§ Mr. SteinbergTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the recent Audit Commission report on the Government's policies in respect of parental choice over school places and provision. [10406]
§ Mr. Robin SquireThe Audit Commission's report "Trading Places" covers some important topics. I welcome the attention it gives to removing surplus
76W
Amounts per pupil and percentage of GSB—Section 122 1996–97 Aggregated schools budget Discretionary exceptions within the PSB Discretionary exceptions outside the PSB Mandatory exceptions LEA £ per pupil percentage of GSB £ per pupil percentage of GSB £ per pupil percentage of GSB £ per pupil percentage of GSB Barking/Dagenham 2,031 60.8 2,244 6.4 144 4.3 952 0.3 Barnet 1,994 67.3 2,230 8.0 171 5.8 561 0.2 Barnsley 1,512 70.9 1,705 9.1 179 8.4 248 0.1 Bath and North-east Somerset 1,926 77.1 2,147 8.8 161 6.5 190 0.1 Bedfordshire 1,771 73.6 1,916 6.0 205 8.5 167 0.1 Berkshire 1,825 76.8 1,953 5.4 109 4.6 314 0.1 Bexley 1,718 73.5 1,870 6.5 144 6.2 323 0.1 Birmingham 1,971 77.1 2,158 7.3 214 8.4 184 0.1 Bolton 1,694 74.6 1,913 9.7 201 8.8 156 0.1 Bradford 1,684 64.8 1,876 7.4 220 8.5 502 0.2 Brent 2,042 71.0 2,157 4.0 183 6.4 534 0.2 Bristol 2,113 78.7 2,328 8.0 157 5.9 199 0.1 Bromley 1,689 71.1 1,945 10.8 99 4.2 332 0.1 Buckinghamshire 1,704 68.6 1,914 8.4 136 5.5 437 0.2 places, which we have been emphasising for some time. I also welcome its acknowledgement that Government policies have driven up standards.
I am, however, disappointed with some of the simplistic conclusions the commission draws. There is no mismatch between LEAs' responsibilities and their powers. LEAs can determine their own priorities. They retain all the powers they need to manage the supply of school places and to respond, with other providers, to parental choice. It remains true that some LEAs have been rather slow in removing surplus places.