Dr.
Harris: I keenly support the amendment. Further to what
the hon. Gentleman has said, the explanatory notes are quite strange.
They state that it is not unlawful
discrimination “for
a school to organise a different timetable for a pupil who has a baby,
to help her fit her education with her parenting
responsibilities.”
The implication is that,
if pregnancy and maternity were deleted from the clause as proposed
under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, in some way schools would
be prevented from taking such action. That is not right. I accept that
it is not necessarily the argument of the Solicitor-General. Perhaps
she will argue, as she did before, that the discrimination that we want
to oppose is already covered under another heading, but I should be
grateful if she clarified whether that is the justification. If it is,
it would also not be unlawful for a school to refuse to admit a girl
pupil who is pregnant or who already had a baby. Although that might be
the position under current legislation, we should not permit schools to
discriminate against pregnant pupils or pupils with babies in respect
of admission, exclusion or any other detriment. I am concerned that the
clause allows schools to do that, even if guidance and the public
sector duty might discourage them from doing so. The Government are
under a burden to show that the inclusion of paragraph (c)
is justified. I look forward to hearing from the hon. and learned
Lady.
The
Solicitor-General: It is not through discrimination
legislation that pregnant schoolgirls or young mothers will get the
help that they need, but through sensitive handling by the school.
There is an absolute bar on pregnancy as a ground for exclusion. No
schoolgirl should be excluded for getting pregnant. A teenage pregnancy
strategy ensures that pupils receive support and tuition to complete
their education, and dedicated reintegration officers work with schools
and pupils to advise on the best way to accommodate and re-engage them
in education. In addition, the new public sector duty will ensure that
schools have regard for pupils who become pregnant. We feel that it is
most appropriate to protect that category of person through that
mechanism and other
protections. I
do not totally follow the point of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon about the explanatory notes. When I do, I will drop him a
line.
Dr.
Harris: I will not pursue that point. I assume that
something in the corresponding schedule makes it clear that one cannot
exclude a pupil on the grounds of maternity under sex discrimination
provisions. However, the Solicitor-General did not say why that was.
She did not address my example of admission. Notwithstanding the public
sector duty, a school would have the right not to admit a pupil simply
on the basis that she was pregnant under discrimination law. As such a
person would not be the school’s pupil, which is the term the
Solicitor-General used in explanation of the public sector duty and the
teenage pregnancy code, it is not clear why the school could not do
that. I do not see why we should not use the opportunity of
discrimination legislation to deal with that issue if we can. I would
be grateful if she addressed the issue of
admission.
The
Solicitor-General: We are talking about somebody who gets
pregnant while they are at school. The hon. Gentleman is talking about
somebody who moves school. That would be facilitated by reintegration
officers. We do not think that discrimination law hits the spot. It is
certainly not in the schedule that exclusion is not available for
pregnancy. However, education law sets out clearly that that is not a
ground for exclusion. I do not think
that there is an issue here, but it is good to probe
the matter. There is plenty of law that covers this matter, as well as
policies and
guidance.
John
Mason: I thank the Solicitor-General for the reassurances
she has given. I still feel that the amendment would strengthen the
position of women in such circumstances. However, I accept her
reassurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
79 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
80 to 83 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
10Accessibility
for disabled
pupils Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Tenth schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Harper: I hope that this will be a brief debate. I have a
few quick questions for the Minister. By raising this issue here, we
will not have to discuss it under schedule 15. There is a difference
between the provisions on the duty to make reasonable adjustments for
disabled people in the education section and the main section of the
Bill. In the main section, the duty to make adjustments has three
requirements. The first is that somebody is at a substantial
disadvantage, and the second relates to physical features. The
difference comes with the third, which is to provide an auxiliary aid.
Clause 80 in part 6 simply has a duty to make reasonable adjustments
that applies to the responsible body of such a school, without those
three parts being explained. Effectively, there is a carry-across of
existing legislation, which has no current requirement to deal with
auxiliary
aids. The
issue has been raised with me by the Disability Charities Consortium.
When I investigated the matter, the answer given to me was that the
reason for the difference in provisions was that schedule 10 provides
for accessibility arrangements for pupils in schools. My question to
the Minister is simple: given the need to provide for accessibility
arrangements in schools and for schools to have a written accessibility
plan under which they discuss with their disabled pupils their needs
and requirements, will schools, in making those reasonable adjustments,
effectively have to consider providing auxiliary aids, even under the
education requirement, as the general duty to make adjustments applies
in other arenas? That is the question and my reason for raising it now.
If I have not been clear, the Solicitor-General should let me know, and
I will try
again.
The
Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is clear. The
development and implementation of an accessibility plan will give a
more proactive and strategic approach to facilitating education for
disabled pupils and improving the physical environment. Schools and
authorities will be able to plan ahead and anticipate a range of
disabled pupils’ issues and needs in order to have facilities in
place, instead of having to react to one individual situation at a
time.
Schools will
have to have considered the need for auxiliary aids and services for
disabled pupils as part of their responsibilities under the duty. In
addition, it is likely that an individual disabled child who required
auxiliary aids would fall within the definition of special
educational needs, so the aids would be provided under that regime. We
think that it is probably covered more effectively
there. Mr.
Harper: I am grateful to the Minister for that
reassurance. The purpose of raising the issue was to put that assurance
on the record. I think that I am reassured by her
reassurance. Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule
10 accordingly agreed to.
Clause
84Interpretation
and
exceptions Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Dr.
Harris: I want to raise an issue identified by the Joint
Committee on Human Rights with respect to clause 84, which apparently
widens the existing exemption for the curriculum. Subsection (2)
states: “Nothing
in this Chapter applies to anything done in connection with the content
of the
curriculum.” That
appears to remove any restriction on discrimination against a pupil on
any protected characteristic in respect of the content of the
curriculum. That is of concern.
The
explanatory notes
state: “This
ensures that the Bill does not inhibit the
ability” of
schools “to
include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their syllabus
and to expose students to thoughts and ideas of all
kinds.” That
is wider than the exemption in schedule 3 from the prohibition on
religious or belief-related discrimination in the provision of services
in relation to anything done in connection with the curriculum of any
school. There is an argument and a debate to be had about the exemption
for religion in respect of the curriculum, but I want to consider how
the measure appears to be drawn more widely and seek
clarification. Current
law provides the exemption for the content of the curriculum from the
prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.
That stems from the Equality Act 2006. However, the provision is wider.
I can understand that some people might argue that given that the
curriculum includes religious education, there needs to be an exemption
in respect of religion or belief. I am not convinced that that is
required. I will not go into why, as now is not the time, but the
concern is that it appears that the prohibition on discrimination on
the ground of sexual orientation, for example, will not apply to the
content of the curriculum.
The worry is
that even if one has injunctions on how the curriculum is delivered,
its mere content, particularly when there is no national curriculum on
religious education, for example, might lead to detrimental treatment
of pupils of a different sexual orientation—homosexuality, one
presumes. The issue is the curriculum itself, or the textbook, not how
the curriculum is delivered. Therefore, there is
already a concern that sexual orientation might not be adequately
covered, even under the existing exemptions, and the catch-all
provision seems to go
further.
7.30
pm The
explanatory notes state that concerns such as the one I have raised
would be caught
because “The
way in which the curriculum is taught is...covered by the
reference to education in clause
80(2)(a)”, which
states that the responsible body of a school must not discriminate
against a
pupil “in
the way it provides education for the
pupil”. In
other words, it
must “ensure
issues are taught in a way which does not subject pupils to
discrimination.” However,
I am worried that that is trumped by clause 84(2). For
example, a gay pupil might feel that they were being taught that they
were of less moral worth because of an inherent characteristic, but
they might not be able to invoke any of the protections in the Bill in
the face of such a wide exemption. Given that the provision appears to
cover all schools and all strands, I do not think it is required for
religious schools to maintain their ethos. I would be grateful if the
Minister was able to clarify her understanding of clause
84(2).
The
Solicitor-General: As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 80
will provide protection for children to ensure that the curriculum is
taught in a way that does not subject pupils to discrimination. Clause
84 replicates a provision in the Equality Act 2006 and extends it to
other protected characteristics. This is about clarifying the full
educational freedoms of schools to decide what resources to use so that
they will not have to justify or defend themselves from accusations of
discrimination when they are following a reasonable and balanced
approach to a curriculum. If we do not include the exemption, it would
be possible for schools to be faced with cleansing the curriculum
itself for indirect discrimination. For example, it would be very
uncomfortable if a Jewish boy made a claim for discrimination for being
taught “The Merchant of Venice”. It would be difficult
for a school to cope with that, and it would get bogged down in having
to justify itself. Whatever is taught needs to be taught appropriately,
and teaching practices need to be fully inclusive. It is not the
Bill’s intention that schools should be barred or discouraged
from teaching the full curriculum with ideas that challenge pupils and
lead to open and honest discussion and contemplation, which is why we
think the clause is
necessary.
Dr.
Harris: I think that the Minister accepted that this was
an extension of the existing law, and she gave a justification for the
provision in the Bill. Is there evidence that before this attempt to
extend the existing exemption of the curriculum to all strands, claims
were made against schools about ideas in the curriculum that might, as
she says, be challenging—I am all in favour of that form of
education? If there was no problem before, providing a wide exemption
might enable some schools with a specific agenda to get a message
across outwith the provision on discrimination through the way in which
children are taught or the curriculum is
delivered.
The
Solicitor-General: The pressures were from the religion
and belief sector, and we dealt with those. We did not envisage that
the curriculum was covered prior to 2006 by discrimination legislation,
but we are now making it absolutely clear that it is. Does that
help?
Dr.
Harris: I suppose it helps to explain why the change is
being made. However, I hope that the Committee will reflect on whether
potential for mischief is being created in respect of the wide
exemption due to the lack of clarity in determining what is curriculum
and what is the delivery of the curriculum. If the problem is a
challenging idea, one would expect that to be delivered to the pupil
through education. My concern is that we will be muddying the waters
rather than keeping clear restrictions on what schools should be doing
in sensitive areas such as race and sexual orientation.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 84
accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
11Schools:
exceptions
Dr.
Harris: I beg to move amendment 253, in
schedule 11, page 198, line 31, leave
out paragraph 5 and
insert— ‘5 (1) Section 80(1)
and (2)(a) to (d), so far as relating to religion or belief, does not
apply in relation
to— (a) a school, other
than an academy, registered in the register of independent schools for
England or for Wales, if the school’s entry in the register
records that the school has a religious
ethos; (b) a school in the
register of independent schools for Scotland if the school admits only
pupils who belong, or whose parents belong, to one or more particular
denominations; (c) a school
registered in that register if the school is conducted in the interest
of a church or denominational
body. (2) Section 80 (2)(a) to
(d), so far as relating to religion or belief, does not apply in
relation to— (a) a
school designated under section 69(3) of the School Standards and
Framework Act 1998 (foundation or voluntary school with religious
character); (b) a school
transferred to an education authority under section 16 of the Education
(Scotland) Act 1980 (transfer of certain schools to education
authorities) which is conducted in the interest of a church or
denominational body; (c) a
school provided by an education authority under section 17(2) of that
Act (denominational
schools); (d) a grant-aided
school (within the meaning of that Act) which is conducted in the
interest of a church or denominational
body.’. This
amendment would ensure that discrimination in admissions by religion or
belief in state maintained schools and academies with a religious
character is subject to the general prohibition on discrimination in
education
admissions.
| 
