---

Ms Estelle Morris: That argument is rather difficult to accept from a Government who prescribe almost everything that occurs in education and who retain so many powers. The Minister said that it is not appropriate to set yearly literacy targets in education, but there is nothing more important than ensuring that our young people master literacy at an early age. If they do not succeed in primary school, they have little chance of mastering literacy at a secondary level. Literacy is central to learning, and too many children do not achieve the required levels of literacy at age 11.

Targets are important at the key stages, but much learning occurs between the ages of five and seven, seven and 11, and 11 and 14. If teachers do not identify what is going wrong at age eight, three valuable years will be wasted before the problems are discovered at age 11. The new clause calls for constant monitoring and target setting so that every child may improve his or her literacy standards year on year. That is what parents want. I cannot think that any parents would resent the Government's requiring their children to be set targets in order to improve their literacy skills year on year.

The Minister refuses to accept a simple new clause that requires that targets be set so that every child may improve his or her literacy skills on a yearly basis. Opposition Members have made clear the importance that we attach to high standards of literacy, and we believe that every child should improve in that area year on year. We want schools and everyone else to support children in achieving those targets. I am sure that parents and teachers would welcome the move, which would be good for pupils and for education standards in this country. I regret very much that the Minister will not accept the new

28 Jan 1997 : Column 180

clause. However, as I am conscious of the need to make progress in considering the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 1

Siblings

'( )--(1) A maintained school which admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to ability or aptitude, and also within its admission arrangements accords priority--
(a) on the basis of the proximity of a pupil's home to the school; and
(b) to a sibling of a pupil or former pupil
shall accord a greater measure of priority on the basis of--
(a) proximity; or
(b) being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted on the basis of proximity
than that accorded to a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted by reference to their ability or aptitude.'.--[Mr. Don Foster.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware of my opposition to selection--and particularly partial selection--in schools. New clause 1 tries to draw attention to what I suspect may be an unexpected outcome of the Government's proposals to extend opportunities for partial selection in schools.

It is well known that in the event of over-subscription, schools normally include in the admission arrangements provision for the allocation of places on the basis of proximity to the school, with additional priority given to siblings. The criteria for the allocation of places must be published, clear and ranked in order of priority. When a school is partially selective, other criteria will obviously apply to the non-selective places. If a partially selective school is over-subscribed, it is likely that a number of local children will be displaced by children from more distant areas who are admitted under the selection process. A significant proportion of those children will live outside the locality that the school serves; otherwise, there would be little point in a school becoming partially selective. I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) accepts that point.

5.15 pm

Unless local children and their siblings receive a higher degree of priority on allocation of the non-selective places than do the siblings of children who were admitted in previous years to selective places, the proportion of non-selective places offered to children from distant areas will increase incrementally over time, thereby denying access to local children. My point is clear: if there is a partially selective system and a sibling rule, over time there will be diminished opportunities for local children to attend their local school.

For example, if a school admits 150 pupils annually and we assume that 30 per cent. of its intake--or 45 pupils--are selected according to ability, 105 non-selective places will remain to be filled. However, if the operation of partial selection continues

28 Jan 1997 : Column 181

in year 2 and 10 places are allocated to the siblings of pupils admitted to selective places in the previous year--a large percentage of whom will live outside the normal catchment area--only 95 non-selective places will remain for local children. As the years pass, an increased number of children from distant areas and their siblings will be admitted to selective places. If sibling priority is ranked higher than proximity, the inevitable outcome will be the incremental loss of non-selective places to children who gain access purely on the basis of proximity. Therefore, we can protect local children's access to local schools only by giving greater priority to proximity and to the siblings of those admitted on the grounds of proximity.

When we debated the issue in Committee, it was apparent from the Minister's response that she did not understand that consequence of the Government's proposed legislation. I hope that she has reflected on her remarks since then and that she will now support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) moved a similar amendment in Committee, although it was certainly different from the new clause that he has moved today. He did so with a great deal of frivolity, suggesting that he was emulating the style of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member forMid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). However, by his own admission, "It clearly did not work"--and it is clearly not working today.

Opposition Members have shown on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that they would like the Government to prescribe schools' admission arrangements. However, the Government believe that the schools and local education authorities are in the best position to take an informed view about the admission arrangements that best suit them and their localities.

Mr. Don Foster: Would it be possible under current legislation for a local education authority to include in its admission arrangements the procedures that I propose in the new clause?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is quick to get to his feet. His question will be answered firmly at the end of my contribution to the debate.

The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned about schools attracting a higher number of children who are not local to the school. If the problem of a shortage of places for local children arises for whatever reason, the LEA or the Funding Agency for Schools will take the necessary action. The planning authorities are used to ensuring a proper supply of places in an area and taking account of demand from other LEA areas.

A neighbourhood comprehensive does not have to be a parent's only choice. We believe that parents want different types of schools from which to make a choice for their child. The hon. Gentleman will admit that parents have long sought places in denominational single-sex schools and in grammar schools in other LEA areas. There is nothing new about that.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, if schools want to give priority to siblings of children admitted by selection, that must be a matter for them. Likewise, if they

28 Jan 1997 : Column 182

wish to change their admission criteria in line with the new clause, they are free to do so. I therefore reject the new clause.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister advocates the primacy of parental choice. I understand that, but will she tell the House who makes the choice where there is over-subscription? Does the school make the choice, or do the parents make it, when they cannot gain access to a school that they would dearly like their child to attend?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman knows that, unfortunately, some parents are disappointed and cannot send their child to the school of their choice. We remain firmly committed to the principle of selection, allowing schools to choose how they bring in that selection. The permissive provisions in the Bill are firmly supported by Conservative Members.

Mr. Kilfoyle rose--

Mrs. Gillan: I will not give way a second time to the hon. Gentleman. I had finished my remarks. I reject new clause 1.

Mr. Don Foster: Many LEAs will be interested in the debate and will take note of the Minister's clear assurance that it is within their present power to introduce the admission arrangements set out in the new clause.

As all hon. Members want to make swift progress in our further consideration of the Bill, and as there may be an opportunity to return to the matter in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

---