| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New clause 2
'School premises
( )--(1) The Secretary of State shall conduct and publish a review of regulations relating to the size and standard of school premises for the purposes specified in subsection (3) below.
(2) Before undertaking such a review, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to her to be concerned.
(3) The purpose of the review referred to in subsection (1) above shall be to enable the Secretary of State to consider, before bringing into force under section 72(3) below any provision amending the provisions of section 259A of the Education Act 1996, the effect on the efficient use of premises and the creation of surplus places of any such provision.'.--[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.
I remind the House that, some time ago, the Government removed the space regulations that applied to our schools. Many of us have been concerned about the removal of those regulations, fearing that in certain circumstances it may lead to further overcrowding in schools. There is clear evidence that the Government are keen on the uncontrolled expansion of pupil numbers in some schools. The matter was debated in relation to new clause 3, which was defeated last night, and discussed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their meeting to
28 Jan 1997 : Column 183
It is important to consider the implications of the uncontrolled expansion of schools proposed by the Government. The best evidence of the potential consequences comes from the Audit Commission report entitled "Trading Places", which I am sure that many hon. Members have seen.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The hon. Gentleman will see that I also have a copy of the report. Will he remind the House of the timing of our debate in Standing Committee and the timing of the publication of that document?
Mr. Foster:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He was present in the Standing Committee and is aware of the amazing juxtaposition of those dates. The day after we concluded our deliberations in Committee, the report was published. Had it been available to us in Committee, we might have had an even more well-informed debate on the Government's proposals.
The report contains an indictment of the Government's proposals for the uncontrolled expansion of schools. It identifies a direct conflict between promoting grant-maintained schools and ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places. Since GM status was introduced, 40 per cent. of schools that local education authorities wanted to close have remained open by opting out, despite the clear commitment that opting out was not to be a route used by schools to avoid an LEA reorganisation proposal.
The report shows that the cost of promoting choice undermines the need to control public expenditure, and that there is no clear evidence of the Government's policy in that regard. It reveals a breakdown in the system of capital allocations to schools, which has prevented LEAs from maintaining--let alone improving--their school buildings. It shows the total confusion caused by the Government's use of two different definitions of school capacity, resulting in great overcrowding, especially in popular primary schools.
The report calls on the Government to revise their policies on GM status for schools facing reorganisation, capital allocation to schools, the definition of school capacity, parental choice, and the balance between parental choice and surplus places.
The report suggests that more effective power should be given to local agencies, especially LEAs, to plan provision, in marked contrast to the Government's current proposals to allow the unfettered expansion of some schools. It recommends that local agencies should have more powers to manage the market, and that an improved set of incentives should be introduced to promote value for money.
In the light of the Audit Commission report, the Minister will have to reconsider parts of the Bill and new clause 3, which the Government will no doubt seek to reintroduce in another place. The report is a condemnation of existing and planned Government policies. Although it is couched in the impeccably professional terminology that one would expect from the Audit Commission, its recommendations, taken together, raise serious questions about the Government's policy approach.
28 Jan 1997 : Column 184
The attempt to replace rational planning with a market-driven consumerist approach is, according to the evidence in the report, patently failing to deliver parental choice or real diversity and, as far as the Audit Commission can tell, is not even leading to a rise in standards in our schools.
In reviewing recent experience, the Audit Commission paints a picture that is all too familiar to education officers, head teachers and parents in many parts of the country. Nationally, nearly 20 per cent. of schools are operating at 105 per cent. or more of their physical capacity and more than 50 per cent. of primary classrooms offer less space per pupils than recommended. There is overcrowding in spite of the fact that in popular schools
Parental satisfaction--or lack of it--can also be measured by the increase in primary and secondary appeals of 58 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively between 1992 and 1995. In one example, the "plethora of admission arrangements" means that parents have a choice of seven varieties of school, with a large number of schools of each variety, many of which have individual admission arrangements. The net result is that one group of parents can hold on to a sheaf of offers while others go through an appeals procedure that frequently causes parents distress and must have serious effects on the pupils involved.
The study quotes the evidence of a specially commissioned MORI poll on secondary transfer, the first such poll to dig beneath the surface of parental choice. It found that, in addition to the 10 per cent. of parents who did not get their first choice of school, another 9 per cent. did not even feel able to ask for their genuine first preference, in case it stopped them getting their second or third genuine preference.
In some parts of London, where the Government's encouragement to parents to shop around has been made much easier by the Greenwich judgment--whereby local authorities are prevented from offering any priority to their own residents--49 per cent. of parents are failing to obtain a place for their child in their genuine first preference school. Huge numbers of children trek across the capital to distant schools and other children travel from Brighton to schools in south London.
Mr. Forth:
Will the hon. Gentleman name them?
Mr. Foster:
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to name them. I have not yet had the opportunity on the Floor of the House to congratulate the Minister on his recent elevation and I do so now, but I strongly suggest that he should talk to LEAs such as Richmond and ask them about the serious difficulties created by the Greenwich judgment.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I was inviting him to name some of the children who are trekking across London to better schools. I thought that the House might be illuminated by that information.
Mr. Foster:
No doubt the Minister is hoping that I will refer to some of his would-be future constituents and give
28 Jan 1997 : Column 185
By far the shortest chapter in the Audit Commission report is that dealing with the impact on LEA performance. A minority of LEAs are criticised for failing to close schools or tackle the problem of small sixth forms. However, there is scant mention of schools threatening to seek grant-maintained status if reorganisation, let alone closure, is even mooted. The report makes no mention of the Education Bill, which will enable grant-maintained schools to expand by 50 per cent. and to open a sixth form and a nursery without having to seek approval. Had such a reference been made, I have no doubt that the condemnation in the report would have been even greater.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Quite manifestly, those schools would not be seeking to increase their numbers if they did not have demand from parents. We are in favour of parental choice.
Mr. Foster:
The hon. Lady has failed to understand the principles underlying the Government's proposals. Let me explain. At present, it is perfectly possible for a popular school to expand its numbers subject to approval and the appropriate funding becoming available within the local education authority arrangements, but those arrangements require the publication of the appropriate statutory notices, the appropriate consultation and, if there are objections, the ultimate opportunity for the Secretary of State to reject those proposals if, for example, he believes that they may have significant damaging effects on the education provided in neighbouring schools.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) fails to recognise that the Government are now proposing to allow schools to expand without even seeking the approval of the Secretary of State and certainly without taking into account the impact of that expansion on the education provided in neighbouring schools. She should reflect on the fact that in the past, under current arrangements, the Secretary of State has rejected proposals for the expansion of certain schools, no doubt for good reasons. Whatever other concerns she might have, the hon. Lady ought to be concerned about the constitutional position. Individual schools are given the unfettered right to do almost whatever they want, regardless of the impact on any other schools and without the Secretary of State having the right to intervene.
To return to the Audit Commission report, the most telling comment on Government policy is contained in the long chapter devoted to the impact of national policy. It states:
28 Jan 1997 : Column 186
"'choice' is primarily exercised by the schools deciding which pupils they will accept . . . rather than by parents deciding which school their children will attend."
5.30 pm
"the pursuit of a wide range of competing objectives has generated tensions and conflicts . . . and risks the school planning system becoming gridlocked."
That must concern us all. The report states that ways must be found to avoid the impending gridlock in the allocation of places and to restore parental confidence in a system in which recent changes have led to more overcrowding, a frantic scramble for places in popular schools at infant, junior and secondary level, more appeals, higher levels
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |