| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the Minister sits down, can she tell the Committee what happens now when a child subject to a care order is excluded from school? Is any special attention given to that child, bearing in mind that, as she acknowledges, such children are vulnerable and do not have parents but only the authority in loco parentis?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The reality is that the situation varies. Local education authorities, who are responsible through the local authority for corporate parenting, would act in loco parentis for those children. However, we know that the educational attainment of such children is extremely low. Although we have set targets, we admit that they are quite low. We want to ensure that we address the needs of such vulnerable children. I said that most of those children have been neglected or abused—that is why they are in public care—and many of them will have additional needs.
It is important that we consider the new arrangements to ensure that across the country, admissions forums take seriously such children and that we put in place a series of measures to ensure that
their educational, pastoral and social welfare is looked after. We know that education is crucial to such children, so we want to do as much as we can. What happens in some areas is better than in others, but the provisions are entirely designed to ensure that we seriously addressed the educational needs of such children.5.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their support for the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which she assured me that my amendment was not necessary. Unfortunately, I do not have the benefit of having a brief quoting all the Acts and guidance, as the Minister did. I shall, therefore, read what was said in Hansard tomorrow, consult my colleagues and decide whether to bring the amendment back on Report.
I heard the dread words "as far as possible". That seems to me to be the beginning of a cop-out. I am sure that the House will forgive we if I do not seek its view on this occasion. I shall consider the amendment in the light of Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 204A and 205 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 206:
- Page 134, line 25, leave out "by the governing body"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 are technical amendments. I shall speak to both.
An admissions authority need not, at present, comply with a parent's preference for a school for their child, if the child has been permanently excluded from two or more schools during a period of two years. As the Bill stands, the change made by paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 would have the effect that, in certain circumstances, a pupil ought not to be regarded as having been permanently excluded for the purposes of Section 87, even though a direction to reinstate the pupil concerned was not given. Typically, that would happen if the pupil would have been reinstated, had it been practical to do so. An obvious example would be the case of a child who is now too old to be reinstated in the original school.
In the Bill as drafted, that change will not apply to pupils excluded from a pupil referral unit, who would have been reinstated if it had been practical. The amendment will correct that position, so that the same provision applies to pupil referral units as to schools. The two amendments will extend the definition of "relevant authority" in the revised Section 87(4) to include the definition of a "responsible body" in Clause 49(5), so that those new provisions also apply to pupil referral units. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: If we remove the words "by the governing body" the clause simply says:
- "a review of his exclusion".
I have another rather rhetorical and slightly cynical point to make. I cannot remember precisely when the Bill was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons, but I know that it has gone through all its stages there and has come this far in this House, and only now are we correcting that error. It is extraordinary that it has taken so long for us to discover it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The effect of removing the words would be as I described. It will make sure that "the relevant authority" referred to in revised Section 87(4) includes the definition of "responsible body".
The noble Baroness will know well that, when we are dealing with legislation, there will always be issues to which we will need to return. I apologise to the House that we need an amendment, but I am pleased that it will make sure that the position is clear in respect of children in our maintained schools and in the pupil referral units. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for tabling the amendment and accept that it is necessary.
Baroness Blatch: I accept what the Minister has just said. However, my point was that it was not a matter of returning to the point; it has not actually been discussed since the Bill was produced on 4th December. We are correcting a part of the Bill that relates to an issue that has not been discussed. It is not the case that we are returning to the issue; someone has discovered, very late, that there is a mistake in the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I meant that the department would have to return to it, rather than Parliament. We discovered that we needed to correct it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 207:
- Page 134, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 208:
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would enable parents to refer to the adjudicator any objections about a school's admissions arrangements, if they believe them to be contrary to the interests of local children and parents. At present, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, admissions authorities—local education authorities for community schools and governing bodies for foundation and voluntary schools—are required to consult other admissions authorities in their area before finalising their admissions arrangements. The consultation is voluntary, but if any admissions authority—the LEA or the school—is of the view that it is disadvantaged by the arrangements, it has the right of appeal to the adjudicator.
Parents, however, have limited powers of appeal. A group of 10 or more parents may appeal, but only if the school concerned was partially academically selective prior to 1997. Paragraph 2.4 of the policy statement issued as the precursor to the new code of practice on admissions made it clear that the right to object would be extended to allow two or more parents to object to the number of pupils that a school proposed to admit. That does not extend to objections about admissions arrangements. The amendment would enable a group of parents to make such complaints.
Parents often realise that their children are disadvantaged by the admissions arrangements of local schools only when they make applications. By then, it is too late for appeals to have any effect before the opening of the following school year. Schedule 4 already proposes to extend the right to refer objections to the adjudicator to the governing bodies of community schools. Until now, they had to rely on the LEA to object on their behalf. Although that change is welcome, it does not go far enough.
The need for such a power is well illustrated by two recent cases. The first concerns the Prendergast School in south London, where parents had, since 1998, complained about the school's practice of interviewing applicants for places. As a foundation school, the school was its own admissions authority, but the code of practice on admissions made it clear that, although the school could decide whom to admit, interviewing, which can discriminate against less articulate pupils, was not to be encouraged. Nevertheless, although the school was aware that admission via interview was frowned upon, it continued to do it. Neither the LEA nor the schools in the vicinity raised a complaint with the adjudicator. Eventually, a group of parents complained to the local government ombudsman, who recently found in the parents' favour and against the LEA, on the grounds that the school's admissions practices were unfair and that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the school complied with the Government's code of practice.
The second case concerns the Coopers' Company and Coborn School in Upminster. Again, some parents complained to the local government ombudsman that the LEA had not done enough to ensure that the governors followed the Government's code of practice on admissions. In both cases, if
The amendment would not open the floodgates for objections from individual parents. Subsection (2)(b) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe which parents might refer objections. Currently, they must be parents of a child of compulsory school age receiving primary education. Subsection (9)(a) would continue to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the conditions to be satisfied before an objection could be referred by parents. Currently, the regulations require that at least 10 parents are involved. Both conditions are reasonable, and we do not seek to change them. We seek to open up the opportunity for parents to make such objections. I beg to move.
""the relevant authority" means—
(a) the responsible body as defined by subsection (5) of section 49 of the Education Act 2002, or
(b) a panel constituted in accordance with regulations under subsection (3)(c) of that section."
Page 135, line 43, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
"(1) Section 90 of the 1998 Act (reference of objections to adjudicator or Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b), for "consulted by the admission authority under section 89(2)" there is substituted "who were, or would but for subsection (2A) of section 89 have been, required to be consulted by the admission authority under subsection (2) of that section".
(3) In subsection (2), paragraph (c) is omitted."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page