 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ETuesday 9 May 2006(Morning)[Frank Cook in the Chair]Education and Inspections Bill10.30
am
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. It
is a pleasure to be back under your stewardship, Mr. Cook. I hope that
this programme motion will help us to ensure proper and full scrutiny
of the remaining clauses of the Bill. It gives us an extra nine hours
of scrutiny. At the start of the Committee proceedings I welcomed my
right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the former
Minister for Schools, who is now the Secretary to the Treasury. I
praised her talents as captain and top goal scorer for the Labour team
on this Committee. I am pleased to say that her talents have been
recognised by the manager, who has quite rightly promoted her from the
championship to the premier league. I should like to take the
opportunity to record my thanks and those of the entire Committee for
her superb contribution to our deliberations to date.
Before welcoming my right hon.
Friend’s replacement to these Benches, I want to acknowledge
another member of the team whose talents have also been rightfully
recognised. Owing to an injury tomy hon. Friend the Member
for Brigg and Goole(Mr. Cawsey), my hon. Friend the Member
for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) played as a good substitute
last week. He has now been promoted to be a full-time, paid player on
the Front Bench. You
may have wondered, Mr. Cook, how our team would cope with the promotion
of two of our key players. Where would we find a replacement with the
required intellect, charm, experience, knowledge and eloquence? Failing
to find such a person, but following his dazzling performance in the
conference league of rural policy in DEFRA, I am delighted to welcome
to the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim
Knight). He has been justly rewarded with the captaincy of our team.
Finally—I like to offer little-known facts about members of the
Committee—I point out that my hon. Friend is a keen tennis
player. Like me, he is member of the Lords and Commons tennis club. We
have played doubles together. I look forward on this occasion to being
Tim Henman to his Andy Murray.
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): 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 (Brent, East) (LD): 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.
The
Minister for Schools (Jim Knight): 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. Question
put and agreed
to. Mrs.
Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): 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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 10 May 2006 |