---

Schools (Sutton)

I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. I was not aware of the problems at Stanley Park. I pledge to take the matter away and to write to him as soon as possible. He will be aware that local authorities and primary care trusts are autonomous. However, by working in partnership, a good solution can be found that is in the interest of all. I turn to the importance of capital; the hon. Gentleman will understand that it provides investment in buildings and facilities. He will know better than I do that in 1997, capital spending on Sutton's schools was £4 million. Last year, it was £20 million. I realise that he will want me to address the specific concerns that he rightly raised today, but it is worth acknowledging that in the last dozen years, thanks to Government money, Sutton has built three new schools and substantially rebuilt a further six. It has added 169 classrooms and 61 science labs, and has improved sports facilities and modernised kitchens at a further 11 schools. Not only are Sutton's children and young people benefiting from higher standards of teaching, but they are being taught in modern, world-class and fit-for-purpose buildings and facilities. I hope that he does not mind my mentioning those matters, but it is important to put things in context, given the real success that has taken place over the past 12 years. The hon. Gentleman raised several concerns. I have dealt with Stanley Park, and have pledged to write to him on that subject. His central theme, however, was the provision of fair and accessible places for his constituents and their children in his constituency, and the question of out-of-borough students attending Sutton schools. He will know that local authorities have a responsibility to ensure fair access to educational opportunity. Councils are in the driving seat to ensure fair access for students. He will also know that maintained schools and academies, as well as local authorities, admission forums and school adjudicators, are all expected to act in accordance with the school admissions code and associated legislation. The Government have provided a strong framework for admissions authorities, so that they can set fair arrangements that support equity of access. Each school has an admissions authority to set its admission arrangements and decide which children will be offered places—for a community or voluntary-controlled school, it is the local authority, for a foundation or voluntary-aided school, it is the school's governing body. Grammar schools can lower their testing pass mark to help to accommodate some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, or they can set a percentage to allow more pupils from the local area to be admitted. It is important to stress that admissions authorities can operate any admission arrangements they choose, as long as they comply with admissions legislation and the school admissions code. As part of the consultation process, local admissions forums have a duty to look at admission arrangements in their area to ensure that they are fair, and that they do not affect fair access. Such a duty directly addresses the hon. Gentleman's concerns about out-of-borough arrangements. With the greatest respect to him, I suggest that he contact the London borough of Sutton, which is controlled by his own party, to ask it what plans it has to address the problems that have arisen from the Greenwich judgment, and how it will ensure that there is fair access and provision for his constituents' children in schools in the borough.