Clause 42
Education and Inspections Bill
Public Bill Committees, 9 May 2006, 10:30 am
Amendment proposed [2 May]: 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.”.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
I remind the Committee that with this we are taking 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)
In our last debate, before the new Minister joined this happy breed, we were discussing amendment No. 92. I, too, welcome the Minister and hope that he has an exciting time here. He must not expect the mundane or prosaic; the Committee has ranged widely and considered matters with the appropriate seriousness, which it will apply to this amendment.
To reprise the argument briefly, our case is that complaints should not be vexatious and should have merit. In that spirit, the objector should be obliged to explain fully a detailed case and the adjudicator should have the right to dismiss cases when it is not clear why the objector believes—
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)
You will not let me range too widely on the point, Mr. Cook, because I am responding to what the previous Minister said, but there is an argument that the Bill goes a very long way towards increasing the scope and powers of the adjudicator. Indeed, adjudicators will need to be wise people to deal with all the extra things that they have to do as a result of the Bill. The new Minister may want to focus on that for a moment. However, I do not wish to stray from proper consideration of what the previous Minister said about the amendment. The new Minister will have read that his predecessor acknowledged that there was no desire to encourage vexatious complaints, which is precisely why we believe that they should be covered in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene on me to give some feel for the number of complaints currently heard, the percentage that is agreed, and whether adjudicators believe that they are vexatious. The Minister obviously does not want to intervene, but no doubt he will come back to us on those matters.
I was not entirely convinced by the previous Minister’s argument that omitting such provisions from the Bill would not lead to a trend of unacceptable objections. This Minister no doubt appreciates that people make their case based on particular personal reasons—we have all had that in our constituencies. A parent, or even a group of parents, may be unhappy with the arrangements at a school, but their case is not always based on a clear, empirical argument; sometimes it is based on all kinds of other things, and it would not be right to go down the road of clogging the system with unnecessary objections.
That was the case made by the Opposition, and the previous Minister replied. At the outset I said that the amendment was a probing one. For that reason, and also so as not to introduce an unnecessary note of contumely early in the new Minister’s career, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
Order. Clause stand part was debated along with other amendments.
Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
Let me explain in words of one syllable. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the selection list of amendments, he will see that clause stand part was debated along with a string of amendments and with proposed new clause 11.