Mr.
Gibb: For what reasons might a parent refuse to sign a
home-school
contract?
Jacqui
Smith: There might be a range of reasons why they may
refuse, although I hope that they would not refuse, and I would expect
them always to sign. My argument is that it would give a different
function to home-school agreements if they were made part of admissions
arrangements. My objective for such agreements is to build an
understanding of the responsibilities that are shared between parents
and schools, whereas the hon. Gentleman’s objective is to
reintroduce a method of selection by the back
door.
Mr.
Gibb: That is simply not true, and I do not understand why
insistence on signing of a home-school contract before admission of a
child is any more draconian than parenting orders or the range of
legislation that the Minister wants to introduce to enforce proper
parental responsibility. The measure would be far less draconian and I
see no reason why parents should not be happy to sign such
contracts.
Jacqui
Smith: I quite agree that parents should be happy to sign
home-school agreements, but they should be happy to sign them on the
basis that signing is a matter of clarifying responsibilities and
building engagement between home and school, not about reintroducing a
set of admission criteria. Those are two completely separate
purposes. We encourage
schools to meet parents to discuss home-school agreements, but that
does not mean that the discussion should become a surrogate interview
to determine admission. It should be an opportunity to discuss the
school’s policies and the role of parents in supporting the
child as a member of that
school. 9.30
pm Although I am
extremely supportive, having introduced home-school agreements, I do
not agree that they should be translated into a form of selection in
admissions criteria, as Opposition Members want them to be. Given my
explanation and arguments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
the amendment.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
14.
Division
No.
21] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Brent, East said from
a sedentary position, “What are we voting on?” We were
voting on the amendment proposed, amendment No. 204, the lead amendment
in the group.
Clause 40 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
41Restrictions
on alteration of admissions
arrangements
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in clause 41, page
29, line 25, at end
insert— ‘(1A) In section 89
of SSFA 1998 (procedure for determining admissions arrangements) after
subsection (3)
insert— “(3A) The
requirement to consult under subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply
where an admissions authority, prior to determining its admission
arrangements, decides to make no substantive alterations to its
admissions
arrangements.”.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 50, in clause 41, page 30, line 2, leave out
‘a prescribed number of' and insert ‘the
two'. Amendment No.
51, in clause 41, page 31, line 2, leave out ‘prescribed number
of' and insert ‘the
two'. Clause stand
part. New clause
10—Alteration of Admission
Arrangements— ‘(1) A
maintained school shall have complete freedom to alter its admission
arrangements as it sees
fit. (2) Section 89 of SSFA
1998 shall cease to have
effect.'.
Mr.
Hayes: I know that the Committee is keen to make progress.
The hon. Member for Brent, East has complained that on occasions, its
members have been loquacious—
Mr.
Chaytor indicated
assent.
Mr.
Hayes: And none more so than the hon. Gentleman. So I
shall speak briefly.
Clause 41 locks schools into a
three-year contract with their chosen admissions system. Two years
would be more flexible, allowing schools to tailor their admissions
system over a reduced period. The White Paper, which has become
something of a bible for Opposition Members, says:
“No one approach towards
admissions will work in all circumstances. This is why we want to
ensure that all self-governing schools (Foundation, voluntary aided and
Trust)”— for that
is what they were then going to be called—
“are free to use the approach to
fair admissions that they think will best meet their local
circumstances, as long as it is compatible with the Admissions Code. We
want them to be able to do so without having to go through a complex
and bureaucratic process.”
We, too, want the emphasis to be with the
schools. The schools are closest to the needs of the children and,
therefore, most able to assess the impact of their admissions
arrangements. We feel that the greater flexibility offered in our
amendments would be of immense benefit to schools and so improve the
Bill.
Jacqui
Smith: What a pleasant surprise that the hon. Gentleman
was so brief. Fair
and open admission arrangements help children to access good-quality
schools, while unfair and unclear admission arrangements can increase
social segregation and limit parents’ choice of school. Clause
41 therefore builds on the rules in the School Standards and Framework
Act to ensure that admission arrangements that are approved as part of
a proposal to open a new school or expand a successful or popular
school should remain in place for a fixed period. That will also ensure
that schools adjudicator determinations on objections to admission
arrangements are binding for a fixed period.
As hon. Members will see, the
draft regulations that we circulated would prevent further changes in
admission arrangements in the two school years following the year in
which a change was authorised to a school. That would make for a total
of three years in which the arrangements were frozen, but the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings wants to restrict that period
to two years. We proposed that the freeze should be for three years,
because two years is insufficient time for good practice—whether
in new schools or expanding schools, or following an objection to the
adjudicator—to become embedded and truly effective.
In defence of the three-year
period, I should say that we made it clear in the White Paper that we
intended to take the route set out in the Bill. If the White Paper
really is the hon. Gentleman’s bible, as he says it is, he will
want to support this particular element of it. As it is, his amendments
would change it. We should, however, stick with the intention in the
White Paper.
Mr.
Hayes: The Minister has been persuasive. The hour is late,
and dinner awaits. [ Hon. Members:
“Where?”] I shall not titillate members of the Committee
by describing my dining details. You know them, Mr. Chope, and you are
holding them like a secret close to your heart. Suffice it to say that
this was a probing amendment. I simply say that the Minister might want
to look at the issue again because the admissions situation will be
dynamic, particularly for the new and expanding schools that she
described, and schools might need to react to changing circumstances
with appropriate vigour. That is why we have probed the issue and why
we continue to think that the matter could be considered. However, on
the basis of the Minister’s persuasive remarks, I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 41 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
42Objections
to admission
arrangements
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 42, page
31, line 26, at end
insert— ‘(1A) After
subsection (2)
insert— “(2A)
Where an objection is made under subsection (2), the person making the
objection to the adjudicator (the “objector”) must
provide a detailed meritorious case for his decision, setting out why
the specific admission arrangement to which he objects damages his
school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools
within the authority area, and providing substantive evidence to
support his case. (2B) If the
objector fails to provide the detailed meritorious case and evidence
required in subsection (2A) the adjudicator shall not hear the
objection. (2C) If, in the
reasonable opinion of the adjudicator an objection by an objector is
unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious, he shall
not hear the objection. (2D)
Where an objector has made objection on the same grounds at any time in
the previous three years, the adjudicator shall not hear the
objection.”.'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 216, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end
insert— ‘(1A) In subsection
(2) leave out paragraph
(c).'. Amendment
No. 52, in clause 42, page 31, line 27, leave out subsection
(2). Amendment No. 54,
in clause 42, page 31, line 31, leave out from ‘made' to end of
line 32. Amendment No.
55, in clause 42, page 31, line 39, leave out from
‘arrangements' to ‘and' in line
40. Amendment No. 53,
in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end
insert ‘, provided those
modifications are in line with the character and ethos of the
school.'. Amendment
No. 57, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end
insert— ‘(5D) Where the
adjudicator makes a decision in relation to the admission arrangements
of an admission authority, the admission authority may appeal to the
Secretary of State. (5E) The
Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to
appeals under this section, including
provision— (a) as to the
time by which an appeal is to be
made, (b) as to the manner in
which an appeal is to be
made, (c) as to the procedure
to be followed in connection with an appeal, and
(d) as to the matters to be taken into account in
deciding whether to allow an
appeal.'. Amendment
No. 93, in clause 42, page 32, line 22, leave out subsection
(6). Clause stand
part. New clause
11—Abolition of
adjudicator— ‘(1) The
office of adjudicator is hereby
abolished. (2) Section 90 of
SSFA 1998 shall cease to have
effect.'.
Mr.
Hayes: We are making great progress and we now turn to
clause 42 in that spirit. The clause allows anyone to make an objection
to a proposed admissions
system, regardless of their evidence or reasons for doing so. There is
at least a possibility of vexatious objections that are motivated by
some personal grudge, not by the school’s best interests. Our
proposals suggest that safeguards should be put in place to protect
what might already be a complicated and bureaucratic process. As I said
on amendments tothe previous clause, the White Paper was
clear about the three-year period, but it was just as clear about the
need to avoid the process becoming bureaucratic and complex.
Under our proposals, any
objector would be expected to lodge a proper case, which should ensure
that the admissions process is undergone easily. Amendment No. 92 goes
into detail about how an objection might be handled, providing a
meritorious and detailed case for an objector’s decision,
setting out why the specific arrangements to which he objects damages
his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other
schools in the local authority area, and providing substantive evidence
to support his case. The amendment goes on to state that an adjudicator
should not hear an objection that cannot meet that test. It mentions
specifically
“unreasonable, vexatious,
frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious”
objections.
That is not an unreasonable
addition to the Bill, given that there may be those who lodge
objections without good or just cause. For those reasons, the
amendments are helpful. They are probing amendments because, generally
speaking, as you know, Mr. Chope, we support the Bill and are anxious
to ease its passage through the Committee and the House, although that
will not always be easy.
I read at the weekend that a
number of people on the Government Benches who oppose the Bill, perhaps
having heard the contributions made by me, my hon. Friend the Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and other members of the Committee,
are growing in number. I gather that the hon. Member for Bury, North is
whipping up discontent among his hon. Friends. I am anxious not to have
any truck with that; as I have said before, we want to help the
Minister on her journey towards enlightenment, which is why we tabled
these simple amendments.
| 
