David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 212, in clause 38, page 27, line 24, leave out from ‘England' to end of line 26 and insert

‘shall consider the report published by the local education authority under section 85C (admissions report by local education authority) and prepare and publish its response to this report, which may include rejection, as may be prescribed.'.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16—Admissions report by local education authority—

‘After section 85B of SSFA 1998 insert—

“85C Admissions report by local education authority

(1) A local education authority shall once in every school year make a report to the admission forum containing the following information—

(a) the proposed admission arrangements for every school, including academies and city colleges, in the local education authority area,

(b) the number of applications for each year group admitting pupils for each school,

(c) the number of pupils accepted for each year group and, if oversubscription criteria are used, the number of pupils selected using each oversubscription criterion, and

(d) the area which the school recruits pupils compared to the area in which the school is situated.

(2) The opinion of the local education authority shall be included in the report as to—

(a) whether the proposed admission arrangements for each school comply with the Code for School Admissions,

(b) what changes, if any, each admission authority, or as the case may be the governing body or each academy or city college, should make to their admission arrangements to comply with the Code for School Admissions,

(c) the accuracy and appropriateness of information given to parents seeking admission to the school, and

(d) whether the totality of the admission arrangements for the area produces fair access to schools for all pupils, and if not what further action the authority intends to take to ensure fair access to maintained schools and academies and city colleges.”'.

New clause 53—Reports on school admissions—

‘(1) A local education authority in England may prepare and publish reports on such matters connected with the admission of pupils to maintained schools, Academies or City Technology Colleges in that area as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purposes of the preparation of a report under section (1), a local education authority may request any of the following bodies to provide the authority with any information held by them which falls within a prescribed description and is specified by the authority in its request—

(a) the governing body of any maintained school, Academy or City Technology College in the area for  which the local education authority has responsibility or whose catchments area falls into that area;

(b) any local education authority in England for an area which adjoins the area of the authority requesting the information.

(3) A body mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) must comply with a request made by a local education authority in pursuance of that subsection.'.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I shall speak to amendment No. 212 and new clause 16. The context of the amendments is the increased emphasis by individual admission authorities on effective mechanisms of compliance with the code of practice for school admissions.

I must admit that I feel a little ambivalent about the amendments, particularly new clause 16. I welcome the content of clause 38 and the fact that the Government have recognised the potential of admission forums, which are comparatively newly established bodies. Some of them operate fairly informally, and they might not all have had time to establish their sense of purpose. The clause will give them an important role.

Clause 38 needs to be seen in conjunction with the Secretary of State’s letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, which spelled out that membership of admission forums would be changed to ensure that all schools were properly represented, thereby supporting and strengthening their new and important role in monitoring admission procedures on the local level.

The purpose of amendment No. 212 and new clause 16 is to question whether the responsibilities in clause 38, which will give admission forums the key role in preparing annual reports on how admission policies and procedures are operating locally and in identifying any unfair practice, would not be better conducted by the local education authority. The arguments are quite straightforward and twofold. In clause 38, the admission forum simply has the power to prepare and publish the report on all matters connected with pupil admission. Many admission forums might decide to use that power; some might not. Given that participation in the forums is largely voluntary and that they do not have their own permanent secretariat, it is an open question whether take-up of the new power would be significant.

Because the argument about the role of admission forums in monitoring compliance locally has been won, there is now a further debate about whether it would not be more effective for the local education authority to be responsible for producing the annual report and for that to be a statutory duty and not simply a power. Those are the two issues.

New clause 16 lists fairly precisely what the local education authority should include when preparing its annual report on the proposed admission arrangements: detailed analysis of applications to schools and descriptions of the area from which schools recruit their pupils, together with the local education authority’s opinion whether the proposed admission arrangements comply with the code for school admissions.

Whether or not the Government accept the amendment—whether the function rests with the admission forum supported by the local authority in its  secretarial function or transfers to the local authority—it is a significant step forward in the effectiveness of the compliance mechanisms and in the potential for building consensus among schools on what constitutes good practice.

As I said in the debates on clauses 36 and 37, the current arrangements for school admissions, to secondary school in particular, are unsatisfactory. They provide an administrative nightmare, and they generate huge pressure on parents to secure a place at their preferred school and on head teachers to ensure that their school is not disadvantaged by its position in the league tables.

There is a powerful argument to have new arrangements locally, involving the local education authority and the admission forum to try to build a stronger consensus, establish peer group pressure and ensure that all schools play by the rules.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I want to make some general comments about the clause, before turning to our motion, new clause 53, and the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has tabled.

To put the matter into context, we must separately consider four stages of the admissions process. First, there is the setting of admissions policy, which is done by the admissions authority—either the local authority or, if it is an own-admissions-authority school, the relevant school. Secondly, there is the administration of that policy. Thirdly, there is the monitoring and reporting of it. And fourthly, there is the enforcement of any breaches of the code.

In common with the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that there is an important role for admission forums in trying to broker practice between schools and advising the local authority on setting its own admissions criteria for schools where it is the admissions authority. However, we have tabled an amendment to which we will speak later, in which we say that it would be far better if the local authority were to administer the admissions process. I am talking not about setting the policy, but administering it.

Then, there is the question of who should monitor and record the process. No matter who reports on it, there are some general principles in common with comments already made. First, whoever reports, it should be a duty, not just a power, because reporting is important and controversial.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

Is that more or less prescriptive thanthe Bill?

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

It is more prescriptive than the Bill, but as I said, admissions is a matter of discrimination, and it is important that we ensure fair and equitable access. With respect, I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is the last time I shall answer that point because every time he interrupts my flow, my contribution takes longer, and I am trying to be speedy.

The second principle is that whoever produces the report should have the power to require schools to provide information allowing them to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point. We have included it in new clause 53(3). In common with  provisions that the hon. Member for Bury, North has tabled, the report would include an assessment of the social mix.

Some aspects of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment are far better than our new clause, and some aspects of our new clause are not included in his proposed provision. I suspect that the ideal amendment includes a combination of both.

Who would be the most appropriate person to write the report? I have some concerns about admission forums. Who would sit on them? Every school in the locality or just representatives? If it were every school, would not the forum be unmanageably large? Could it be expected to make decisions? I have some concerns about whether it is reasonable to expect admission forums to report a complaint to the adjudicator if they find that one of the schools on the forum has breached the code. Is it likely that they would do that, especially if representatives of that school are on the forum? Also, who will chair it, and who will resource it? One of the problems with admission forums at present is that they struggle with their resources, and they are often heavily driven by the local education authority.

Let me return to my earlier point about whether we need to separate the different aspects of admissions policy—setting the policy and administering it. Perhaps the answer is that the local education authority ought to be the body that scrutinises the setting of admissions policy for schools where it is not the admissions authority, and that it should test whether those schools are setting policies that are in accordance with the legislation. Should it not be the body that reports on that? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has examples from her constituency of schools that were found to be in breach of the law for quite some considerable period, because nobody had monitored them and noticed things. Perhaps the most appropriate body to produce a report on that aspect would be the local authority. However, if the local authority were the body administering the policy, perhaps it would be more appropriate if the admission forum were to be the body scrutinising the administering of that policy. Perhaps we need to separate these two aspects.

That is perhaps a complicated explanation. I suspect that it would be easier in practice than I have managed to elucidate.

Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)

Is there not a role for politically elected representatives to fulfil as well, by way of scrutiny boards?

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

That was exactly the other point I was going to come on to.

When we have these reports, where will they go, who will read them, and what will we do with them? It is also important to state on the record—this does not need to be included in the Bill—what should happen to those reports. It is vital that they go before a scrutiny committee to be evaluated; otherwise nothing will happen to them. It is no good just producing reports that end up on a website somewhere. Something must be done with them, and there must be power within the elected and accountable body to implement any changes brought up by that scrutiny process.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

Clause 38 increases considerably the functions and powers of admission forums. Admission forums were created by the Education Act 2002 and are now governed by section 85 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Each local authority must have an admission forum, and its function is to advise the local authorities and admission authorities on a range of school admission issues.

Each admission forum has to have in its membership between one and five members of the local authority, between one and three members from the diocesan board of education, between one and three members nominated by the local Roman Catholic bishop, and between one and three members from each school group—not from each school—which are community and voluntary controlled schools, voluntary aided schools and foundation schools. The membership must also include at least three appointed to represent the community, academy representatives and city technology college representatives, and between one and three parent-governor representatives. This core group of people then co-opt other people representing the interests of the local community.

Therefore, there is an entire school admissions industry, and clause 38 seeks to extend its role and powers. If one wonders where all the money goes that is siphoned off by local education authorities before it reaches schools, this is just one example. There is an entire subsection devoted to the expenses of these 173 or so admission forums. Subsection (6) states:

“Regulations may make provision with respect to the expenses of an admission forum...the expenses of an admission forum for the area of a local education authority...are to be defrayed by the local education authority by whom the forum was established.”

The clause states that admission forums now need to do extra things. They need to make reports on admissions in the area, and request information from local education authorities and governing bodies. They have things to do in respect of the publication of these reports. They need to require schools to notify the admission forum of its admission arrangements. The clause allows the forum to refer admission arrangements to the adjudicator.

Not only do the admission forums have extra things to do; doing them will require schools and governing bodies to do things and supply information to enable the admission forums to do those extra things. That is why council taxes keep going up and why bureaucracies keep expanding; it all starts here. The hon. Member for Bury, North laughs but it all starts in Committee Rooms like this one, passing clauses like this. That is why we need to employ officers and bureaucrats locally and nationally, but to what effect? What effect does all this expenditure and employment have?

I have already rehearsed the arguments against over-obsessing about admissions and I will not repeat them. But the effectiveness of these bodies and initiatives on the very children that they were intended to help has been zero. Government figures from the Department for Education and Skills show that in 2002, at key stage 2, the gap between the achievement of children eligible for free school meals and those who  are not eligible was equivalent to 2.8 terms’ worth of school time. The gap had widened to 2.9 terms by 2005.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman would simply add to the functions and role of admission forums, increasing their cost and the cost to schools and local authorities with no consequent increase in the quality of education.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

As we heard, the amendments relate to the interaction between an admission forum and its local authority. Forums already consider how well local admissions arrangements work and advise admissions authorities about any changes that they feel are necessary. We think they should play a more active role in ensuring that the arrangements operate fairly for all children. It falls under the stage of the process, outlined by the hon. Member for Brent, East, which comes under the monitoring role. It is appropriate that the admission forums be reconstituted; I shall come in a moment to some of the hon. Lady’s questions about the new arrangements.

The Bill gives admission forums extra powers to object to the schools adjudicator about the admission arrangements of any school in their area and to publish reports on how admissions operate in their area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, it is a power, not a duty, but it is pretty inconceivable that an admission forum would not carry out the very important new responsibility, which we are giving it the power to carry out, not least because of other changes that we are making to the arrangements for the admission forum.

The hon. Lady raised several issues. First, she questioned the membership of the admission forum. We propose that the membership should change to facilitate the additional powers we are giving to forums. Well researched as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton always is, he was wrong about the new membership of the admission forum. Yes, it will continue to contain the core members that he outlined, but we will add in the membership of every school in a particular area. That will not make the process of the admission forum unwieldy; sub-committees of admission forums which consider the situation in particular areas may be appropriate where there are big local authorities. It will not be necessary for every school to attend every meeting, but they may want to attend when, for example, the consideration of a referral to the adjudicator is relevant to their school or to a neighbouring school.

The hon. Member for Brent, East asked in so many words if the admission forums will be willing to shop another school. I think that they will, not because they want to shop another school but because, when the stakeholders concerned about the efficient and fair operation of admissions arrangements in an area are brought together, they will act together to identify the relevant cases and, where necessary, object, although the identification and what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North called peer pressure will have an important impact on admissions arrangements in the area.

Let us also remember that we are providing for admission forums to have the power to object to the adjudicator which local authorities and other schools in an area already have. The hon. Lady may fear that admission forums would not object, but the power already exists, and will continue to exist, for local authorities and other schools.

It will be for the core members of the admission forum to decide who will chair it. The local authority will need to provide administrative support for the admission forum as it does now. The hon. Lady asked where the report would go. Significantly, and importantly, it would go to the schools commissioner to help in the preparation of the two-yearly report on fair access. That will be important information in ensuring that the objective of fair access is achieved in a given area.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of, Labour)

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Select Committee was very concerned that the monitoring of compliance with the code should be as rigid as possible. Will she confirm that the schools commissioner’s reports on compliance with the code will be public documents?

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, because the whole point of the report is that the schools commissioner should be able to identify whether the important objective of fair access is being achieved, and to ensure that it is.

Although new clause 16 is not undesirable, it is not necessary to table a new clause to require local authorities to report in detail to their admission forum on the admission arrangements of schools in their area, and on whether they believe that those are fair and in compliance with the school admissions code. Local authorities can already compile reports and give the forum any advice that they consider appropriate. In addition, as has been said, clause 38 will give admission forums the new power to prepare and publish a report on how fairly admissions arrangements operate in their area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who, I think, supports the idea of producing the reports, questioned the most appropriate place for it to happen. In my view, with its wider membership and the representation of parents as parent governors, for example, with the membership of other members of the community who may be on admission forums, and with the involvement of all schools, including those who are their own admissions authorities, the potential contribution of an admission forum may be broader, and the resulting report fuller, than if the local authority were to do it.

The important point is that the work is done and that the report is full. That is why regulation 2, paragraph (2) of the School Admissions (Admission Forums) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, which have been circulated to the Committee, includes a pretty full list of what we expect those annual reports to contain, including

“the number and percentages of...preferences met...

(b) the number of appeals made...

(c) the ethnic and social mix of pupils attending schools in the area...and the factors that affect this;

(d) the extent to which existing and proposed admission arrangements serve the interests of looked after children, children with disabilities and children with special educational needs;

(e) how well the hard to place protocol has worked...

(f) whether primary schools are meeting their statutory duties in relation to infant class sizes;

(g) details of other matters that might affect how fairly admission arrangements serve the interests of children and parents within the authority; and

(h) any recommendation or recommendations that the forum wishes to make in order to improve parental choice and access to education in the area of the authority.”

That is pretty full, and in connection with the report the forum will be able to require the local authority and any other admissions authority to provide it with the information that it needs to carry out its task.

That was characterised as a massive additional burden that would cause council tax levels to rise. Given the usually measured approach of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I can only attribute his considerable over-statement, which does not bear any resemblance to what will happen, to our being just two days away from the local elections.

The large majority of the information is already collected, for example, through the pupil-level annual school census. We will not be placing a new burden on schools and admissions authorities or the local authority if they are to collect the information that I have outlined. Therefore, the need for local authorities to be given an additional, specific power for that purpose becomes redundant, as do the proposals in amendment No. 212.

New clause 53 is also unnecessary. As I have already explained, clause 38 allows admissions forums to prepare and publish a report into admissions matters in their area, and local authorities already have the power to publish reports on that.

I hope that, given the additional information and reassurance about that power, content and use of that report, with which I have provided the Committee—along with the information about the new proposals that we are making for the constitution and membership of admissions forums—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North will withdraw his amendment.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I want to thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. She has made clear her commitment to ensuring that we have effective compliance mechanisms locally. If we did not operate within a structure with a direct relationship between the capacity of a school to determine its own admissions and the level of segregation in the immediate locality—for example, schools controlling their own admissions have far lower percentages of children on free school meals, with special educational needs and whose first language is not English—and were not operating and had not inherited such a high level of segregation in our system, there would be no need to establish the mechanisms locally. To dismiss the provisions of the clause, or those of new clauses 16  and 53, would add a burden to the taxpayer and ignore the damaging effects of segregated intakes in our schools.

I welcome the emphasis that the new code of practice places on making avoidance and elimination of social segregation a major social theme in all our admissions policies. All schools, whatever their background, ethos or tradition, have to take that on board, because if they do not, in many parts of the country segregated schooling will increasingly become a reality—although not necessarily in the constituencies represented by members of the official Opposition—and we all know the disastrous consequences that that can have.

Given the Minister’s strong reassurances about her commitment to ensuring that effective compliance mechanisms are in place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 437, in clause 38, page 27, line 25, after ‘schools', insert

‘, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts'.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 438, in clause 38, page 27,line 34, after ‘school', insert

‘, academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts'.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are intended to probe the Government’s definition of “maintained schools”. Under clause 5(6) and clause 30, the definition does not include academies or city technology colleges. However, when the Minister was discussing school improvement partners, she described how SIPs would be provided by the relevant maintaining authority, which, in that case, was the Secretary of State.

The amendments were tabled to test whether the admission forum has the power to scrutinise and publish reports on academies and city technology colleges and request the relevant information from those schools.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Academies, through their funding arrangements, are required to comply with admissions legislation and the school admissions code. That means that academies must provide the admission forum with any information that it wishes to include in its report. In the case of CTCs, most have either become academies or are in the process of doing so. We are happy for admission forums to include in their reports the impact that CTCs have on the admissions in their areas. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady feels suitably reassured.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of clarification, the Minister said that she is happy for CTCs to be included, but will there be a requirement for them to co-operate?

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by a requirement to co-operate. I was clear that academies and, I think, CTCs, where they exist, are members of admission forums. An admission forum’s report will detail the admissions arrangements of academies and CTCs. Academies, because of their funding agreements, will have to provide information to the admission forums. If it was necessary, or there was a difficulty with getting information from a CTC, we would be willing to obtain any information that an admission forum needed if it was not forthcoming.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for putting those aspects on record, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.