Requirement for Recoupment to Be Paid for Primary and Secondary Education

New clause 17 – in the House of Commons at 2:45 am on 24 March 1998.

Alert me about debates like this

'.—In section 492 of the Education Act 1996 (Recoupment: adjustment between local education authorities), for "may" in subsection (1) there shall be substituted "shall".'.—[Mr. Burstow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Paul Burstow Paul Burstow Shadow Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall endeavour not to detain the House too long. I should like to start with a positive comment. The aim of the new clause is to address the worst effects of the interplay of the Greenwich judgment, grant-maintained schools and selection, which can leave children in many parts of the country without a school place.

We want to allow the money to follow the pupil. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the report of its debates. The Liberal Democrats moved an amendment in Committee in an attempt to address the Greenwich judgment head on by reversing it. After debate, the amendment was withdrawn. We have reflected on what was said and have tabled the new clause in an attempt to move matters forward.

A number of problems arise from the Greenwich judgment. It is not relevant in every area, but the problems affect many, particularly those in large conurbations with a number of smaller local education authorities—areas where selection continues and there is a large number of grant-maintained schools. There has been a fragmentation of the admission and planning arrangements designed to meet the demand for places.

As a result, it can be increasingly difficult for a local education authority to match demand for places. Authorities have a statutory duty to provide school places, and some are trying to plan for that by increasing the number of places, while others have surplus places.

Those facing increasing demand for school places experience a volatility of demand that creates greater pressure on the overall supply. It is difficult for LEAs to anticipate or control that, and thus to fund it. In those circumstances, taking into account both market-led forces and the lead times for building new accommodation, it is difficult to meet the additional demand.

Within an individual LEA, the distribution of places is no longer a question of demography but one of parental choice—perfectly legitimate choice. In Sutton, my local education authority, the situation brought about by the Greenwich judgment on grant-maintained schools and selection means that on current projections, based on the continued inflow of out-of-borough pupils, there will be a shortfall of 2,400 places by 2003.

4.15 am

In Committee, there was a detailed debate about the effects of the Greenwich judgment—[Interruption.]—perhaps of the sort that is not possible in the Chamber at this hour in the morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The amendment was designed to reflect the concern of Liberal Democrat Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wake them up."] My hon. Friends certainly have those concerns, and we seek through the new clause another way of mitigating the worst effects of the judgment, without denying parental choice.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable local education authorities to charge other LEAs for pupils who come from elsewhere to be educated within their areas. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to do so under the Education Act 1996. It is our view that the standard spending assessment does not provide an adequate way of redressing the imbalance increasingly occurring between popular local education authorities and those with surplus places that are not doing as good a job.

The new clause represents a way in which we could begin to address that problem. I hope that the Government will give us a positive response, and that we shall be able to do something to stop the spoilt choice that parents and children in many LEAs now face.

Photo of Stephen Byers Stephen Byers Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Employment

New clause 17 would effectively reintroduce mandatory inter-authority recoupment in relation to pupil numbers. That is not a road down which the Government would wish to go, so if it is pressed to a vote, I shall ask the House to vote against it. However,I hope that we can avoid that, because the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised some important points about the consequences of the Greenwich judgment on payments for pupils in the home authority rather than the host authority where they may be attending school.

We believe that such matters are best dealt with through the standard spending assessment regime. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are conducting a wholesale review of the system with the intention of introducing new measures for April 1999. I can assure him that the concerns that he has just raised will be taken into account as part of that exercise. In the light of those assurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw new clause 17 and allow his concerns to be addressed as part of the review of the standard spending assessment regime.

Photo of Paul Burstow Paul Burstow Shadow Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful that he listened carefully to my remarks about the way in which the Greenwich judgment affects my authority and many others. It is not the effect on the LEA that concerns me and my colleagues—it is the effect on parents and children who find themselves unable to get a school place. However, having listened to the Minister's generous offer in respect of SSA methodology—which provides a way forward to address the funding issues—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.