---

School Admissions

8. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): How many parents did not secure their first choice of school in the last year for which figures are available. [194099]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The House will be pleased to know that research into secondary school admissions by Sheffield Hallam university and the Office for National Statistics shows that 96 per cent. of parents were offered places at schools for which they had expressed a preference, and 92 per cent. were offered places at schools that the admissions authority thought was their first preference.

Andrew Selous: As the Minister will know, the number of appeals by parents who have not been given places at the school of their choice has increased by 50 per cent. under this Labour Government, and a recent survey showed that some 70,000 parents moved house between April and September last year in an attempt to get their children into their chosen school. Why will the Minister not abolish the surplus places rule, and also ensure that schools have more freedom to take more children if they choose?

Mr. Miliband: It is a fine day when the Opposition's central policy is to abolish a rule that does not exist. There is no surplus places rule. Opposition Front Benchers' idea that they will make their way into government by abolishing something that was actually abolished by this Government's predecessor really does beggar belief.

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (Con): Does the Minister agree with the Select Committee on Education and Skills that the Government's rhetoric on school choice is entirely incompatible with the withdrawal of free school transport proposed in the School Transport Bill, which will be debated later today? Does he accept that, in response to a parliamentary question about what the Government had done for school choice, a Minister revealed that they had funded the expansion of only four popular schools? Would it not be better for the Government to adopt the Conservative policy, scrap the School Transport Bill and introduce a right to choose, so that 100,000 extra parents could be given places at their first choice of school?

Mr. Miliband: We will be discussing the Bill later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman what does not increase choice. It does not increase choice to take £1 billion and put it in the private sector for an assisted places scheme. It does not increase choice to allow primary as well as secondary schools to choose their pupils. And it
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1567
 
certainly does not increase choice to stop schools using distance as a criterion for entry. What sort of madness is that?

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): Does the Minister not recognise the considerable sense of injustice felt by parents whose children are denied admission to local community schools as their first choice because of outer-borough pupils coming in under the Greenwich judgment? Following the failure of the Camden compromise proposals in the High Court, will his Department take responsibility for coming up with alternative proposals?

Mr. Miliband: Of course I sympathise with any parent whose child is not given a place at the school of his or her choice, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that—especially in London, which has 32 boroughs—there will be a series of cross-borough movements by pupils whose nearest schools are across a boundary. I am not sure that his simplistic solution would work.

School Closures

9. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): How many secondary school closures there have been in Essex in the last five years. [194100]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I understand that in the last five years Essex county council has closed one secondary school, but that it was immediately replaced by a new voluntary-aided Church of England school on the same site.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister accept that Canvey Island children—excellent children, generally—need more facilities, and a greater focus on education? Does he agree with me, and with the excellent county councillor, Ray Howard, that there should be no proposal from Essex county council that would threaten one of our three excellent secondary schools on Canvey Island—not least because of the increased pupil numbers that would result from the 4,000 extra houses that the Government are forcing on it? [Interruption.]

Mr. Twigg: I am being heckled by my hon. Friends behind me and by the Liberal Democrats to remind the House that the council in question is a Conservative council, but I was not going to make a party political point in response to the hon. Gentleman's perfectly legitimate constituency matter. I am aware that the authority is in the middle of consultation, and we have received his representations, and representations from at least one parent in his constituency, on this matter. He will understand that I cannot comment beyond that, because this matter has to be decided at local level.

A-levels

10. Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) (Lab): If he will make a statement on grading of advanced level examinations. [194101]
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1568
 

The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government play no role in the grading of external examinations. That is the responsibility of the regulatory authorities and the awarding bodies. The final report of the working group on 14-to-19 reform makes a number of recommendations regarding the future grading and reporting of achievement at advanced level. We will address these proposals in detail in the form of a White Paper early in the new year.

Mr. McWilliam: Will my hon. Friend assure me and the House that he will in no circumstances reintroduce the unfair and disgraceful quota pass system?

Dr. Howells: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to go back to a system of setting quotas for those who can gain A-levels. We are interested in quality, not quotas. Surely, in a modern democracy, the basis for any public examination is that if someone meets the agreed standard, they pass. That is why the quota system was abolished by one of the intellectual architects of what used to pass for modern conservatism, the then Secretary of State for Education, Sir Keith Joseph.

Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): I know that my hon. Friend has a constituency similar to mine, in which levels of educational attainment at A-level and other levels are very low. In South Kirby, on my patch, 49 per cent. of the people have no qualifications at all, either at A-level or any other. In Featherstone, the figure is 47 per cent. These figures are obviously very poor. Does the Minister agree that we should be enhancing education provision in such constituencies? In that context, will he look carefully at the actions of the university of Leeds, which is now actively withdrawing facilities in the city of Wakefield, thereby depriving my constituents and others of educational opportunities?

Dr. Howells: I will certainly look into the activities of Leeds university on the Wakefield campus, and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to come back to him on that matter.

School Admissions

11. Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): What assessment he has made of the likely impact of changes to the school admissions system made by local education authorities. [194102]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The introduction of co-ordinated admission arrangements will make the admissions process smoother and easier for parents, who will be able to express all their school preferences on a single application form. It will put a stop to the current situation, in which some parents hold offers from two or more schools while others have none. It will instead ensure that all parents receive a single offer of a school place on the same date.

Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given his earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I know
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1569
 
that he will be well aware that the surplus places rule still operates in practice, not least in the form of the guidance that the Government issue to local education authorities. As all four of the secondary schools in my constituency are now effectively full, will the Government rescind the surplus places rule to allow good schools to expand? That is exactly what parents want.

Mr. Miliband: As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), said earlier, five of the first 11 questions today have been from hon. Members representing Essex. The Essex men have been busy, and I congratulate them. There are 600,000 spare places in the education system around the country, and it is precisely to take account of the situation in places such as Essex that we have made it much easier for successful and popular schools to expand, supported by a dedicated pot of capital expenditure. As the applications come in, they will be treated very sympathetically, precisely to allow that to happen. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that some schools do not want to expand, because they think they are the right size already.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): The Minister says that the new arrangements will make the process smoother and easier for parents, but does he know how stressful it is for parents and children? In the Ribble valley, parents have to put down all four of their choices, including the grammar school, as No. 1. If their youngsters fail to get through the examination process, not only do they not get their second, third or fourth choice but they are offered a place in a school many miles away in another borough. That is completely wrong. Would it not be far better to allow the youngsters to try the exams first and, if they failed, to offer them a place at another excellent local comprehensive school, rather than carting them off to a school many miles outside the area?

Mr. Miliband: What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that some children from some families should have two choices, or two bites of the cherry, while other children should only get one. The new system, which has been carefully tested in a range of authorities, has led to less stress, not more. There is a single form on which applications are made and a single date on which all parents get the results. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he writes to me with any details, we will look into them carefully. This is the first year of the new system rolling out nation wide. We are happy to assess how the system works in practice, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the reports that we are receiving suggest that the system is now much smoother, not more difficult.

Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): Has the Minister followed the coverage of the case of a single mother in Labour-controlled Reading who feels that her son's chance of a good education has been compromised by the introduction of a ranked preference scheme? Why did the Secretary of State allow that option to be made available to local education authorities, when his own code says that that variant

"may therefore lead to less parental satisfaction overall, where there is significant variability in schools' popularity and/or quality"?

 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1570
 

Does it not demonstrate yet again that, when it comes to school choice, the Government are all talk and no action?

Mr. Miliband: The Government's record suggests the opposite. We have moved from a position in which 450 schools were getting fewer than 25 per cent. of young people up to five A to C grades at GCSE to one in which about 60 per cent. are gaining those grades. Any talk from the Conservatives about how choice has been reduced is a load of nonsense. I have not seen the "Reading Advertiser" from which the hon. Gentleman got this particular story, but I am happy to talk to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), to find out more about the details.

---