Education Bill

My Lords, I agree with the three definitions that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, came up with: fair funding, fair inspection and fair access. These are the three principles that we need to uphold as we develop our academy policy. I will return to that in a moment. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I am told that, perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a statutory definition of fair access. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, came up with a definition, and I suspect that it is like the elephant—we know it when we see it. I take issue with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the extent to which the Government are seeking to change the admissions arrangements. The changes which we are proposing are relatively modest. I accept entirely the need for strong and effective safeguards and these are in place. As I go on to explain what some of them are, I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that that is the case. As I said when we discussed similar amendments in Committee, and reiterate now, we see our commitment in favour of fair access, and protecting and promoting the opportunities of the disadvantaged and vulnerable, as part of our broader agenda. We talked earlier about extending early years education to disadvantaged two year-olds, the funding we have put behind the pupil premium and our efforts to tackle underperforming schools. I would also argue that this commitment can be seen in the changes that we are making on admissions. We have revised the statutory admissions code, which we think over the years—in a well-intentioned attempt to cover every eventuality—had become a bit unwieldy. In revising the code, although we have retained the key safeguards for looked-after children and children with statements of special needs, we have also added new measures to improve access to good schools. These will, for example, allow academies to prioritise children receiving the pupil premium. We have expanded infant class size exceptions to include twins, multiple births and children from our Armed Forces families. I should add that much of the feedback that we have had from the consultation is that, in making it simpler, more concise and more focused on the things that admission authorities must do, parents and their associations who have responded feel that it would be easier to hold schools and local authorities to account. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said, we will come shortly to a group of government amendments that would allow anyone to refer a concern to the schools adjudicator. That builds on Clause 62, which extends the adjudicator's remit to include all academies and free schools so that admissions to all state-funded schools will be covered by the same organisation. I hope that that provides a bit of the framework that noble Lords opposite are looking for in understanding what architecture there will be in a new world, where there are more academies, to make sure that these safeguards are in place. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, would place a duty in the code, or on the Secretary of State, to promote fair access to opportunity for education. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Walmsley would require him to ensure fair access, "““as far as is reasonably practicable””." I think everyone in this House would agree with the spirit of those amendments, but our position is simply that they are not strictly necessary. The revised code has fair access written through it; that is its central purpose and the reason why the code was introduced by the previous Government in 1998 and became mandatory in 2006. The subsequent revision of the code, the new measures that it includes and our move to allow anyone to object are all actions designed to give local communities more say and more power over how they access these schools. This is a stronger system of fair access, without the need for any specific reference, than Amendment 63A seeks to insert into primary legislation. I know that my noble friend Lady Walmsley was particularly concerned about who has oversight of the admissions process. That, in effect, is the same as the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford. It was what lay behind both of them tabling their different amendments. As she said, my noble friend discussed this with me and the Secretary of State. I hope that we were able to reassure her that the Secretary of State has full oversight of admissions across the country, supported by the chief adjudicator. The chief adjudicator is an independent national figure and provides an annual report to the Secretary of State which covers a strategic view of fair access in the round, how fair access is being achieved locally and the range of issues that his adjudicators have come across in that year. He also reports back on any ad hoc reviews requested by the Secretary of State. The other government amendments, which we will come to in the next group, maintain this oversight by ensuring that local authorities' annual reports, while being published locally, will also continue to go to the adjudicator. The Secretary of State continues to have the power to ask the adjudicator to investigate any school's admission arrangements if he has reason to believe that they might not be compliant with the code. Therefore, we do not believe that a duty on the Secretary of State is necessary to ensure that there is a national overview of admissions. My noble friend Lady Walmsley raised a specific point about where those duties are set out in statute. I will write to her regarding the statutory references, which I hope will give her further reassurance. Such a duty would also be a duplication of a duty that currently rests with local authorities, which is the right level for that duty, given local authorities' central role in ensuring fair access to education. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, was concerned about situations where more schools become their own admission authority. As she said, that is the case in some localities. However, it is also the case that all academies have to abide by the code, which requires fairness. It is based on a principle of fair access, with particular safeguards for looked-after children and children with SEN and disabilities. We are allowing complaints against academies to go to the adjudicator for the first time. Local authorities have a duty to co-ordinate all admissions to state-funded schools in their area, which includes the provision of information and advice to parents to help them choose the right school for their child. They have oversight of all admission arrangements in their area and they have not just a power but a duty to refer any arrangements that they suspect may be unfair to the adjudicator.