| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may deal with some points, particularly those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. First, we must all take the Audit Commission's reports extremely seriously. I worked with it for a long time and have the highest respect for the work it does. However, if we take the £100 million of let us not say wasted resources but under-used
resources in the education system as a result of an imbalance between the existing school places and the existing children, there will always be some imbalance. I do not find the figure too discouraging. When I was involved, the figure nationally was of a similar order, unless my memory has failed completely. We have not entirely managed to eliminate inflation, even though we have got it down to a low level and one which the country is not used to. That seems to suggest that the figure overall is stable, so in real terms it is decreasing. However, that is an academic economic argument that is perhaps not too relevant here, even though we should have regard to it.We also need to consider carefully what the Audit Commission says, as quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about power for agencies to plan and to manage. The agencies involved, particularly the LEAs, have an absolute responsibility in that field. The difficulty we all have, as did the Audit Commission, is that if there is a separation between plans and management and what parents actually desire for their children there is a problem. The Bill's purpose is to try to enable those who are most intimately involved and have the greatest direct responsibility to have a little more influence over what happens through the power of their own decision. For that reason, I hope that in due time, if it comes to it, the Committee will also reject these amendments.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness assured us that the amendments were about the surplus places and management of resources, if I put her words down correctly. It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 6, 219, 221 and 222, which seek to impose requirements for affirmative resolution on the order commencing under Schedule 1, are simply a delaying tactic and no more. The provisions of Schedule 1 and Clause 3 will have been fully debated here and in another place during the passage of the Bill. I believe that no useful purpose would be served by re-running the debate before the provisions come into effect.
As for Amendments Nos. 7 and 220, I believe that they are based on a misunderstanding of what Schedule 1 is about. The schedule is permissive. It offers schools new freedoms but does not compel any school to use them. So it makes little sense to try to predict the schedule's effects before it comes into force. Schedule 1 is about giving schools more flexibility to introduce or extend selection, and there is nothing in the schedule that would lead to the creation of more school places.
Clause 27 prevents any school, except one that is 100 per cent. selective by high ability, not just by ability--and they are invariably full--from keeping empty places that it cannot fill by selection. So it is hard to see what the inquiry proposed by the amendments would inquire into.
However, it would be right for me to say a word or two about the Audit Commission's Trading Places since the matter was raised by the noble Baroness. I agree with her and with the Audit Commission that it is an important subject. I am disappointed by some of the treatment it has received in the press and in other places. The commission acknowledges that standards have
improved significantly. That is good news and something that we should welcome. The recent report on published performance tables shows just that--a steady increase across the board. All the reforms we have introduced have been focused towards our core objective of raising standards. It is our view that higher standards are promoted by extending choice and diversity. The Bill does just that. It further extends the choice available to parents.We welcome the attention that the report gives to removing surplus places. The department has for some time been stressing the importance of that. We believe that considerable progress has been made in the area and that certain levels of surplus have been reduced by about half over the past 10 years. That is something of which the department and the LEAs responsible can be proud. But we share the commission's conclusion that more can be done and we shall encourage LEAs to follow the examples of good practice contained in the report. Officials within the department will continue to follow up with individual local authorities where the returns suggest to us that there is scope for action that has not been taken.
Finally, turning to the noble Baroness's point on grant-maintained schools opting out and, as she alleges, blocking progress in removing certain places, our position on grant-maintained schools facing closure is quite clear. The Audit Commission, sadly, does not quote it in full but it is set out, as the noble Baroness will be aware, in circular 23/94 which states that we will not approve applications for grant-maintained status which are prompted by the threat of closure arising in the context of a well-founded local rationalisation scheme, particularly where the school concerned has a significant amount of surplus capacity. But we would be minded to approve grant-maintained proposals from schools proposed for closure where we are not persuaded of the authority's case and where the school is viable and of good quality.
Since that statement was made, some 71 per cent. of schools seeking grant-maintained status in those circumstances have been approved for closure. I thought it would be useful for the noble Baroness to have the statement in full. I hope that she will therefore accept that the first part of the group of amendments is unnecessary and superfluous and that the second is based to some extent on a misunderstanding of what the schedule is about.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister repeated the problem identified by the Audit Commission and acknowledged in his reply that the purpose of these parts of the proposed legislation would be to extend choice and diversity. The basic tenor of the report from the Audit Commission is that it is precisely the existing level which causes conflict in the removal of surplus places.
The Minister referred to the reduction over a 10-year period. It is my understanding, from reading the report and the figures, that that process has been slowed down by the experience of local authorities and diocesan authorities when they have sought to rationalise surplus places. However, at this stage it is important to consider
the Minister's reply in detail and so with the Committee's agreement I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) A maintained school which admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to ability or aptitude, and which 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 higher priority to--
(i) proximity; or
(ii) being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted on the basis of proximity,
than to being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted by reference to their ability or aptitude.").
The noble Baroness said: This proposed new clause deals with the situation in which a maintained school admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to aptitude or ability and also within its admission arrangements gives priority on the basis of proximity to the school of a pupil's home and to the sibling of a pupil or former pupil. We wish to examine that in the context of pupils being in danger of being denied access to a school because the sibling of a pupil or a former pupil who has been selected on grounds of ability has priority over one who would not be selected on ability and could be denied access on grounds of proximity to the school.
It is important to offer and maintain an essential level of protected access for local children for the non-selective places in schools which include an element of selection within their admission arrangements. It is also critically important that, if partially selective schools are oversubscribed, numbers of local children do not find themselves displaced by children from more distant places who are admitted to the selective places, a significant number of whom may be drawn from outside the locality. That situation should not then be continued because of a policy of admitting the siblings of those children from a greater distance at the expense of children in the locality.
The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I rise briefly to support the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, its purpose is clear. I believe its language also is clear. It is a very important amendment. To me it appears to be an amendment about choice and that may appeal to the Minister. I know--I speak from experience of an LEA adversely affected by the Greenwich judgment--that one of the rights of choice which most parents feel they should have is for
I think the case has been made. The amendment is clear. It is not a matter of party political division but one of common sense. The amendment tries to ensure choice for parents who are denied that choice by virtue of the admission criteria. I support the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page