| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will the whole of the three-yearly budget for schools, which presumably will increase year on year, be funded by the central formula grant, without taking into account local authority demands for annual increases in council tax, and will local authorities influence the distribution of the grant within their areas?
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): Given that my right hon. Friend wants to give parents more choice, and that the state has parental responsibility for looked-after children, what is he going to do to address the fact that 73 per cent. of such children leave school without any educational qualifications? Is it not about time that children in care got access to the very best and most popular schools?
Mr. Clarke: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his record in campaigning on this issue. There are some 60,000 looked-after children, and their educational achievement is very poor. I can confirm that we have agreed a public service target to drive up educational standards for such children; indeed, this will be a central theme, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): On the surplus places rule, are local authorities still obliged to do something about a problem that they can no longer realistically control, or is their new role to be the unwelcome undertaker for unlucky schools?
Mr. Clarke: Absolutely the opposite: their new role is to drive up standards in the existing area and to focus on doing so in a proper way. Every local authority, including the hon. Gentleman's own, will have identified areas of educational failure, particular groups who are not getting the education that they need, and subjects that are perhaps not being taught as well as they should. It is the role of the LEA to drive up standards, and the proposals that I have announced today will assist in that regard.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab): Who will decide what constitutes a fair admissions policy? For example, if local parents want their children to go to a specialist and/or foundation school that is single gender and faith-based, will its policy have to be adapted so that it becomes co-educational and takes children with or without any religion?
Mr. Clarke:
The short answer is that the Secretary of State decides on such matters by establishing a code of admissions that applies to all schools, including the ones to which my hon. Friend refers. It is a major subject of discussion as to whether the code should make statements on gender, single-sex education, faith
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1022
schools and so on, and what those statements should be. The Secretary of State will continue to deal with such matters—in contrast with the policy of the Conservatives, who argue that they should be dealt with instead by each individual school.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Bullet point 4 states, "More places in popular schools. There is no surplus places rule." Is the Secretary of State aware that many parents in my constituency want to send their children to King Edward VII school or to Springwood high school, but are being told that those schools cannot expand so long as there are surplus places in King's Lynn? What are his views on that?
Mr. Clarke: I hope that, in the light of our proposals, the hon. Gentleman will be an enthusiastic supporter of them.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the fact that the vast majority of parents do not wish to have their children's access to good schools denied on the ground of a spurious test of ability at the age of 11, and his commitment to a code of practice on school admissions that excludes ability as a criterion for selection. But does he agree that there is a fundamental contradiction between a policy that places parental choice at its heart, and a policy that enables 3,000 secondary schools to become their own admissions authorities, and thereby to establish the oversubscription criterion? Either parents choose the schools or schools choose the children; which is it going to be?
Mr. Clarke: A national code of admissions deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to his involvement in this debate over many years, and I know that he was very keen that the Select Committee of which he is a member should conduct the inquiry it is in the process of concluding. I shall certainly look very carefully at its recommendations.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Given the Secretary of State's clear assertion that there is no surplus places rule, will he give an equally clear guarantee now that any oversubscribed school that wants to expand will be able to do so immediately?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot give that absolute assurance for a very simple reason: in deciding what to do, such schools have to take account of the local situation, of other schools in the area, of the adjudicator, and so on. [Interruption.] Of course they do. The idea that they can have an unequivocal right in this regard is simply not correct. The question is: can we achieve more flexibility? We believe that we can.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by definition, more places in popular schools means more unfilled places in other schools? Does he understand that some of us are concerned about the potential disadvantage of a policy that is based on even more choice? One pupil's choice can be another's half-empty, struggling and inferior school.
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1023
Mr. Clarke: I accept that my hon. Friend raises serious issues. When I visited a school in his constituency a few months ago, we discussed that matter. However, I would say that the genie of parental choice cannot—and, in my opinion, should not—be put back in the bottle. The fact is that the exercise of parental choice is an important process and I believe that we need as flexible a system as possible to meet the choice agenda. I acknowledge the fears that my hon. Friend reflects, but I believe that the system that we have established meets them.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): How does the Secretary of State expect to meet his very ambitious school building programme when the leading private finance initiative contractor for schools is currently on the brink of bankruptcy? Has he conducted any discussions to establish how massive disruption and cost escalation can be avoided when PFI contracts go belly up?
Mr. Clarke: The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman refers to only one of a series of contractors, and we are keeping a close eye on the situation. The fundamental issue is that the PFI is only part of our overall schools capital programme. Moreover, the performance or otherwise of a particular contractor is not the central theme of the whole capital programme and will not direct it in any particular way.
Claire Ward (Watford) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that nationally 10 per cent. of children do not succeed in getting into one of their choices of school. In the Watford area, about 15 per cent. do not get into one of their three choices of preferred schools. What message does my right hon. Friend have for parents—[Hon. Members: "Vote Conservative."] That would make it worse. Can my right hon. Friend assure parents in Watford that this package of ideas will improve their choices and that schools will not be able to continue to act, as they do now, on the basis of partial selection?
Mr. Clarke: I have spoken to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions about the circumstances in her constituency. To illustrate my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), there are some patches of the country where the problem of lack of choice is more acute than in others—and that certainly applies to Watford where there have been lengthy discussions, as well as legal challenges, between Watford schools and the adjudicator. Gradually, there has been a diminution in the ability of certain schools to admit pupils on the basis of parental choice. I believe that the message that we are sending out, both through the single annual review and the foundation groups of schools, will work in the right direction towards achieving my hon. Friend's objectives. I commit myself to working with her to ensure that the choices of Watford's parents are properly met.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con):
What is the real difference between allowing city colleges and specialist schools partially to select on the basis of aptitude as opposed to ability? Is not the Secretary of State's language bogus and a sham?
8 Jul 2004 : Column 1024
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |