Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘schools’, insert

‘, including a range of provision for children with special education needs’.

No. 178, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from ‘schools’ to end of line 13 and insert—

‘(b)securing diversity of educational and curriculum provision within schools and colleges;

(c)increasing opportunities for parental and pupil choice; and

(d)value for money.’.

No. 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert

‘and

(c)ensuring the spread of best practice adopted in the best performing schools.

(3B)For the purposes of section 14(3A), “best performing schools” means schools in the first quartile nationally of the value added measure of school performance.’.

No. 88, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert

‘and

(c)ensuring that at least 10 per cent. of school places are provided by one or more of the following types of school—

(i)foundation school with a foundation;

(ii)academy;

(iii)voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled school.’.

No. 97, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert

‘and

(c)ensuring that the education provided in schools in its area shall contribute to social inclusion and community cohesion in that area and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.’.

No. 98, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert

‘and

(c)ensuring fair access for all pupils in its area to opportunities for education according to their educational needs and wellbeing.’.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

I shall emphasise the point that I made before the break. The length of clause 2 is inversely proportionate to its significance in the Bill. That causes me concern for two reasons: first because the concepts of diversity and   choice need to be defined more fully, and secondly because I am not sure that the Government have adequately distinguished in the Bill between the ends that they wish to ensure and the means by which they believe they can deliver those ends.

I made the point when speaking to amendments Nos. 97 and 98 that there is ambiguity about the concept of choice. It could mean simply the extension of the range of alternatives or it could mean that each parent has the capacity to ensure that their child obtains a place in their first-preference school. I also wish to say a little about diversity. It seems to me that the objective of Government policy is not simply to extend the range of diversity in the governance structures of our schools but to achieve greater innovation in educational practice, which is the most likely way to raise standards.

It may well be that more diversity in the structures of governance and ownership will lead to that innovation, but not necessarily. There are other forms of diversity that could do so equally well or even better. The point about ends and means is significant. Had we been drafting the Bill from scratch and had more time to consider the issue, we might have focused on innovation and quality as objectives of Government policy rather than simply on choice and diversity as the means of achieving those objectives.

My right hon. Friend the Minister responded thoroughly and fairly to the points on fair access that I raised on amendment No. 98. Fair access is an important counter-balancing principle to the focus simply on diversity and choice, because there are enormous risks to a policy that focuses only on widening the range of schools and prioritising an untrammelled version of parental choice. Choice needs to operate within a framework that guarantees not only that all parents have a choice, but that the choice policy works to the advantage of parents and children. My right hon. Friend responded fairly on the issue, and I look forward to seeing the fruit of her further deliberations on it as we move towards Report.

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has responded fully to the issues of social inclusion and community cohesion referred to in amendment No. 97. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made an interesting intervention this morning about the importance of ending educational apartheid, on which I completely agree with him. He quoted the French system of education as a model. I share his enthusiasm for many aspects of the public services in France, but it is not an example of the absence of apartheid, given the riots in the northern suburbs of Paris and Lyon last November, the nightly demonstrations against Prime Minister Villepin’s new employment laws over the past few days and the general strike on Tuesday. France is not the best example at the moment of an education system that has produced an absence of social apartheid. I nevertheless strongly support the principles behind the objectives and secular basis of the French education system.

I shall dwell a moment or two longer on the question of segregation and social inclusion and exclusion. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the nature of school governance has a direct relationship to levels of social segregation. As I understand it, areas with a much higher proportion of wholly or partially selective schools, or of voluntary aided and foundation schools, have a higher level of social segregation. Between 1999 and 2004, levels of social segregation rose in 60 per cent. of English local education authorities. During that time, the areas with the greatest increase in social segregation were those that had the greatest proportion of pupils in voluntary aided schools.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman identify how that conclusion on greater social segregation was reached? By what means was that conclusion arrived at?

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

That was a conclusion of recent research submitted to the Department to supplement its own research. In a moment, I will return to the Department’s research.

Significantly, the emerging conclusion is that there is a direct relationship between social segregation and schools that are their own admissions authority—whether they are foundation or voluntary aided schools is less relevant. Admittedly, they operate within the current admissions code of practice, but that code is fairly weak and the Bill includes measures to strengthen it. That relationship is the key factor.

That conclusion cannot be ignored—it is related directly to the debate about the impact of choice and diversity, which is at the heart of the Bill. Given that the Department has received evidence from research that it has commissioned, and that the Department conducted, and continues to conduct, its own research—the conclusions of which will be made available soon—will my right hon. Friend the Minister take it upon herself to make available, if not to the public, certainly to the Committee, the results of the Department’s research on the relationship between own admissions authorities and levels of social segregation, before we end our deliberations on the Bill?

It is absolutely vital that we have access to that evidence before we draw our final conclusions on the extent to which diversity in forms of governance should be adopted in the Bill. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can take on board those issues in addition to that of fair access.

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chope. It will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made fascinating speeches today and on Tuesday, and I enjoyed listening to his points.

I thank the Minister for largely responding fairly and in considerable detail to the points so far raised in the debate. I hope that that approach will continue because it is tremendously helpful. I repeat my thanks to the Minister—I like to be generous when generosity is due.

I made it clear from the outset that amendments Nos. 59 and 178 were probing amendments intended to put on the record exactly what the Government meant when they discussed choice and diversity. The points made by the hon. Member for Bury, North were helpful, particularly the link to amendment No. 98 on fair access. The points that he made a moment ago about own admissions authority are critical. On choice, we must continue to ask: choice for whom and by whom? Are we talking about choice for parents, or for schools to choose their own attendance, which is inevitable when parents choose between popular and unpopular schools?

The Minister responded helpfully to the points that we raised about competing priorities and the difficulty for local authorities choosing between choice and diversity, and efficiency and value for money. I thank the Minister for putting on the record her determination to leave that decision up to local authorities. That was particularly helpful in light of the provocation from the Conservative Front Benchers, who talked about a marketplace in education. I shall remember those points and come back to them later, when we discuss the Secretary of State’s veto in respect of the setting up of community schools. It was helpful to hear the Minister discuss the importance of localism in relation to our amendments and amendment No. 88.

However, we have not adequately addressed how a model of diversity between schools will contribute to the end point of diversity within schools—or at least within the education system—which the hon. Member for Bury, North mentioned. The problem with choice at the moment is that there is none, if it is choice between a school that is perceived to be failing and a school that is perceived to be succeeding.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) was trying to make a point about choice; choice will become less important if all schools were perceived locally to be popular and good. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) misrepresented those comments as meaning that parents should not want their children to go to good schools. That was not my hon. Friend’s point; his point was that the result would be less clamour for a particular school and more of a leisurely, thoughtful process of choosing between the ethos or ethoi—or whatever the correct Greek term is—of particular schools. That would be preferable to choosing between a school perceived to be succeeding, and a school perceived to be failing.

Under amendment No. 178 we raised a point about trying to include diversity within schools and colleges. The Minister responded, perfectly correctly, that the local education authority does not make provision for funding for the kind of courses provided in colleges. We put that provision in quite deliberately, because we hoped that later, when the Government came to consider a fair funding system between further education and sixth form colleges—that was mentioned in the White Paper—they might consider making local education authorities fund all that provision for people up to the age of 19, and then   perhaps separating that. That is one possibility that they could consider, and we hope that the technical funding group will consider it, too.

I very much support the points made by the hon. Member for Bury, North, under amendment No. 98, but I will not press to a Division our amendments Nos. 59 and 178, which, as I said, are probing amendments. We shall attempt to return to the other points on choice and diversity later.

On the other amendments tabled by Conservative Members, we, along with the Government, have great sympathy for trying to get something about the principle of spreading good practice into the Bill, but we do not consider the wording in amendment No. 5 helpful. It is very specific, and as the hon. Member for Bury, North, said on Tuesday, there is considerable debate about the information that should be included in a statistical analysis of contextual value added, so I suggest that the amendment is perhaps not a helpful form of wording.

On amendment No. 88, as I have already stated, we as a localist party see no reason to attempt to inflict such a centralising diktat from Whitehall on local authorities. As I think the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) said on Tuesday, that would be difficult to do in many areas. I suspect that it would be particularly difficult if we were to include primary schools in that overall analysis.

We support the principle behind amendment No. 161. A difficulty that I had while listening to the debate was that although I was very supportive of the words, as the debate progressed the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) began to talk me out of voting for the amendment. I understand that he wishes to press the amendment to a Division later. I put it on the record that although we are supportive of the wording, which I think has been carefully drafted, in that it offers a range of provision, we do not support the Conservatives’ position on a moratorium; we think that that is unhelpful and, as hon. Members mentioned earlier, it has caused considerable distress.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned to me outside Committee that she had experienced a similar situation; a special school was being closed in order to be refurbished and rebuilt, and it caused considerable angst in the local community when others attempted to make the point that that school was in fact being closed.

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

I was disappointed by the hon. Lady’s comments on amendment No. 161. I received an e-mail today from the head teacher of a special school for children with learning difficulties. It said that there is a book by Dr. Michael Farrell called “Celebrating the Special School”,

“which is critical of inclusion where it implies transferring pupils from special schools to mainstream schools on ideological grounds rather than by reference to their academic progress and personal development.”

The head teacher said that the book, which has a foreword by Baroness Warnock, should be compulsory reading for all Ministers and civil servants responsible for schools policy. I hope that the Minister will grab a copy of the book and read it before deciding future policy on special schools.

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

As I was saying, I am in support of the amendment but not the nature of the debate. We are happy to support the amendment, but I take the Minister’s point. The provision is included in section 14 of the Education Act 1996. The wording of the Conservatives’ amendment would strengthen that, but I should like to place it on the record that we do not support the nature of the debate preceding it. We are quite happy to support the wording, which we think is broadly helpful.

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

I had not intended to speak again at this stage, but was encouraged to do so by the discussion on special education that emerged from our consideration of amendment No. 161, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I have no doubt that Committee members from all parties share my profound concern for the educational opportunities of children with special needs. Of course we all want those children to have the best possible chances, and I know that the Ministers share that concern.

Such concern is not the preserve of our age. When the then Secretary of State Rab Butler introduced the landmark Education Act 1944, he said in the House that

“children with slight disabilities may be taught by special methods adapted to their individual needs in ordinary primary and secondary schools, but for the more seriously disabled we look for an extension of the present inadequate provision of special schools both through local authorities and voluntary endeavour”.—[Official Report, 19 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 213.]

That was an enormous boost to the development of special schools that took place afterwards.

Despite the consensus and the shared passion that we have for the opportunities of disadvantaged children, to do the subject justice we must be frank about the more recent damage done by the orthodox thinking that led to and followed from the Warnock report and the legislation that flowed from it. We must be honest about it. A view developed that with rare exceptions, children with special needs should be educated in mainstream schools. I remember it well. In Nottinghamshire, the Labour local authority adopted the policy with enthusiasm. I opposed it then, and I have opposed it consistently since.

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

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would accept that it is not policy at the moment to teach and provide for children with special educational needs only in mainstream education. A wide range of provisions are available, from specialist units in mainstream schools to highly adapted special schools.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Order. That is a long enough intervention.

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

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. She is right. There is good practice in mainstream schools that have developed special units and in special schools. There is good practice in mainstream schools without special units where the needs of the child who has been integrated into the mainstream can be reasonably accommodated without significant compromise.

Let us be straightforward about it. A number of disabled children who would not have been educated at mainstream schools are now educated there to their benefit and, I suspect, to the benefit of the schools. That does not alter the fact that however well intentioned some of the advocates of the policy of integration may have been, in essence the view that dominated after Warnock and after the Education Act 1981 was not inspired by a proper understanding of the best interests of the child. It was an extension of the egalitarian thinking that permeated many of the educational establishment’s preoccupations for too long.

As the hon. Lady says, many children with special needs do well in mainstream schools and there are particular advantages to integration, not least the better understanding of our disabled fellows by children who become their schoolfriends—I think that the point was made earlier. There is no doubt that that occurs and that it is beneficial to all concerned.

However, for many special needs children a special school offers the best chance of achieving their educational potential. I think of schools such as the Garth school in my constituency, which deals with children with profound challenges of a variety of kinds with unparalleled dedication. I think of schools such as the Priory school, which I was able to visit recently when its twin special school from France was visiting. It provides a rarely matched degree of dedication, security and care without ever compromising the expectations of students. I think of Gosberton House school, which is also in my constituency, and the visit that I paid it a few years ago. On meeting me alongside the head teacher, a small child of indeterminate age—I guessed that his development was affected by his disability—raised his arms for a hug, which of course I gave him. Had he done that, seeking reassurance from an older child, for the first time in the playground of many mainstream schools it would have been the last time that he did so.

However much it offends the bourgeois-liberal, politically correct sensibilities of integrationists, many special needs children would not enjoy a happy, peaceful or productive life in the atmosphere of many large comprehensive schools. Special schools work for many and they deserve our support, as do the parents who choose them for their children.

Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which I believe is in Lincolnshire.

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

It is in Lincolnshire; you must come.

Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

I believe that the hon. Gentleman might be the MP for a relative of mine.

I remain puzzled by the arguments about special education put by those on the Conservative Front Bench. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he believes that local authorities and schools should have freedoms over decisions about these issues in their area or whether he believes that such decisions should be determined by Whitehall diktat? As far as I am aware, there is no Whitehall diktat saying that special schools should be closed and that integration is the only way forward.

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

I am making a case for a variety of provision. I hoped that I had made that clear. The truth is that different kinds of schools serve different children’s needs most appropriately. The essence of our argument is that choice should prevail and it should lie with parents. I know that the hon. Lady is an articulate exponent of the bourgeois-liberal cause—[Interruption.] Mr. Chope, I have her number; she is undoubtedly that, if she is anything. I must say to her that we argue for parental choice against a background of many special school closures during the period that I have described—the post-Warnock period. In some areas of the country it is extremely difficult for a parent who wishes their special needs child to access a place in a special school to get one. I am not happy about that and I am sure that she is not either, although perhaps she will now intervene to tell me that she is.

Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

I want to intervene to ask the question again. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the precise provision of special schools should be set by a Whitehall diktat? Does he not believe that there should be some local decision making based, for example, on analysis of population projections of children with particular needs and collaboration with other neighbouring local authorities to provide excellent schools that serve a number of education authorities? I would have thought that such things would be down to local decision making, not Whitehall diktat.

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

I do not argue for such things to be determined at the centre. The hon. Lady will have studied the Bill in some detail; there is barely a part or clause of it that does not involve some kind of Whitehall diktat. As we have made clear, we broadly support the thrust of the Bill. However, it does not give all the power of Whitehall to local communities, still less to local authorities, however much the Minister wishes to assuage her critics on the Labour Benches.

Such matters should be determined by demand, the choice of parents and the needs of children. I am sure that, given the assent being offered, we can find a happy compromise around those timeless principles. As I said, special schools work for many. They deserve our support, as do the parents and children who take advantage of them. We should not just save special schools, but build new ones where they are warranted and wanted. Wherever they are needed, we should make a brave and bold case for such special education and inject the same passion into that case as we have on behalf of all special needs children. As I freely acknowledged, this is a non-partisan matter, and a   passion shared by people from across the political spectrum, from the Labour party to the Conservative party—

Sarah Teatherrose—

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

—and even, in some of its quarters, the minor party.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.