| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want to make a slightly different point. But, first, I join all other noble Lords in saying that we really should not apologise for bringing a subject such as this before the House. It seems to me that that is what we are here for. Of all the children who have been very badly let down, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, particularly, I am sorry to say, by local authority care, young looked-after children have been the worst affected.
I am assuming that, because of the way that the amendment is worded, we are talking about a child who may be the subject of a care order but who may not necessarily be the subject of a statement. If a child were the subject of a statement, first, the school would be named in the statement and, secondly, the receiving school would have no power in law to reject the child. The child would have to be received so long as there were room in the school for him.
Therefore, we are talking about a child who is not subject to a statement and who would therefore fall short of requiring provision for special educational needs. However, we all know of many children in that category who may not have a statement requiring special educational needs but who, nevertheless, need a great deal of social support. Some looked-after children are fostered with supportive families and others are in residential homes and are very well cared for in a stable environment. There is a good relationship between the child and the staff, and the staff show a genuine interest in the child's life outside the residential institution. But, sadly, very many children fall outside that category. They do not have a stable fostering placement; nor are they in the type of residential care home that properly looks after their social, and every other, need. When a child who is
subject to a care order is placed in a school without any domestic support, the school will also need support to make proper provision.There is a great wringing of hands over what should be done about looked-after children. They have a propensity for more truanting, entering a life of crime, behavioural problems or even resorting to drugs. The more we can do to anchor the young child and provide the framework in which he or she can grow and develop, and to support the school in providing for that child—much more so than with a child from a supportive home—the better.
I am not sure that the amendment's wording is right and that there is not a statute somewhere that obliges a school in law to accept children if the school is designated. I am querying the gap between the child who is statemented, where the law is clear cut, and the child who is not statemented but is subject to a care order. I support the case made by the noble Earl.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has hit several nails on their heads. I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I am more than delighted that he constantly keeps these children at the forefront of our discussions. The noble Earl and I have met five times to talk through the issues. I am in full agreement that we should seek to protect this vulnerable group of children and I completely understand the concerns that inspired the amendment.
Social Exclusion Unit work will be helpful as we deliberate on policy. I sit on a group with my honourable friend Jacqui Smith, the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and social care. I was concerned about these children long before I became a Minister and the low level of expectation that we have of them.
I explained in Committee that a school that is not oversubscribed is under a duty to comply with parental preference—in this case, the corporate parent's preference. If the school is full, the local education authority could decide to admit a child who is the subject of a care order to a community or voluntary controlled school because the LEA is the admission authority. Alternatively, the LEA has the power to direct the governing body of a foundation or voluntary-aided school. There are limits to the use of that power and the noble Earl and I have discussed them. Good LEAs do not find that an issue or a handicap. The special education needs code applies at any time. The noble Earl's information that it applies only at the ages of five and 10 is incorrect.
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the particular needs and difficulties of children in public care. We intend to take them into account when we revise the admissions code of practice later in the year. We intend to recommend to all admission authorities, subject of course to consultation, that they give top priority to looked-after and vulnerable children in their oversubscription criteria and place them at the top of any waiting lists.
We intend to prescribe in regulations for England that admissions forums must discuss the admission arrangements for children in public care. Forums have an important locus and we want them to take it seriously and think beyond the child being admitted to a school. We shall be consulting shortly on proposed regulations that will give admission forums responsibility for considering issues relating to the children in public care and how to ensure, by means of local protocols, that such children are placed in schools that meet their social, pastoral and academic needs.
I have great sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment but it presents technical difficulties. I do not want to promise anything but will continue to talk to the noble Earl about our policy. As I have said in relation to some of these issues in your Lordships' House and outside, we need to consider policy rather than legislation. I want to consider how best to take this matter forward. I promise to do so with the noble Earl before the next stage. I hope that we shall all agree the way forward for these particularly vulnerable children.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, that is a sympathetic and helpful response. I am grateful for the several occasions on which we have discussed this matter together. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister has said. I shall study carefully her responses. However, I am anxious that we may be missing an opportunity to put into statute protection for these children that sadly in the past has been missing. There is a great deal of competition for the best schools. Some schools are oversubscribed by five to one and if these children are to get a look in and are not to be fobbed off, something stronger than what the Minister proposes, although welcome, may be necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 93:
- Page 136, line 40, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 93 because on re-reading the Minister's answer to me in Committee I did not consider that she had given due weight to the equity issues involved. Groups of 10 parents already have the right to appeal to the adjudicator in cases where admission arrangements allow for partial selection
That right has now been extended to allow parents to object over admission numbers, where the admissions number, determined by the admissions authority, is lower than the one indicated using the new capacity assessment formula. However, it does not allow parents to appeal when the admission procedure—the original right of appeal was all about procedures—is de facto partial. The case of Prendergast School to which I referred in Committee involved a foundation school that supposedly did not have a partial selection procedure and yet was pursuing practices that overtly flouted the code of practice and could de facto have resulted in partial selection.
The Minister's argument against change was that it was predicated on three strands of argument. First, she said that consultations had not indicated that there was any strong feeling among parents for such an extension, but there was a low rate of response to the consultation document. I believe from the Government's report about the consultation that there were only 416 responses in total of which only 13 can be said to have come from parents. In other words, 3 per cent of the responses were from parents. Most parents were unaware that that consultation had taken place. As the report says,
The second strand of argument that the Minister used was that the Prendergast case was one of maladministration and that the decision in that case would, it was hoped, send out a very clear signal to local authorities. In that case Lewisham Borough Council were found guilty of maladministration, but as the ombudsman pointed out, the case had been brought there and to the attention of the DfES as early as 1998 and nothing was done in spite of the fact that the governors continued to flout the objections raised by the LEA and the DfES.
The point I make to the Minister is this. It took four years for the parents to register these quite fair complaints, even though both the LEA and the DfES knew about them, and only then through the lengthy procedures via the ombudsman. The adjudicator procedures are there in order to deal with unresolved issues. The checks and balances already written into the Act prevent abuse by any over-litigious individual parent, but if a group of 10 or more parents have the right to appeal a case of pre-existing partial entry arrangements, then surely the backstop of allowing parents to go directly to the adjudicator ought to be there in a case such as this when there is de facto partial selection.
Finally, the Minister seemed to misunderstand the effect of the amendment. She referred to the possibility that one group of parents might object to criteria that others found acceptable, such as a priority for siblings. But that was not the issue. The amendment affects only who is able to refer objections to the adjudicator in order that he or she may determine whether arrangements breach the code of practice. Sibling priority plainly does not. It would not affect at all the grounds on which the adjudicator made his determination. That is determined by the contents of the code which is a matter for the Secretary of State.
In the light of these three objections it seems to me that the Minister should reconsider her answer. I beg to move.
"6 (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."
"We gave parents that right because we believe that they should have the opportunity to make their views known when such partially selective arrangements are an issue".—[Official Report, 23/5/02; col. 922.]
"the majority of responses were received from those with a professional interest in education".
In the foreword to the report, the Secretary of State acknowledged that she knows how important school admissions are to parents and to children and yet parents did not participate much in the consultation. The strongest objections in fact came from the voluntary- aided and foundation schools and the professionals involved there precisely because these are the categories of schools in which some of the less desirable admissions arrangements occur and to which there might be objections.
"Given the Council's failure over a protracted period to change the School's position, the Council's failure to refer the matter to the Adjudicator ... was in my view maladministration. It also seems likely that had a referral been made then the Adjudicator
19 Jun 2002 : Column 862would have determined that at least some of the admissions criteria should be changed. Had this happened, the outcome may have been very different for the children of these complainants".
That indicates that it affected the children. The ombudsman then went on to say:
"I believe the policy should have been reviewed at least in time to govern admissions for September 2001. The failure to do so was maladministration".
The report came out in April of this year. The governors have now reviewed it. The ombudsman continued:
"I welcome the Governors' recent review of the School's admissions arrangements in the light of these objections and also their decision to stop using interviews. However, the School's new policy will not come into effect until children are admitted in September 2003".
In other words, the children were unnecessarily affected by delays, which the ombudsman condemned as,
"further maladministration by the admissions authority".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page