HL Deb 20 November 1985 vol 468 cc547-9

2.58 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of reports that the Inner London Education Authority propose to turn children away from popular schools where physical space is available to boost numbers at unpopular schools.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, due to falling rolls, the intake targets of some schools may need to be set below physical capacity to ensure the educational viability of others. ILEA is one of many local education authorities which see the need to do this, but the Government are not aware of any particular reports on its practice.

Lord Henley

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he does not agree that the paramount way of allocating places in schools should be a question of parental choice?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that parental choice of school is very important. I do not think I would go so far as to say it is paramount. That is why the Education Act 1980 strikes a careful balance between the right of a parent to secure a place for his child at his preferred school and the need of the local education authority to be able to manage school provision efficiently in the interests of all the children in its area.

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

My Lords, is it not a fact that an authority may be faced with the simple problem that if they allow children to be admitted to certain schools it could involve additional staffing, whereas if children are sent to a neighbouring school with places available, which would not involve additional staffing, that is no more than efficient administration, particularly when the authority is under very great financial pressure to exercise the maximum economy?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has repeated in other terms what I said in my last supplementary answer. I would therefore agree.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, should it not be possible for a thoroughly unpopular school which parents do not think is efficient to sink into insignificance, and finally to vanish? If it is a matter of economy, is it not possible to move part of the staff from one school to another without extra expense to a local authority?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, while I accept that some schools are more popular than others, I do not think there is a black and white distinction between popular and unpopular schools. In any case, popularity may not necessarily reflect inherent quality.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I had intended to thank the Minister for his three replies. I am now able to thank him for his four replies. Does he not agree that his fourth reply to the noble Viscount indicates, as the noble Viscount said, the dangers of allowing schools to sink into unpopularity and the real problems which that would pose for the parents, children and teachers at such schools?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, yesterday when I welcomed the noble Lord as spokesman on the Benches opposite I did not expect to have him agreeing with me quite so quickly and on so many points. I think it would be splendid if every child could be guaranteed a place at the school chosen by his parents, but that is not practicable in the real world.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the fact that the ILEA has reduced the intake at Highbury Grove school from 240 to 210 places, in spite of the first preferences for that school running at 280 places, represents an infringement of the principle of freedom of choice which is enshrined in the 1980 Education Act; and also that the distress caused to the unsuccessful applicants is most regrettable?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, the intake of a school may not be reduced by more than 20 per cent. below its 1979 level, unless my right honourable friend has approved public proposals to that effect in the light of any objections that they may attract. My mental arithmetic is probably not as good as the noble Baroness's, but I think that on the figures she has quoted the ILEA is probably within its rights, because I do not think that the figures she has quoted would be more than a 20 per cent. reduction. But of course it is open to local residents to make representations to the authority about these reductions if they are concerned.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, does not the sum total of the English law on education—that is, the 1944 Act as well as the 1980 Act—make it absolutely clear that, no matter what rules the local authority may make, a parent may send his child to any school he wishes, provided there is a place, provided it is suitable for his age, ability and aptitude and provided the local authority is not involved in any undue expense? Provided those three criteria are met, is it not clear that a parent may send his child to any school he wishes?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, this is what I have been saying all afternoon. The answer is that under the 1980 Act we tried to make it possible to respect parental choice, but I think the noble Lord is quite right when he says, "provided there is a place available". I think what is worrying my noble friends behind me is that the ILEA is saying that there are not places available when maybe there are.