London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Freer and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I support the Third Reading of the Bill, which has been subjected to immense scrutiny. There have been opportunities for detailed discussion of all aspects, including every clause and every line of the Bill.

[Mike Freer]

On the point about scrutiny, will my hon. Friend join me in thanking our hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for their work in scrutinising the Bill? It is fair also to thank our colleagues—for instance, our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—for their principled and resilient scrutiny as the Bill proceeded through the House.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I add my congratulations to the Members who served on the Committee and who have contributed during this debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for his stalwart work in piloting the Bill through this place and making extremely rapid progress since we were both elected in May 2010, considering the slow progress that had been made up till then.

I remind colleagues that the Bill may have entered the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 2007, but its gestation began long before that as a wish list from the 32 London boroughs and the City of London. I well remember seeing a very long wish list prior to the Bill being presented to the House. That list has been considerably reduced.

It is important that we consider the wide range of ideas that emerged on Report. It was suggested that the council officials who were to serve penalty notices should wear a uniform, with a bowler hat, or that they should wear a fine tabard properly approved by the College of Arms. I trust we have accepted that that is not quite what we intended, and that it will not be implemented across London. But many good ideas have been accepted and encapsulated within the Bill, as amended. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has acted in a coherent and co-operative way in order to take in the ideas of others, which have been welcomed across the piece.

There can be no denying that there has been a huge amount of scrutiny of the Bill and the powers within it. Among the topics raised on Third Reading was that of turnstiles on public toilets. The purpose is to do away with the need for toilets to be staffed and for the councils to retain the money that will come from the use of the toilets by members of the public. There is nothing new in that in many parts of London, but those toilets are often operated by private companies, as opposed to the public authorities. That will change, and it is important.

Another issue was the sale of cars on the internet. We dealt with that on Report, but it is important that we put on record now what it is all about. At present, if people sell cars on the public highway and put notices in the cars, that is an offence and action can be taken. However, if unscrupulous individuals do not put notices in the cars but just park them on the public highway and advertise them on the internet, no action can be taken. The Bill allows council officers to clamp down on that practice, which is a scourge on many London streets. The measure will be widely welcomed across London.

The Bill has been scrutinised on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in an Unopposed Bill Committee in another place. It adds to the nine previous Bills that London authorities have put through in order to give London boroughs greater powers to take action on issues that matter to Londoners. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by London residents. They will see it as allowing action to be taken against those who disobey the law. I trust that visitors from the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch, for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who have all contributed to the debates, will not be upset by the outcome.

I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) in advance for their support for the Bill, and all 32 London boroughs and the City of London for their support. I trust the House will give it an unopposed Third Reading tonight.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mike Freer and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is beginning to expose one of the problems that the Bill seeks to resolve. When CPZs are put into residential streets in London, up to 80% of parking bays are often removed because of legislation that specifies the space in which parking is permitted, and residents are charged a premium to park in their own streets. The Bill’s opponents would like that to be imposed on the whole of London, rather than favouring sensible regulation to control on-street trading.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. Those of us who have had to implement widespread CPZs in our boroughs know that wherever there is a crossover edging must be allowed on either side, and wherever there is a junction there must be regulation on yellow lines and on signage. CPZs are not only increasing street clutter but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, reducing the amount of parking, which is already at a premium in London.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I take the libertarian view that regulation of, and taxes on, legitimate businesses are excessive, and I should like to do everything possible to ensure that that burden is reduced. But until the Government bring forward a true bonfire of regulation and a true reduction in business taxes, and until we can achieve the utopia for which we strive, we have to live in the real world and deal with a pressing problem that is affecting London residents.

School Places (Finchley)

Debate between Mike Freer and Bob Blackman

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Thank you for granting permission for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must first apologise for delaying the House prior to the recess.

Education is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, as is allowing good schools to expand. On Monday the Secretary of State for Education said in The Guardian that he was going to change the admissions code to help to meet parental demand for good schools. He said:

“We hope the new admissions code allows the possibility of increasing planned admissions numbers so good schools can expand, and there will be underperforming schools that have fewer and fewer numbers.”

That is spot on, but it assumes that the popular schools are able to expand. In Finchley there is no shortage of good schools at primary and secondary level. We even have schools with the space to expand; what we do not have are the capital grants to fund the expansion. The schools in Finchley are part of the family of schools in the London borough of Barnet, and Conservative-controlled Barnet is consistently one of the best local education authorities in the country. Barnet is enthusiastically pursuing many new academies and free schools.

Before turning to the lack of capital support from the Department, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that the council has not sat by and done nothing about the shortage of places. Several years ago, it recognised that there would be an increase in demand for primary and secondary places and, in the absence of Government support, it embarked on its own £250 million primary school expansion programme. Starting in 2004, using a mixture of prudential borrowing and capital raised from asset sales, the programme set about rebuilding, expanding and refurbishing the primary estate. Barnet is forecasting that pupil numbers in the maintained secondary sector will continue to grow, and that they will grow by 22% by 2015-16. That is the second highest growth rate in the UK. The situation is not helped by the Greenwich decision. LEAs are unable to put their own pupils first.

The factors combine to create a demographic shift that Barnet council cannot cope with—certainly not without help. Hitherto, enough help has not been forthcoming. This outstanding LEA has not been rewarded for its education record. Having delivered new schools on time and on budget, however, the authority was invited to join the last phase of Building Schools for the Future. I hold no affection for the BSF programme, as I saw Barnet council being forced into a process it did not need and could not afford, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The promised £83 million under BSF would have allowed three schools to expand and be refurbished—and two of those schools are in Finchley. The schools lost out when BSF was cancelled, so good schools and a good local education authority were penalised again.

I am sure that the capital division of the Department will argue that Barnet has received capital that it should use for expansion. I know that, because it wrote to me in forceful terms to tell me, but Barnet has received an average of just £14.6 million over the past few years for non-academy, non-children’s centre spend. That is money earmarked for new boilers, new toilets, roof repairs, rewiring and so forth—simple basic maintenance. With more than 120 schools in Barnet, that is just £122,000 per school. To put that into perspective, the cost of rewiring one secondary school alone was £1.9 million. The allocation does not go far. It is true that the council could have diverted that capital for school expansion, but is the capital team really expecting a first-class local education authority to tell parents that their school’s broken boiler or leaking roof cannot be fixed because the money has been spent on expanding another school in a different part of the borough?

The council cannot simply borrow the money. I would like to stress that borrowing approval, supported or otherwise, is no help at all. Barnet council has been on the funding floor for several years and borrowing approval is useless if the debt servicing cost is unaffordable because it falls on the general fund paid for out of general council tax. The capital allocation formula appears to need a complete overhaul. The increase in demand for state places has been seen across every borough in London. It is inequitable that London accounts for 64% of pupil place shortages and yet receives just 26% of the capital allocation.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the plight of Barnet, and indeed for the whole of London. Does he agree that we are talking not only about issues related to expanding schools, but about allowing parental choice, so that faith-based schools are an important part of the equation? We have identified the need for a Hindu secondary school located between Harrow and Barnet, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to secure support for it from the Department.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The expansion of the Hindu faith school somewhere between Barnet and Harrow would not only meet parental preference but relieve pressure on the remaining schools in the maintained sector.

To return to the iniquity of the shortage of places and the capital funding allocation, that discrepancy between 64% of places and just 26% of funding means that London is short-changed by more £300 million in the existing allocation.

The current shortage of primary places has been met by providing additional classrooms in portakabins, by changing information technology rooms and libraries into classrooms, or simply by making children travel much further to an available school space. That is not a sustainable solution.

Things are no better in the secondary sector. The area is served by the Bishop Douglass mixed Roman Catholic comprehensive school, which is over-subscribed with 383 applications for 180 places, and by the Compton mixed comprehensive school, which is also over-subscribed—and every applicant from Finchley N2 was rejected; not a single pupil could get a place there. Mr Speaker went to the Compton school—or the Finchley Manorhill school, as it was then called—but he would not get in today, as he lived too far away from it. Then there is Christ’s college, a boys-only school—again over-subscribed, with 424 applications for 150 places. St. Michael’s Catholic grammar school for girls has 370 applications for just 96 places. We also have Henrietta Barnett, a highly selective girls school, grossly over-subscribed with 2,000 applications for 180 places. Then we have Copthall, a girls comprehensive. It too is over-subscribed, and 100% of applicants from N2 were rejected simply because they lived too far away.

In the past fortnight alone I have received 200 emails from worried parents. Let me report just some of what they have said. Mrs Catherine Atkinson wrote:

“I have lived in East Finchley for 28 years. My son got into Fortismere by the skin of his teeth 8 years ago and I remember the stressful wait for the letter saying he had the place. Those not so lucky because they lived maybe 200 yards farther away from the school were offered either Bishop Douglass school or…Christ’s college.”

That would more difficult today, because those schools too are over-subscribed and full.

Mrs Carey wrote to me:

“I live in Long Lane. My daughter is in year 5 and my son is in year 4. Our position is as follows: Fortismere—we’re not in catchment and are unable to afford property prices in Fortismere catchment. Wren Academy Church of England—we are not churchgoers and we are not close enough geographically either. Compton—not in catchment. Christ’s College—we would be in catchment for our son, but that is not much help for our daughter! Bishop Douglass—it is at heart very much a Catholic school”,

and they are not churchgoers.

“Henrietta Barnet is highly selective.”

In Barnet, first preferences granted stand at just 62%, and once second preferences have been allocated, just 85% of parents secure their first or second preferences. That is well below the national average of 85% and 96% respectively. I appreciate that capital is scarce, and I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister is experiencing. I am not asking him to issue a cheque this evening, although I am pretty sure that we would name a school after him if he did: the “Gibb Academy” does have something of a ring to it.

I hope the Minister will accept my view that we must seek to overhaul the capital allocation formula, reward good local education authorities, fund good schools so that they can flourish and expand, help parents to secure their preferences, and give pupils the best possible education and start in life. All that I ask this evening is that he agree to meet me, along with the chief executive and leader of the council, to discuss what targeted support he is able to provide.