Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 181:"Page 30, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—" ““(2)   Subsection (1) does not apply to the filling of unfilled places in schools with a religious character, which shall be filled in accordance with the ““Codes of Practice—School Admissions 2003””.”” The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the   issue of unfilled places. It would provide that Clause   52(1) does not apply to the filling of unfilled places in schools with a religious character which should be filled in accordance to the School Admissions Code of Practice issued in 2003. Let me explain what that means. With the repeal of Section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it is no longer possible for foundation and aided schools with a religious character to agree special arrangements with their local education authority by which they can keep places empty if they do not have enough applications from their particular faith or denomination. The position is regulated by the codes of practice referred to in the amendment. The code says in paragraph 3.9:"““Schools designated by the Department as having a religious character may give preference in their admission arrangements to members of a particular faith or denomination (as may be required by their Trust Deed), provided this does not conflict with other legislation such as race relations legislation. Where they do, their admission arrangements should make clear whether a statement of religious affiliation or commitment would be sufficient; whether it is to be ‘tested’ for admission purposes and if so, how; and what, if any, references would be required from the family’s priest, Minister or other religious leader and how they will be used to decide on the application””." Paragraph 3.10 contains this important statement:"““Faith schools can contribute to community cohesion by having admission arrangements that are inclusive of other faiths and of all elements of the population of their local area. Some faith schools already achieve inclusiveness by designating a proportion of places for which children of their own faith or denomination will be given priority, and the remainder as community or open places for which local children will be given priority. Note: this is quite different from ‘quotas’, which would reserve places solely for particular groups, and would mean leaving places empty if not enough members of those groups apply””." Finally, it says:"““With the repeal by the Education Act 2002 of section 91 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it is no longer possible for foundation and aided schools with a religious character””—" I have already mentioned this—"““to agree special arrangements with their LEA by which they can keep places empty””." My amendment seeks to make sure that what is in the code of practice will apply to the unfilled places. It is extremely important that that be so. The blanket exception allowing discrimination in admissions reflects the repeal of Section 91 of the 1998 Act. I welcome the Government’s Amendments Nos. 186 and 188, grouped later, which amend the Bill so that local education authorities cannot harass in respect of the admission procedure. However, I seek a guarantee in the Bill that the code of practice’s very sensible multi-faith and no-faith approach to unfilled places will apply, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.