John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 92, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—

‘(1A) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Where an objection is made under subsection (2), the person making the objection to the adjudicator (the “objector”) must provide a detailed meritorious case for his decision, setting out why the specific admission arrangement to which he objects damages his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools within the authority area, and providing substantive evidence to support his case.

(2B) If the objector fails to provide the detailed meritorious case and evidence required in subsection (2A) the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.

(2C) If, in the reasonable opinion of the adjudicator an objection by an objector is unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious, he shall not hear the objection.

(2D) Where an objector has made objection on the same grounds at any time in the previous three years, the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.”.'.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 216, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (2) leave out paragraph (c).'.

Amendment No. 52, in clause 42, page 31, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 54, in clause 42, page 31, line 31, leave out from ‘made' to end of line 32.

Amendment No. 55, in clause 42, page 31, line 39, leave out from ‘arrangements' to ‘and' in line 40.

Amendment No. 53, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert

‘, provided those modifications are in line with the character and ethos of the school.'.

Amendment No. 57, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert—

‘(5D) Where the adjudicator makes a decision in relation to the admission arrangements of an admission authority, the admission authority may appeal to the Secretary of State.

(5E) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to appeals under this section, including provision—

(a) as to the time by which an appeal is to be made,

(b) as to the manner in which an appeal is to be made,

(c) as to the procedure to be followed in connection with an appeal, and

(d) as to the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow an appeal.'.

Amendment No. 93, in clause 42, page 32, line 22, leave out subsection (6).

Clause stand part.

New clause 11—Abolition of adjudicator—

‘(1) The office of adjudicator is hereby abolished.

(2) Section 90 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

We are making great progress and we now turn to clause 42 in that spirit. The clause allows anyone to make an objection to a proposed admissions  system, regardless of their evidence or reasons for doing so. There is at least a possibility of vexatious objections that are motivated by some personal grudge, not by the school’s best interests. Our proposals suggest that safeguards should be put in place to protect what might already be a complicated and bureaucratic process. As I said on amendments tothe previous clause, the White Paper was clear about the three-year period, but it was just as clear about the need to avoid the process becoming bureaucratic and complex.

Under our proposals, any objector would be expected to lodge a proper case, which should ensure that the admissions process is undergone easily. Amendment No. 92 goes into detail about how an objection might be handled, providing a meritorious and detailed case for an objector’s decision, setting out why the specific arrangements to which he objects damages his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools in the local authority area, and providing substantive evidence to support his case. The amendment goes on to state that an adjudicator should not hear an objection that cannot meet that test. It mentions specifically

“unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious”

objections.

That is not an unreasonable addition to the Bill, given that there may be those who lodge objections without good or just cause. For those reasons, the amendments are helpful. They are probing amendments because, generally speaking, as you know, Mr. Chope, we support the Bill and are anxious to ease its passage through the Committee and the House, although that will not always be easy.

I read at the weekend that a number of people on the Government Benches who oppose the Bill, perhaps having heard the contributions made by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and other members of the Committee, are growing in number. I gather that the hon. Member for Bury, North is whipping up discontent among his hon. Friends. I am anxious not to have any truck with that; as I have said before, we want to help the Minister on her journey towards enlightenment, which is why we tabled these simple amendments.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I want to speak briefly to amendment No. 216. Itis an important amendment, the effect of which would be to remove fromthe Secretary of State the power to make regulations relating toparents’ powers to object to any aspect of the proposedadmissionarrangements.

Theintroductory section 7 of the published skeletal code is entitled“Enforcing the code”. It makes the point that the localauthority, other local schools and the admission forum have importantpowers to refer any school to the adjudicator when it fails to complywith the mandatory provisions. That is true, but the section does notrefer to the powers of parents to refer individual schools’practices to the adjudicator. Parents  do have powers, but they are severely prescribed by the Secretary ofState’s powers to make regulations as to the issues on whichparents can refer problems tothe adjudicator.

There are several anomalies:for example, under the existing regulations laid down by the Secretaryof State, parents cannot refer the question of 10 per cent. selectionby aptitude to the adjudicator. However, they can refer to theadjudicator the case of a school that deliberately takes fewer pupilsthan the proposed admissions limit. To all intents and purposes theeffect of this on parents in the immediate catchment area will be thesame, but because of the regulations that the Secretary of State haslaid to prescribe these powers to parents, only one problem could bereferred by a group of parents.

It is an argument that weadvanced on earlier clauses. If we are serious about giving parents agreater voice in the development of our education system andencouraging them to challenge more frequently and more assertively thepractices of individual schools that are designed to prevent fairaccess, it seems only logical that parents should have exactly the samepowers to refer issues to the adjudicator as are now held by individualadmissions authorities, local authorities and the admissionforum.

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

The Liberal Democrats are very sympathetic to thepoints raised by the hon. Member for Bury, North and we look forward tothe Minister’sreply.

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

To ensure a fair admissions system that gives everychild, whatever their background, an equal chance to succeed, it iscrucial that we have a robust and independent system for consideringobjections to admission arrangements and for ensuring that they arefair. That, of course, is what the clausecovers.

Amendment No.92, which was moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and TheDeepings, would place conditions on the circumstances in whichobjections could be made to the schools adjudicator or the NationalAssembly for Wales. I agree with him, of course, that we should notwant frivolous or vexatious objections to be considered. There has beenno evidence of that happening since 1999 when the first objections weremade. The question whether an objection has merit should be for theschools adjudicator, who is best placed to consider all theinformation. We should not try to fetter the discretion of theadjudicator or the Assembly as the amendment proposes.

It is also important that theschools adjudicator should have flexibility to make decisions based onlocal circumstances and the merits of individual cases. The amendmentwould substantially reduce flexibility and change the balance of thesystem to favour the interests of schools rather than families andchildren. For those reasons I opposeit.

Amendment No. 216,which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, wouldremove the  power to prescribe in regulations the type of objection that parentscould make to the adjudicator. I strongly agree with him that parentsmust be able to complain about admission arrangements that theyconsider unfair, but we consider that to avoid numerous unjustified,repeated and costly referrals, formal objections by parents should berestricted to the use of pre-existing partial selection or, as my hon.Friend outlined, cases in which the admission number for a particularage group is lower than the number indicated, as happens now. However,parents can ask their local authorities to object on other grounds toadmissions arrangements and in addition parents are, as we discussedearlier, represented on admission  forums by parent governor representatives; those forums will be able toobject to arrangements in future.

I hope that my hon.Friend will agree that, as has been ably demonstrated in today’sdebates, the process of admissions can, particularly for individualparents, be a quite worrying and tense time. I am sure that he wouldnot want any parent, instead of going through the existing process ofapplication and, if unsuccessful, appeal, to be in the position oftaking objections about a school’s admissions arrangements totheadjudicator.

Debateadjourned.—[Mr.Shaw.]