. Wilkinson

May I express my thanks and appreciation on behalf of my constituents?

Mr. Wicks

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but, obviously, the agreement was made on the merits of the case, which was very good.

Hillingdon local education authority will be invited to develop an outline business case for submission to my Department and the Treasury later this year. Once they have approval, LEAs can start the necessary procurement.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the launch of the new PFI projects, including the one in Ruislip, is good news for local parents and, more importantly, local children in the Hillingdon area. The schemes, together with those already in place, demonstrate the benefits that PFI can bring to our schools.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate and the House for listening. I have been able to announce some good news, and we can all have a good weekend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.