Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Adult Skills), Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)

I beg to move

That—(1) during the remaining proceedings on the Education and Inspections Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 9th May) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9th May;

(b) at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 10th May;

(c) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 11th May;

(2) the remaining proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table;

(3) the remaining proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

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

It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for South Dorset, to the Committee and to congratulate him on his promotion. I have always admired his principled stance on issues such as the Iraqi war. His promotion would be well deserved on that basis alone. I am sure that he will enjoy the Department for Education and Skills just as much as he enjoyed being at DEFRA, if not more so.

Congratulations are also due to the right hon. Member for Redditch. It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true that all the people I have shadowed over the years have been promoted. I think the contrast with me makes them look good. The problem is that after about a year in their new posts people realise that they were over-promoted and they are sacked. I believe that the right hon. Lady will be the exception that proves the rule. She is a very capable and accomplished Minister and it has been a pleasure working with her over the last year. I am sure that she will do very well in her new role as Chief Whip.

I should like to say a few words about the motion before us. It is uncontroversial. After 14 long sittings we are still only a quarter of the way through the Bill. We are now at clause 42 out of 167 clauses and 18 schedules. This is an important as well as a substantial Bill. So far some 563 amendments have been tabled. Admittedly a large number of those are Conservative amendments, but there are a number of Liberal amendments, some Government amendments and many tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who has also made sure that we are fully conversant with the arguments behind them.

Considering the importance of some of the issues under discussion, I do not think that there have been any unnecessary or unduly long debates. The Bill has 10 parts, which vary enormously from issues relating to the duty of education authorities to provide a diverse system to those of choice and arrangements for a new trust school or a competition for a new school. It covers the abolition of school organisation committees, the vexed issue of school admissions—that is always controversial when there is a shortage of good school places—and new powers to close bad schools more quickly. There are parts on the school curriculum and entitlements to study certain subjects; the incorporation of the earlier School Transport Bill into this Bill; school meals; and school discipline. The latter incorporates the recommendations of the Steer committee. Finally, there are provisions on parenting orders and 47 clauses relating to the inspection regime and the merging of a number of child-related inspection bodies under the “Every Child Matters” agenda.

It was therefore not unexpected that the programme motion, which we voted against on Second Reading, would not be adequate to ensure that all the components of the Bill received the necessary scrutiny. We are as keen as the Government to ensure the smooth passage of the Bill to the statute book in a timely manner. That is why we will not oppose the motion, and we hope that we make good progress over the next three days.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Redditch on her promotion, which I suspect is long overdue. I am a relatively junior Front-Bench spokesperson, but she is one of the most talented Ministers I have worked with, even if I have disagreed thoroughly with almost everything that she has said. I congratulate her wholeheartedly.

I welcome the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for South Dorset, to his new role. I have great sympathy with him for the busy weekend that I suspect he has had, because I was reshuffled just a week before  Second Reading and I know that this is a big Bill to get to grips with in a short time. The right hon. Member for Redditch is a tough act to follow, but I am sure that he will do very well.

We, too, voted against the programme motion on Second Reading, because we suspected that the time allowed in Committee would not be adequate to scrutinise the Bill. We will nevertheless support this motion and do our best to be as brief as possible, as we have at all times, to ensure that we can complete our deliberations by Thursday as required.

Jim Knight (Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills; South Dorset, Labour)

May I say what a pleasure it will be to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook? I shall briefly respond to the kind words that have been said. I emphasise “briefly” because I am mindful that we are discussing programming and the need to get on with things.

This is my first opportunity as the new Minister for Schools to say how pleased and honoured I am to take on the role. At the heart of it is the aim to raise standards in our schools and ensure that we personalise and individualise the service to make it better for every child, building on this Government’s excellent record.

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. As everyone has said, she is a tough act to follow. She has done an excellent job. We are yet to debate the clauses on discipline, but I am sure that her understanding of the matter will be used well in her new role. I look forward to working with my doubles partner, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and to serving on a Committee with such a wealth of expertise. My reading over the weekend, to which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), referred, taught me that there was such experience and expertise, which is daunting.

This is the third Standing Committee on which I have been the Minister during this Parliament. I hope that my experience of rights of way and, most recently, common land law, will be used to the full. In the Commons Bill we are repealing legislation that goes back to 1285. I do not think that we go back quite so far in this case, but I will be mindful of the historic nature of the Bill and the difference that it will make to every child in this country.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I beg your indulgence in making a point of order at the start of our discussions. During our last sitting, on Tuesday, the then Minister for Schools may unintentionally have misled the Committee. As recorded in Hansard, when the Minister was asked whether city academies had a responsibility to take children with special educational needs, she answered,

“yes they do have to.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 May 2006; c. 638.]

In fact, city academies do not have to take children with special educational needs. They have the right to refuse to take such a child; a parent does not have the right to name an academy and neither does the local education authority.

The DFES sent a letter to all chief education officers on 15 November which stated that where the academy is of the opinion that

“the child’s attendance at the school would be incompatible with the efficient education of the other children”

there are no reasonable steps that could be taken to prevent that incompatibility, and consequently it does not consent to its being named in the child’s statement, the local authority should not name the academy. That is because academies have the right to say no to any child with special needs. Therefore, the Minister’s answer to the question should have been “No.” City academies do operate selection; they need to take only those children with special educational needs whom they choose to take.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

That is not a point of order for me. It is a point of debate and argument and I have allowed the hon. Lady to put it on the record.

Jim Knight (Minister of State, Department for Education and Skills; South Dorset, Labour)

Further to that point of order,Mr. Cook. I will write to the Committee setting out the situation in full; the effect is the same. My noble Friend Lord Adonis wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee in March stating clearly that

“if an Academy were to refuse to admit a child following a SENDIST decision and seek support from the Secretary of State for their position, I think it highly unlikely that there would be circumstances where it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to do otherwise than direct the Academy to admit the child.”

I will give the Committee statistics that show that3.3 per cent. of pupils attending academies have statements of special educational needs compared to 2.3 per cent. nationally and that 27.5 per cent. of pupils attending academies are identified as having special educational needs but no statement, compared with 14.3 per cent. of pupils attending maintained secondary schools.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

I am grateful for that enlightenment.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Cook.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

No. There will not be additional debates on matters we have already discussed.