TheMinister for Schools (Jacqui Smith): I shall start byspeaking to Government amendment No. 427. Given the general support forthe code that seems to have come through this discussion we shouldobviously introduce the code as soon as possible. In order to do thatfor admissions in September 2008, it will haveto be in forcein February 2007 and we will want to consult on a draft before then.The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made areasonable point about carers and that is precisely the sort of issuethat needs to be considered as we consult on a full code. Government amendment No. 427amendssection 84(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act1998 to insert an express provision to provide that a consultation thatstarts before the Bill receives Royal Assent will still satisfy thestatutory provisions for consultation. Assuming that the amendment isaccepted, we hope to start that consultation in September. I hope thatthe Committee will see that as a reasonableapproach. Inresponding to the other amendments, let me remind the Committee that wegave a commitment to the Education and Skills Committee to strengthenthe school admissions code to make admissions fairer. Clause 37delivers on that commitment. This is not simply a mutual admirationsociety, but I know that even before it become fashionable my hon.Friend the Member for Bury, North had taken a considerable interest inthe impact of admissions arrangements. Not only in his contributionstoday, but in his work up until this point he has played an importantrole in what we have achieved on the code—as have, as my hon.Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) pointed out,many other hon. Members and many people outside the House. I agree with the hon. Memberfor Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that what matters most in our schoolsystem is that we strengthen the leadership in governance and qualityof teaching in our schools so that more schools can respond to theindividual needs of children and be schools that parents will be happyto choose for their child. That is absolutely crucial. It is not thenunreasonable to argue that in achieving that we should also expect fairaccess to those schools with a transparent, clear and objective system.We are making these changes to admissions arrangements in order todeliver that. As several hon. Members havepointed out, while most schools adopt good practice in their admissionsarrangements, there are still examples of unfair practices and ofoversubscription criteria that do not deliver those objectives oftransparency, fairness and objectivity. There are still examples ofadmissions practices and oversubscription criteria that candisadvantage one child compared with another. For example, we havediscussed the use of supplementary application forms. If a school asksfor information that has no relevance to a child’s application,not only might that have an impact on admission decisions, but it couldput parents off applying. That would not lead to a system in whichevery parent feels capable of expressing the preference that woulddeliver for theirchild. Paragraphs 1.19and 1.20 of the code, about which questions have been asked, make clearthe limited circumstances in which supplementary information may benecessary. They also prohibit supplementary application forms that lookat a child’s background. There are stilloversubscription criteria that give priority to the children ofgovernors and staff. As hon. Members have said, that is clearlyunacceptable, as are statements in schools’ literature that theyexpect a voluntary contribution from parents to support the school.Each of those practices reduces a parent’s ability to make areal choice for their children, and it is right that they should beruled out by thecode. I shall respondto the discussion on the use of first preference first criteria. Myobjective, as that of any admissions arrangement should be, is toensure that parents can take decisions about their children based onthe fullest possible information and express a real preference. Nobodyshould argue that the admissions system should protect admissions tocertain types of school rather than others. At the heart of ourdecision making should be the consideration of what ensurestransparency and fairness to parents and children. Transparency is key,and in the selective system the 11-plus creates a unique situation. Aparent cannot know the chances of their child getting into a schoolbefore they have the test result, and therefore cannot make thenecessary decisions about theirpreference. The otherdifficulty with having a first preference first system alongsideselection would be that those who can be confident enough to apply toselective schools would often be those with a plan B, which may involvegoing into the private system. I do not want to set up a system thatmakes it easier for a parent to express a preference for a selectiveeducation, and then opt out of the state system if that preference isnot attained. That would disadvantage those who want to express apreference for a grammar school but do not feel able to because theysee it as too big arisk. Mr.Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, thatthe inevitable consequence of reintroducing first preference first inselective areas is that there may well be—no, there willbe—an increase in the number of parents there who choose to goprivate, because of the larger number of children securing places inselective schools? Does she also accept that the problem of not beingable to guarantee a place in a first-preference school applies toparents in non-selective areas, unless they live in the immediate catchment area? It is not a difficulty that applies only to parents inselective areas who choose to submit their children to the 11-plustest. JacquiSmith: Of course we cannot have a system that guaranteesevery parent their first preference. We can make it more likely thatthey will get it, and we have done so through co-ordination. However,the system must enable parents to express their preferences, and givethem confidence about the way those preferences will work. My concernabout the combination of first preference first and a selective systemwhen people do not know the results before they express theirpreferences is that—I am afraid that on this I agree withOpposition Members—it benefits those parents who are willing to game in the system as opposed to those who want to express a genuinepreference. Thereason for the distinction between the two sets of circumstances isthat first preference first, as the code sets out, is poor practicewhen schools use it to try to undermine parental preferences and whenit means that parents cannot say what they really want; however, whenall schools and the local authority are happy with a first preferencefirst scheme, and there is no selection in any of the schools, it isreasonable to give them the option to operate that system if, and onlyif, no one objects. That is a good example of the complexity of theadmissions system and the reason the code is written as itis. In the Wirral caseraised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, the localeducation authority wanted parents to have their 11-plus results beforethey expressed their preference. The schools adjudicator ruled againstthat and the court upheld that judgment, as my hon. Friend said. Thatdoes not, however, mean that we cannot change the code, using thearguments that I have just used. The court was ruling on whether theschools adjudicator’s judgment was a reasonable judgment, not onwhether it was the only possible judgment. Therefore in answer to myhon. Friend’s question about whether we have taken intoconsideration the implications of that judgment, the answer is yes, wehave. It is clear,not so much with respect to first preference first—which is aquirk in the system, and which it is important to workthrough—but with respect to some of the other practices that Ioutlined, that they amount to the selection of children by schoolsaccording to their parents’ background, education or ability tosupport the school. Those practices and criteria are wrong, and will beruled out by the new code, which, as hon. Members have mentioned, Ihave made available to them. Amendment No. 407 wouldmaintain the status quo, so presumably it is intended to maintain andsupport the examples of unfair practice that I have outlined. The hon.Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton cannot have it both ways. Ifwe accept that there is unfair practice in the system—I thinkthat there are some examples of that—support of the status quois support of thosepractices. Mr.Gibb: In that case, why did the White Paper not oncemention the phrase “to act in accordancewith”? JacquiSmith: As we made clear in the White Paper, ourfundamental objective was to ensure fair access to the system. Ifconcerns about fair access have emerged from the admissionsarrangements, it is in keeping with the objectives that we set out inthe White Paper that we should deal with those. Furthermore, we havemade it clear that it was always the objective of the previous code toget rid of those unfair practices; but as we set out in the letter tothe Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, some recentjudgments brought into question the force of the code, and it wastherefore right to consider what force it had, to recognise the impactof those judgments, and to strengthen the code to bring it to the levelthat we had always intended, by means of the provisions in the Billrequiring admissions authorities to act in accordance withit. Mr.Gibb: Why had not the Government considered theimplications of those cases before the publication of the White Paper?The classic case relating to the issue is that of the London Oratoryschool, which was decided in December 2004. The White Paper waspublished in October 2005. Why were not the implications of that caseconsidered and the policy implications decided before October2005? JacquiSmith: This is, of course, the first Bill in which we havehad an opportunity to take the action that we are taking. As I said, wewere considering the implications of the code, and alongside that wegave the commitment in the White Paper to fair access, so I think thatthe approach that we have taken isreasonable. 5.30pm The hon.Gentleman can make political points about our approach, but thequestion remains: does he want to maintain the status quo because hesupports the unfair practices that I have outlined, which the code willdo away with? That is the fundamental question. As hon. Members will see fromthe skeleton draft, the new code will contain mandatory provisions thatrule out some practices and criteria entirely. It will also containexamples of good and poor practice, which must be taken into accountwhen setting admissions arrangements. Admission authorities will haveto justify any departure from the guidance if an objection is made, andit will be easier for the schools adjudicator to enforce. That coversthe question raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East about the natureof good and poor practice. Legislation does not have theflexibility we needto rule out unfair practices in particularlocal circumstances. Some criteria, for example, represent goodpractice in some circumstances but not in others. Giving priority tochildren who have a sibling at the school is a good example of that.That criterion is particularly helpful for parents with young children,but when it is combined with selection by ability, it would not be fairto admit siblings of pupils who were admitted by ability, as that wouldreduce the opportunities for other children. To deal with the complexitiesraised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, the new code willmake a distinction that rules out the use of the criteria in wholly selective schools, while describing it as poor practice inschools with high proportions of selection by ability and as acceptablewhere there is up to 10 per cent. selection by aptitude. That comesback to my arguments about the reasonableness, in certain limitedcircumstances, of selection on the basis of aptitude, and theGovernment’s view that there are not circumstances in which itwould be appropriate to select directly or indirectly on the basis ofability. Where thecode describes a criterion as “poor practice”, theadmissions authority will have to justify its use if an objection ismade to the adjudicator. I think hon. Members will agree that thatwould be hard to accomplish in legislation. We need a code that willrule out unfair criteria and also support admissions authorities byproviding guidelines and examples of good practice that allows them theflexibility to determine criteria that are fair and promote equity inthe circumstances. I hope that that responds to the probing comments ofthe hon. Member for Brent, East in relation to amendment No.435. I will say justone thing about uniform. I found it a bit bizarre that the hon. Memberfor Bognor Regis and Littlehampton read out various parts of theskeleton code with which he completely agreed and thought benign, buton which he nevertheless sought reassurance. I will reassure him on thesubject of uniform. The Government can clearly see the benefits of auniform in schools. I personally am strongly supportive of blazers andties in secondary schools. The point that we are making, however, isthat uniform, important though it is, should not, because of the way inwhich it is supplied, act as a disincentive to pupils to apply to aparticular school. The skeleton code makes that pretty clear. Amendments Nos. 445 and 444,tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, would require theschool admissions code to include oversubscription criteria as one ofthe requirements that it may impose on admissions authorities, localauthorities, governing bodies, appeal panels and admissions forums. AsI have argued, it is important that admissions authorities have theflexibility to determine arrangements that work, are fair and willpromote equity in their local area. Circumstances might vary across thecountry and admissions arrangements will have to take account ofthose. The problemwith amendment No. 445 is that it would require the oversubscriptioncriteria to be used in the order listed regardless of the local contextor circumstances, thereby taking away flexibility. Part of my hon.Friend’s concern is whether the code is strong enough or whetherlegislation would be better. I hope that he is reassured that althoughthere must be local flexibility, the new code will be tough on unfairpractice and criteria. Significantly, not only will it be tough, itwill be coupled with enforcement provisions that, through theadjudicator, will ensure that those unfair practices cannot be put intooperation. The combination of the clearer provisions of the new codeand the enforcement will guarantee us fairer admissionsarrangements. I shallgive a few details on the specific criteria that my hon. Friend listed.First, criteria (a) and (b) are unnecessary because they are alreadyenshrined in law. The first would require children with a statement of special educational needs to be given the highest priority. Section 324of the Education Act 1996 provides that where a statement names aschool, the school must admit that child. We shall include provisionsand guidelines in the new code that will ensure that children withspecial educational needs, or who are disabled and do not have astatement, are not disadvantaged in any way. We will make that clear inthe code. The secondcriteria deals with children in public care. Again, it is not necessarybecause admissions authorities are required by regulations made underprovisions in the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 to givethose children the highest priority in their admissionsarrangements. Theother criteria could be used by admissions authorities if appropriatein the local context. Many of them would be good practice and the codewill provide guidelines for their use. My problem is that they shouldnot be mandatory in all circumstances, as amendments Nos. 444 and 211would require. Admissions authorities must be allowed to determinewhich acceptable criteria they will use and in which order, so as tomeet the needs of children and parents. For example, there might becircumstances in which proximity is not the most appropriateoversubscription criteria. As has been shown by today’sdiscussion, proximity can have an impact on house prices and it ispossible that there is a disproportionate impact on, or benefit to,those who can afford to move into the immediate area of aschool. As happenedin my constituency, there are times when different transitionalarrangements are necessary, perhaps because of a reorganisation ofschools. We need to bear that in mind and be flexible about theadmissions arrangements in particular circumstances. One of thecriteria relates to the safe walking distance to a school. In ruralareas, for example, that might not be relevant to the admissionsarrangements for a particular rural school. Another relates to the easeof access to public transport. Of course, public transport arrangementschange, as do local catchment areas and populations aroundschools. Although onthe face of it certain criteria might appear to be fair, in relation toparticular circumstances they might not deliver the objective that Iand my hon. Friend share—that the admissions criteria, and inthis case the oversubscription criteria, is fair, objective andtransparent, and does not discriminate against pupils and parents onthe basis of their background. I hope that he will accept that I am notjust being a difficult and intransigent Minister, but that there arepractical considerations and that although I share his objectives, I donot think that his approach in the amendments would deliverthem. Finally,amendments Nos. 231 to 234 relate to admissions forums and theirinteraction with local authorities. Forums already consider, andrightly so, how well local admissions arrangements work, and theyadvise admissions authorities about any changes that they feel arenecessary. We think that they should have an even stronger role inensuring that admissions arrangements operate fairly for all children.The Bill will give them extra powers in England to object to theschools adjudicator about the admissions arrangement of any localschool and publish reports on the way admissions operate in the area. Later groups of amendments deal withthat. Amendment No.231 is intended to ensure that local education authorities establish anadmissions policy that complies with the school admissions code.Amendment No. 234 would mean that the local admissions forum has tohave regard to that policy when exercising its functions. Bothamendments are unnecessary. The clause already requires local educationauthorities to act in accordance with the code, so any admissionspolicy that they adopt must be co-compliant, as must be both theadmissions arrangements of any other admissions authority in the areaand the admissions forum, which must also act in accordance with thecode. Amendment No.231 would therefore require a local education authority to formulate anadmissions policy regardless of whether it had any community orvoluntary controlled schools in its area. It is completely within thepower of a local authority, in discussion with other admissionauthorities in an area, to come up with a common approach toadmissions. That issue has been raised elsewhere by my hon. Friend theMember for Sheffield, Hillsborough. My argument is that amendment No.231 is not necessary to ensure that that happens, and it could lead totwo different admissions policies being set up, both of which wouldhave to be in accordance with thecode. Finally,amendment No. 232 would require an admissions forum to give advice toits local authority on whether it has complied with the code whendrawing up its admissions policy. However, admissions forums alreadyhave a role in advising admissions authorities on the fairness andeffectiveness of their admissions arrangements and the ways in whichtheir arrangements could be improved. Although we share the motiveunderpinning the amendment, it addresses a point of detail that isbetter dealt with through the changes that we will make to theadmissions forum regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend theMember for Bury, North and Opposition Members—I am slightly lessoptimistic about that—agree that clauses 37 and 38 willstrengthen the code, enhance the role of admissions forums in Englandand, most importantly, help to support us in producing a faireradmissions system, in which access to schools that will be of a higherquality, owing to the other actions that we are taking and our reformand investment programme generally, will be open on a fair basis to allchildren. That can only be in the interests of children. I thereforehope that the Committee will feel reassured, that the amendment will bewithdrawn, and that hon. Members will support the new approach and thenew framework foradmissions. | 
