| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness. I added my name to the amendment at Committee stage, but I could not be present. The noble Baroness has made a very strong case. It is grossly unfair and parents should have this right. It is a very strong case and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will grant that that is so and change her mind about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I make no comment on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because I disapprove of the adjudicator and the whole adjudicator system. There is almost no other
category of person who can make an objection to the adjudicator. There is no appeals system. The adjudicators have absolute power in anything they determine. They can modify something or alter a proposition which comes from the organisation committee. I believe that the House will have to return to this matter and do something about it. There is dissatisfaction with the way in which the adjudicator system works and it leaves a great deal to be desired.I do not know how the Minister will deal with that particular question but if it is agreed to—and I make no comment on whether it is right that it should be—I believe that there will be a long line of categories of people who would want the same opportunity.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate and I shall try to deal with the careful arguments presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Perhaps I may speak first to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The position of the adjudicator and why there is no appeal system is because the concept of the adjudicator is a less significant version of the concept of the ombudsman. There is no question of appeal because there is an authority above. Therefore, the implication so far as the adjudication is concerned is that the person should be independent and not subject to a secondary review.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving way. There is no comparison with the ombudsman who takes and hears evidence and does a great deal of investigative work. The adjudicator does not operate like that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. What I was seeking to identify was the concept of the independent position of the adjudicator. On the question of dependency, it would be an odd system if one had an appeal system dependent upon that, in the same way as one could not conceive of an independent structure in regard to the ombudsman with a subsequent concept of appeal. I was merely seeking to make that point.
However, on the more general issues on which the noble Baroness did not vouchsafe any views because of her well attested position of objecting to the concept as a whole, I shall try to reply as fully as possible to the issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised and which were supported so assertively by my noble friend Lady David.
First, I note that sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment are in the same terms as paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 which clarifies that the bodies who may refer an objection about admission arrangements to the schools adjudicator include those who should have been consulted about proposed admission arrangements as well as those who actually were. That duplication simply reflects the different drafting structure needed to introduce sub-paragraph (3), which is the substantive change that this amendment seeks to make.
Sub-paragraph (3) would remove the Secretary of State's power under Section 90(2)(c) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to prescribe the type of objection about admission arrangements which parents of a prescribed description may refer to the schools adjudicator. Our choice would then lie between allowing parents or parent groups to object to every aspect of every school's proposed admissions arrangements or not allowing any to object at all.
Under present regulations, parents in groups of 10 have the right to refer objections to the adjudicator, but only one type of objection. They may object if an admission authority—the school's governing body in the case of foundation or voluntary aided schools, otherwise the LEA—proposes to retain partially selective admission arrangements that are of a type that could no longer lawfully be introduced. Examples of partial selection that could not now lawfully be introduced include any selection by ability, and selection by aptitude in excess of 10 per cent.
We gave parents that right of objection because although the 1998 Act did not prohibit such arrangements where they already existed, it did seem right to allow parents to raise with the adjudicator whether such arrangements continue to be in the interests of local children and parents. Similarly, as noble Lords are aware, we believe that it is for parents to decide the future of selective admissions to existing grammar schools through a ballot and petition process.
As I explained in Committee—I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was not entirely convinced—our admissions consultation asked whether rights to object about admission arrangements should be extended in ways other than those proposed in the consultation document. As the consultation document proposed extending parents' rights of objection in a limited way—enabling parent groups to object where an admission authority intends to set an admission number which is lower than our new net capacity assessment formula indicates—I am sure that the consultees will have had the issue of parents' objection rights in mind when they replied. Yet only just under one third of respondents thought that we should go further than we had proposed, and not all of those suggested going further in the direction of this amendment.
As was also explained in Committee, existing legislation allows us the flexibility, through regulations, to extend parental objection rights further in the future if the need to do so is agreed. Amendment No. 93 would deprive us of that flexibility.
I ask that noble Lords consider the potential practical effects of the amendment. Any admission arrangements could potentially be challenged by parent groups during the annual consultation round, even if they included only the type of over-subscription criteria which the admissions code states to be commonly used and acceptable—siblings already at the school, distance from the school, medical or social grounds, catchment areas and transfer from named feeder primary schools. We would also need to impose
quite burdensome or potentially expensive additional requirements on admission authorities to publish their intended admission arrangements so that parents could see them and have the chance to object. The partially selective arrangements to which parents may presently object are published in local newspapers.I appreciate the intent behind the amendment. But it would create significant difficulties in its practical application. I hope therefore, on the basis of that response, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. But I do not believe he was listening to what I said.
The Minister brought up again the whole question of a poor response. But as I pointed out, only 416 people replied to the consultation document and only 13 of those were parents. Yet the Government claim that there was consultation.
The Minister raised again the point on the criteria. I agree that the drafting of the amendment may not be correct; I agree also that the Government already have the power; but the Minister could at least have said that they were thinking of shifting the power in this way.
The Prendergast decision is actually a stain on the Government in many senses. The DfES knew in 1998 about the sorts of procedures that were taking place and for four years both the local authority and the department allowed it to proceed until finally it was referred to the adjudicator. It seems to me that there is in equity a case for allowing groups of parents to appeal. As I pointed out, the criteria are decided by the adjudicator. The parents cannot question the criteria; they can only question the procedures that schools use in interpreting them.
However, I shall leave this matter for the moment. I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. As I say, I do not believe he listened to my remarks. I hope that he will read what I said, as I shall read carefully what he said and we can perhaps talk about it a little more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 97:
- Page 137, line 1, leave out paragraph 7.
- Page 139, line 39, leave out "(9)(b)" and insert "(9)"
- Page 139, line 39, at end insert—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 98:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 would remove the ability of specialist schools to select up to 10 per cent of pupils on aptitude. I should make it clear at the outset that we do not oppose more schools choosing a specialism, becoming particularly excellent in that specialism and sharing their expertise with other schools.
Indeed, at an earlier stage in the Bill, my noble friend Lady Sharp proposed widening the range of specialisms. Those schools provide a healthy measure of diversity in our schools system. We oppose the selection of pupils at 11 on any basis, but particularly on one that has no research or evidence base to show that it can be done accurately at that age. The noble Baroness gave no evidence in her response in Committee that that can be done.
As we said in Committee, it is unnecessary, and it has proved unpopular as only 7 per cent of schools with a specialism use the power. It is worrying, however, that the retention of this power gives an advantage to voluntary-aided and foundation schools, as we know that out of 24 schools that had used it, 19 fell into that category. As nobody really knows how to select by aptitude, we fear that as the number of specialist schools increases, the power will increasingly be used to select by ability under cover of selection by aptitude.
I well remember our debate on this issue in Committee and, in particular, the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it was about the "politics of envy". It is no such thing. Our objection is rooted in the firm belief that properly resourced and well-managed comprehensive schools can serve children well right across the ability range. There are major academic and social advantages in their doing so.
Sadly the retention of the ability to select on so-called aptitude, combined with the Government's specialist schools programme, will reduce choice for many children, bar those few who are found, by some means, to have the aptitude—it sounds a bit like the knowledge, rather than the aptitude. That will apply especially in rural areas where there is only one secondary school within reach.
Schools will choose pupils, rather than the other way round, and 10 and 11 year-olds will be subjected to yet more tests as if there were not enough. Is that really what the Government want? I really hope that the Minister will see the sense of getting rid of this discredited and little-used power to save me having to bring it back at Third Reading. I beg to move.
""(9) Such children shall, in addition, be taken into account for the purposes of—
(a) the references in section 86(5), (5B) and (9) to a number of pupils, and"
Page 139, line 41, after "admit" insert ", or to admit either as boarders or otherwise than as boarders,"
Page 139, line 42, at end insert—
"Selection by aptitude
( ) In section 99 of the 1998 Act (general restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) subsection (4)(b) is omitted.
( ) Section 102 of the 1998 Act (permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects) shall cease to have effect."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page