---

Schools (Sutton)

Miss Begg, may I tell you that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would also like to make a brief contribution to the debate, as the matter affects both our constituencies? The Minister's office will, if it has done its homework, have spotted from past debates that the matter was first raised by the two Members of Parliament for the constituencies in the London borough of Sutton as long ago as May 2001, when the Minister was Estelle Morris, who subsequently became Secretary of State for Education and Skills and is now in another place. The Minister may not feel that our arguments have any validity, but he must at least acknowledge that they have been consistent over the past nine years. Nine years after that debate, the issues are just as pertinent. Sutton has outstanding schools. That is in no doubt. I checked the Times Online website yesterday and several Sutton schools—Nonsuch, Wilson's and Sutton grammar—appear high on its list of high-performing schools. Also, interestingly, Stanley Park high school, one of our local comprehensive schools, has recently been identified as one of the top 10 fastest improving schools in England, which is a tribute to the excellent work of the head teacher, governors, teachers and pupils. We have a very good range of schools in the borough and their strength has made Sutton a victim of its own success. Anecdotally, if the Minister wanted to come to Sutton, he could see children from all over London and the south-east piling off trains at Carshalton and other local stations, to go to schools in the borough. The statistics on children educated in the London borough of Sutton who come from other boroughs or counties show that in some selective schools, just a quarter of the year 7 intake comes from within the borough, with three quarters coming from outside of borough. In others, the ratio is slightly lower, but still perhaps one third come from within the borough, and two thirds from outside. By contrast, many of the comprehensives take, as one would expect, a significant percentage of their pupils—close to 100 per cent.—from within the borough. If those figures are averaged out across the borough's secondary schools, the ratio shows that roughly two thirds of pupils in our schools are from within the borough and one third are from outside it. That, again, is a reflection of the very strong performance of Sutton's schools. When we have argued in the Chamber for changes to the system, which would give Sutton pupils greater priority in Sutton schools, the Government have said that we are arguing for the removal of choice. In the debate held nine years ago, the Minister responsible spoke about asking""a Government to change a system where we are doing what we can to give as many parents their first choice of school, regardless of where they live".—[Official Report, 2 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 294WH.]" Unfortunately, her argument does not stack up. In Sutton, there is limited choice, if any, for most pupils, for the simple reason that the pupils with choice are either those who score a very high result—not just a pass—in the 11-plus or its equivalent, or those, clearly, whose parents can afford to pay for private education. Apart from those two categories, for the overwhelming majority of parents and pupils in Sutton, the only choice—if they are lucky—comes from their happening to live close to a comprehensive school. If they do not—and the schools are located in such a way that they may not, if they live in certain parts of the borough—they may have no choice, or none of a school in the borough. Thus parents who live literally across the road from a very good local school, to which they are keen to send their children, are told, "I'm sorry; we can't give you a place there, but we have identified a place in a Croydon or Kingston school"—although, incidentally, parents who live in the vicinity of those schools have voted with their feet to take their children elsewhere. The borough therefore has to tell parents, "We can offer you a school that is far from where you live, and one to which ideally you would not want to send your child." The principal factors in play are the Greenwich judgment and selection. In relation to the Greenwich judgment, I understand the Government's argument—and I think it is a strong one—that if a school is located close to a boundary with another borough it does not necessarily make sense to say that the borough in which the school is located should have exclusive rights over places. I acknowledge that; but equally it is not right that the borough should, as in the example I just gave, have to tell parents that although they are Sutton council tax payers they cannot be offered a place in a Sutton school. That is just as ludicrous as a pupil who lives across in the road in, say, Merton, being unable to go to the school in Sutton. That issue needs to be addressed, and perhaps more flexibility could be shown on the operation of the Greenwich judgment, to allow Sutton at least to be able to make parents an offer of a school place in the borough. The second issue is selection. As I have acknowledged, some schools in Sutton are among the highest achieving in the country academically, because their admissions are based on selection. I think that the decision about whether schools should operate selectively should be taken locally by councillors, but there are ways in which those schools could tweak their admission procedures to allow entry to more pupils from the borough. For instance, a system that would still require children to pass the 11-plus or its equivalent, without requiring them to get 98 per cent. in the exam, could be a way of ensuring greater representation of local children in local schools. It is disappointing that the schools adjudicator did not support the borough when it deployed that argument. A further issue concerns faith schools. One of Sutton's faith schools uses a very tight definition of Christianity, and if it were to be slightly more flexible about its focus on Catholic religion, rather than Christianity, it might allow more local pupils to get in. Selection and the Greenwich judgment have affected the borough significantly. We can change those things slightly to improve the probability that Sutton schools will be for Sutton pupils, and to make that a reality. I have one further point to make, which I have not mentioned to the Minister—unless my office managed to get the message through to him—about something that was confirmed for me on Friday about the new Stanley Park high school. I was informed a couple of months ago that it was proceeding full steam ahead. The school will be built with Building Schools for the Future funding. I was told that the primary care trust and the local authority had agreed the sale of the land; the PCT land was to be sold to the borough. A couple of months ago, I was assured that the problem was resolved, but I understand from my meeting on Friday that it is not. If the Minister is to take one thing away from this debate, I hope that he will talk to whichever Health Minister has responsibility for oversight of the primary care trust and ask him to say to the PCT, "We need you to make a decision on this, because the future of a new school built with Building Schools for the Future funding depends on you releasing that land." That has to happen promptly if the school is to open in September 2011. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the subject is raised elsewhere. We need an answer, because I want to see that school opening its doors in September 2011. I am sure that the Minister—he is an Education Minister—would also like to see that happen.