---

Schools Admissions Policy

8. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): What recent representations he has received on schools admissions policy; and if he will make a statement. [187701]
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 852
 

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The Education and Skills Select Committee has recently published a report into secondary school admission arrangements. It is under consideration and we will issue our response in due course.

Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister not embarrassed at the fact that appeals by parents who did not secure their first choice of school for their children against such decisions have recently risen by 50 per cent.? Does he not agree that it should be left to head teachers, governors and parents to decide which school should accept which child?

Mr. Miliband: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is suggesting that every school in the country should have its own admissions policy, with no possibility of appeal against it. Indeed, that is a further development. Last term, we heard that the Conservative party believes that there should be no distance criterion for admission to schools; that would throw into chaos the whole admissions system. Now, the hon. Lady says that every school should be able to invent its own admissions policy without an appeal system; that would be much worse than the current system. The latest research shows that approximately nine out of 10 youngsters get their first choice, and the best way to increase that number is to have more good schools. I would have expected the hon. Lady to applaud the rising attainment levels, especially in previously weak schools that have struggled to get first choice preferences. That is what this Government have pledged to do.

Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend accept that, as evidence from the Education and Skills Committee shows, appeals processes and admissions systems work most smoothly when there is a single, local authority-based admissions authority? So rather than prescribing myriad different admissions authorities, we should consider the Committee's evidence, which shows that when there is a single admissions authority, everyone, including parents, understands the rules. Such a system creates fairness and leaves parents feeling more satisfied than the alternative, which leads to great frustration.

Mr. Miliband: I was able to discuss this issue with the Education and Skills Committee when it questioned me in July. It is important to note that the co-ordinated admissions system that is being introduced means that no longer will parents send different forms to different schools in different authorities; rather, there will be a single admissions process. Schools will continue to have rights over their admissions where appropriate—Church schools are an example—but there will be a co-ordinated process. Early evidence from the work in Enfield and elsewhere shows that a co-ordinated admissions process makes a big difference to the satisfaction felt by parents, and brings greater clarity to the system. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that.

Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): Has the Minister noted the conclusions of recent research showing that very bright pupils will do well in any secondary school, whether grammar or comprehensive, but that children at the margins—those who have only just passed the
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 853
 
11-plus—achieve considerably more in grammar schools than their equivalent cohorts in comprehensive schools? Does the Minister believe that there are any lessons to be learned about the ethos of those schools and the sort of teaching carried out in them, and will he learn some of those lessons and apply them to the whole of the secondary sector?

Mr. Miliband: There are some lessons to be learned from the evidence. Unfortunately, we disagree about what those lessons are. On this side of the House, we do not believe that selection at five and 11 provides the right way forward. Conservative Members are proposing that every school, primary and secondary, should be able to have its own selection criteria for admissions, but we do not believe, as I said, that having a five-plus or an 11-plus is the best way forward for this country. Over the past 30 years, since the introduction of mass comprehensive schooling, there has been a doubling of GCSE performance, especially among girls. I would have thought that that would be a source of pride and, indeed, a source of evidence that the hon. Lady should take into account.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of admissions interviews in denominational schools? Such interviews not only enable schools to assess the credibility of references, but have a pastoral benefit in enabling those schools that wish to continue with interviews to gain a better understanding of the child's needs and personal circumstances. Under the co-ordinated system, schools have to rely solely on the local education authority to relay information to parents about the ethos of each school, how it differs from other schools and whether it offers what they want for their child. With the banning of admissions interviews, that valuable link between schools and prospective parents and pupils has been lost.

Mr. Miliband: The House really needs to understand the extraordinary spectacle that we are seeing this morning. The hon. Lady has divorced her party from the position of the Churches on this issue. Both the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service made strong representations that the old mechanisms were not the right ones to use and that the testing of religious affiliation should not be done by interview, but on an objective basis. I am very sorry that the hon. Lady has decided that now is the time for a split between her position and that of the Churches on this matter. We have followed the strong representations made by the Churches and introduced an objective approach—not based on an interview. The hon. Lady would do well to follow the Churches and us in that respect.

Higher Education Act

9. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the effects on the current cohort of university students of the Higher Education Act 2004. [187702]

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The current cohort of students will not pay the new variable fees, but will benefit from the abolition of up-front fees in 2006, from an improved system for student complaints and from better
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 854
 
arrangements for research in arts and humanities. The current cohort of students will also benefit from the introduction of the higher education grant of up to £1,000 this year and from the increase in the repayment threshold to £15,000 in 2005.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I add that the current cohort of students will continue to benefit from the high standards offered by the university system in the UK. I hope that he will take the opportunity to congratulate Cambridge university on coming third in the world league of universities, as well as coming first in the world league of teaching excellence. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he publicises the changes and effects of the Higher Education Act 2004 for the present cohort of students, most of whom are completely oblivious to the advantages that it will bring?

Mr. Clarke: First, I am happy to congratulate Cambridge university on its achievement. I took the opportunity of having a conversation with the vice-chancellor yesterday in which we discussed what had led to the university's great success. I am indeed happy to place on record my congratulations on its achievement. I also agree with my hon. Friend's point that publicity about the precise meaning of the changes as they affect each individual is very important, and it will continue to be important as people consider applying for university education in the future. We have a substantial programme of public information to get that across. It has already started to be rolled out, but will be rolled out more fully in order to meet the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): When the Higher Education Funding Council considers bids from universities to expand their student numbers, will it have regard to whether a particular institution meets the Government's access requirements? Will it give favoured consideration to high-performing universities, such as the university of York, that meet the Government's requirements on access to people from all walks of life?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot commit myself on the university of York's bid, although before the recess my hon. Friend arranged for me to visit the university to discuss with senior people there the meaning of their bid. However, I can tell him that, when it makes such decisions, HEFC must take into full account the contribution made by particular universities to the policies on improving access to higher education that both it and the Government espouse.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the debate on the Higher Education Act 2004, we were on opposite sides of the argument about variable fees. However, we were on exactly the same side when it came to the importance of improving financial support for poorer students. Will he therefore remind the House why, in his reforms, he quite rightly ruled out charging a commercial rate of interest on student loans? Was it
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 855
 
because that policy would have been regressive and unfair in its effects on poorer students and lower-earning graduates?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In 2002, for the benefit of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, we set out our detailed analysis of the impact of real rates of interest. Unlike the Opposition, we rejected the possibility of charging a commercial rate of interest on student loans. First, that was because we did not want people to be penalised if they decided on a career—for example, with a charity or a Church—that was low paid. We thought that ability to pay was important. Secondly, we did not want to penalise women who decided not to work for a period of time after university so that they could bring up a family, as they could find that they would be hit by a real rate of interest of 8 per cent. Thirdly, we did not want people to have to pay back up to £60,000 on a loan of £10,000, which is what a real interest rate of 8 per cent. would add up to.

Those issues arose during our stewardship of education, and those were the decisions that we took. We need to see how others would seek to conduct their stewardship.

---