On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question relating to the fitness for purpose of the Home Secretary, the former Home Secretary and the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality in respect of a priority question that I tabled just before the former Home Secretary was sacked. It asked what account the Home Secretary had taken, in exercising his discretion in implementing his policy on the deportation of foreign national convicted persons, of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 3 of the European convention on human rights. It was tabled on 3 May, but 16 days later all I have received is a holding reply. Will you, Mr. Speaker, please insist that that question, which I tabled on 3 May, be answered forthwith?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There appears to have been a lengthy delay in that case, and I will seek an explanation from the Minister concerned. There are currently too many such delays on questions to Departments. I remind the Ministers of their duty to the House to give timely answers to questions, as set out in "Erskine May".

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that lapse. I have listened carefully to your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and will ensure that that matter is treated with the seriousness that it deserves by my colleagues in the Government.

I thank the Leader of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. I wonder whether it is acceptable for hon. Members to sell publicly provided documents for the financial benefit of a political party. I would be grateful if you issued guidance for the elimination of doubt for hon. Members. If that practice is not acceptable, will you issue guidance on whether you would handle such a breach, or whether it would be better referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life?

I understand that there is an early-day motion regarding that matter, which the Chair should not be drawn into. The hon. Gentleman should sign the early-day motion, if he so wishes, although I am not encouraging him to do so.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, Dr. David Kelly was a constituent of mine. Earlier, the Prime Minister said that no offence was intended to be caused by the sale of that document, but I assure him that it was caused. I have heard you say that you do not want to be involved in the debate, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether it would be in order for a Cabinet Office Minister to attend this House to make a statement—

Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there, because it was not clear that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) was referring to an hon. Member's family. I would not expect anyone to draw the Chair into an argument about any hon. Member's family, whether that hon. Member is a humble Back Bencher or the Prime Minister. I will not do that, and I hope that that does not become a practice of the House.

Bill Presented

Sustainable Communities

Julia Goldsworthy, supported by Mr. David Drew, Gregory Barker, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Chris Huhne, Alan Simpson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Andrew Stunell, Mr. Douglas Carswell, Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron and Mr. Dan Rogerson, presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to submit plans to the Secretary of State in connection with promoting the sustainability of local communities; to provide for parish councils and other persons to participate in the formulation of such plans; to provide for the Secretary of State to assist local authorities in promoting sustainable communities; to specify the indicators by which the sustainability of local authorities may be measured; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed. [Bill 187].

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to limit the hours of opening of large shops on Sundays and other specified days.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House a Bill that will limit the hours in which large supermarkets and other stores trade on a Sunday at present. I do so because I believe that every politician in the House must answer a simple question: what kind of society do we wish to create? In 1994, did we really wish to create a seven-days-a-week society, with each day identical to the previous one? Did we wish to make Sunday the same as a Saturday, Friday or Monday? I do not believe that we did.

A healthy society has a rhythm to life, not a monotony of work, work, work, shop, work, shop, shop, work, or whatever. To me, that is not good for a healthy society. I am worried about families, and I want to help them to be together, not to split them apart so that one partner works on a Sunday while the other looks after the children, allowing them to work on a Monday while the first partner looks after the children. That is not good for families. Families are generally a unit of two partners and children. I think that it is good if families can spend time together as a unit, rather than each partner spending time individually with the children. There are other opportunities that are missing from the rhythm of life.

Although I am a Christian—I am a Roman Catholic and I go to church—that is not the fundamental reason why I am proposing the Bill. I am suggesting that one day has to be different, and it does not matter whether that is for religious observance, a sporting interest, leisure, or time with the children. I fundamentally believe that, for a healthy society, such a difference must go on.

Let us consider the impact of the 1994 Act. The Government-commissioned Indepen report stated that the changes that have occurred since 1994 include the extension of Sunday opening and its continuing growth. The report concludes that congestion has increased on Sundays as more and more people go to the shops. However, more importantly for those who have to work on Sundays, there has been a reduction in the Sunday wage premium. Those who find themselves with little choice but to work on Sundays are thus finding that their reward for giving up their day off with their families is being reduced.

When we consider what people want, we must look at the changes that have occurred. One of the big changes to the grocery trade has been the growth of the big four. The big four now have 70 per cent. of all grocery trade. The Department of Trade and Industry's response to that is not to say, "Hold on a second. Aren't just four companies dominating the whole market?" It has refused year after year to examine that situation to determine whether there is fair trading, although there is some give on that at the moment.

The Department's proposals are actually the reverse of mine. It proposes to consult on deregulating Sundays altogether. The only consequence of that would be to increase the dominance of the big four. It would work to the detriment of small shops, and there would be not only no rhythm of life in society in the week, but no rhythm of where people can go to shop: the convenience stores would all close because they could not compete with the buying power of the large supermarkets.

What sort of society do we want? Is it one that is led by the market? I believe that that should not be the case. The market should serve us, not we serve the market. A survey by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which does not support my proposals—it wants the existing regulations to remain in place; it does not want an extension of opening hours, but nor does it want to go back to the situation in 1994—showed that 43 per cent. of those who responded did not want to work on Sundays but often had to, that 37 per cent. did not mind working on Sundays occasionally, and that only 20 per cent. wanted to work on Sundays. The reality is, however, that more and more people are being forced to. I am aware of people in my constituency who are frightened to say no to their employers when it comes to Sunday working. The number of workers who are now protected is falling because work within the sector tends to be short term.

However, not only are shop workers affected by Sunday opening; so are street cleaners, who have to go out on a Sunday because there is now more mess on that day; so are bus drivers, because people want to go to the shops and there is pressure on services on Sundays; so are lorry drivers, who have to give up their weekends to make deliveries to stores; so are the police, who now have to do more work because shops are open on a Sunday; so are traffic wardens, who have to control the traffic on Sundays; and so are fire crews, who have to staff the fire stations because there is an increased risk of their being called out because of the shops and additional offices that are open on a Sunday. The 1994 Act has had an impact not just on the rhythm of life and on workers who are forced to give up their free time to work on a Sunday, but on a lot of other people in many other sectors.

Let me quote two or three cases that have been put to me. A woman working for a large department store in Swansea wrote to Keep Sunday Special, saying:

"I feel enormous pressure exerted on me to work Sundays, not only by my employer, but by my colleagues, many of whom felt threatened and worried by recent redundancies. I approached a supervisor, pointing out that legally I could not be forced to work on a Sunday. I was told that it was in my interests to be part of the team...no one else is complaining!"

People have contacted Working Families, which also wants to keep the status quo. It said:

"One caller had been working weekend shifts for many years while her ex-partner looked after the children. However, when he moved away she was left with no cover. She simply couldn't work weekends any more."

She lost her job as a consequence. Working Families also said:

"Another caller had had his shift patterns changed unilaterally to include some weekends, which coincided with when his wife worked. His employer wasn't prepared to fit shifts around partners. We advised the caller of his rights regarding flexible working, but he said that both he and his wife were too scared of losing their jobs to do anything."

That is the reality of Sunday work.

There is support for a change from the Churches, and the United Reformed Church used the phrase "rhythm of life" in its letter to me. Between 71 and 80 per cent. of parents say that they have no choice about whether they work weekends. They are not like MPs, who may opt to do their casework on a Sunday. Instead, they are the poorer members of society—the people who are forced to work. For them, we need to look at the legislation and to change it. For society as a whole, we need to look at it and change it. I believe passionately that Sunday needs to be different. We need a day when we can relax, meditate, play sport or go to church.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Richard Younger-Ross, Dr. John Pugh, Mr. Colin Breed, Andrew Stunell, Mr. David Anderson, Stephen Pound, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Peter Luff and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger.

Sunday Trading Act 1994 (Amendment)

Richard Younger-Ross accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to limit the hours of opening of large shops on Sundays and other specified days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 186].

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5— Restrictions on special school closures—

'(1) No special school shall be closed by a local education authority without the consent of the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately.'.

New clause 30— Professional standards for teachers—

'Professional standards for teachers shall require that all those receiving—

(a) initial teacher training,

(b) assessment for induction or as a main-scale teacher,

(c) assessment for threshold or as a senior teacher, or

(d) assessment for suitability as a head teacher,

shall be required to demonstrate an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.

New clause 31— Permanent exclusion of pupils—

'(1) This section applies in relation to the permanent exclusion of a disabled pupil or a pupil with special educational needs by any school at which education is provided for him.

(2) No such pupil shall be excluded unless a review has been held of—

(a) the sufficiency and effectiveness of the reasonable adjustments being made for him if he is a disabled pupil, and

(b) the special educational provision being made for him if he is a pupil with special educational needs.'.

New clause 52— Circulation of materials in relation to course of study—

'After section 85A of EA 2002 (inserted by this Act) insert—

"85B Requirements relating to materials for courses of study in specified entitlement areas

Where a course of study within an entitlement area specified by the Secretary of State under section 85A(1)(b) is to be introduced, the Secretary of State must ensure that all necessary materials are circulated to schools and other relevant learning providers at least one full academic year before their introduction and that due consideration is given to the time it takes to translate such material into Braille.".'.

New clause 77— Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with special needs—

'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert—

"(3C) Where a statement of special educational needs is maintained by the local education authority in respect of a pupil pursuant to section 324, the period following which education referred to in subsection (3A) must be provided must be sufficient to permit the authority to amend or otherwise reassess the statement where required by law.".'.

New clause 78— Responsibility of governing body for discipline (supplementary provisions)—

'The governing body of a relevant school must not delegate responsibility for the policy drawn up under section 80(1) to anyone unless that person has demonstrated an understanding of special educational needs and disability legislation.'.

New clause 79— Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy (supplementary provisions)—

'The head teacher must, in determining measures under section 81(1), show—

(a) how reasonable adjustments are made, taking account of the particular circumstances of pupils with disabilities, and

(b) what special educational provision is made within those measures for pupils with educational needs, with or without a formal statement.'.

New clause 80— Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils with disabilities or special needs—

'(1) Section 19 of EA 1996 (exceptional provision of education in pupil referral units or elsewhere) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3B) (inserted by section 93 of this Act) insert—

"(3C) The local education authority shall have particular regard to the appropriateness of educational provision made for excluded pupils where those are disabled pupils or pupils with special educational needs.".'.

Amendment No. 16, in clause 35, page 25, line 17, at end insert—

'(6A) In discharging those functions, the governing body of a maintained school shall also have regard to the provision of appropriate teaching and learning support for any child with special educational needs.'.

Amendment No. 17, in clause 37, in page 26, line 38, after 'requirements,', insert—

'which shall in particular include a requirement to give priority in admissions to disabled children and children with special educational needs who do not have a statement under section 324 of EA 1996,'.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 38, in page 27, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment No. 19, in clause 38, in page 27, line 31, at end insert—

', and these shall include a report on the numbers of disabled pupils and those with special educational needs admitted to each school in the area.'.

Government amendment No. 67.

I am delighted to speak to new clause 4, and the other new clauses and amendments in this group.

For the benefit of the House, the new clauses that I have tabled with my hon. Friends mount a strong defence of the role of special schools in the service of special needs children. Last night, we ended our consideration of the Bill with a debate on school discipline and the quality of life in schools: their ethos and atmosphere. I hope that that debate marks the start of a war on thugs and bullies and a crusade for their victims.

Most strong, confident, able children will survive any school, but that is not so for the most vulnerable, including children with special educational needs. They are indeed special, and they deserve our special care and concern. Every parent knows the protective instinct evoked by a fragile, innocent child as we wonder at their beauty. Imagine the intensity of those feelings in the case of a child who is especially fragile, physically or emotionally, because of special needs.

I invite the House, in considering the new clauses and amendments, to attempt for a short time to share those emotions. I do so with little doubt about the good will in all parts of the House on the subject, which is not a matter of party affinity or prejudice. It is not, however, unaffected by ideology or even dogma. The unrelenting pursuit of the integrationist policies that followed the Warnock report in 1978 and the Education Act 1981, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, could hardly have been more dogmatic.

That dogma has coloured our perception for too long. When introducing the Special Needs and Disability Bill—I was pleased to serve as a Front-Bench spokesmen on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill—Baroness Blackstone said in the Lords that

"commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant...The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]

As I said in Committee, the order in which she listed those benefits is interesting. We are, of course, concerned about the social, moral and cultural needs of people with learning difficulties, but their educational needs are always more significant than any cultural or social benefits that we might derive for them, their contemporaries or their schools. I could put it more bluntly: children's futures count—not the guilt-ridden consciences of the liberal bourgeoisie.

Closed minds have closed schools, and thus damaged lives. Of course, none of that was malevolent, and much of it was fuelled by the best intentions. But as we know, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The integrationist broad-brush approach to an infinitely complex issue has damaged the educational prospects of countless children.

Of course, many children with special educational needs, where their parents wish it and where their needs can be accommodated, do well in mainstream schools and in special units attached to mainstream schools. I celebrate the work of those schools and of the teachers so committed to their important duty. However, there are two fundamental problems with integration. The first is that the resources necessary properly to meet the stated needs of children rarely follow them into mainstream schools. That is certainly true of staff training.

The former head of a middle school with a special unit tells of the practical costs of the policy in a letter referring to these matters published in the national media this week. He writes:

"When I was appointed head, I was not asked at the interview if I had any experience of children with special needs. I didn't. When I took up the post, I discovered that the teachers at the unit of 24 children with special needs ranging from emotional behavioural difficulties to mild autism also had no specialist qualifications. In a school of 400, these children took up at least half of my administrative time. The teachers were often off sick and most of the children in the unit would, in my view, have been better served in special schools. Inclusion may sound good in theory, but the practicalities often tell a different story."

So it is not surprising that, according to the comprehensive review conducted by The Times Educational Supplement last year, two thirds of teachers receive less than one day's training in how to teach children with special needs, and 90 per cent. of head teachers thought that their schools did not receive sufficient resources to fund integration.

That is perhaps why the amendments have been welcomed by the National Union of Teachers as an important set of improvements to the Bill. It is why the orthodox thinking on the subject among teachers and others has moved to the position that I have held from the early 1980s onwards, when I first became interested in special educational needs. I recall from that period—the mid-1980s—supporting many struggling parents who wanted their children taught in special schools, sometimes out of authority or even out of country, because they knew that that was the best way of allowing their children to fulfil their potential.

In new clause 4(5) the proposal is that a child with special educational needs

"shall not be educated in a mainstream school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents."

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would also subscribe to the view that a child with special educational needs shall not be educated in a special school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents?

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point, and he is right that parental wishes are paramount in these matters. I would not wish any child whose parents did not wish it or whose needs were not best catered for there to be educated in a special school. As I said at the outset, the educational needs of the child should be paramount in our considerations. I know the hon. Gentleman has a longstanding commitment to the subject and a detailed knowledge of it. I pay regard to that. He, like many hon. Members, wants the best for children with special needs. This debate is about how we achieve that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is an issue about the needs of the child and the wishes of parents, which may come out in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that where educating a child in a special school is incompatible with the wishes of his parents, that child should have the right to mainstream education, why has he not made that clear in the new clause?

Because the war that has been waged since Warnock has not been a war against children being integrated into mainstream schools. It has been a war against special schools. The prejudice that has underpinned much of the policy that has emanated since Warnock has not been a prejudice in favour of special schools; it has been a prejudice against them. So parents who wanted their children educated in special schools have found it increasingly hard to get places in them as those schools have closed, as I shall describe later in my long but fascinating speech.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that in addition to people campaigning for special schools, as indeed they have for various reasons, there has also been a major problem for parents of a child with special needs who want that child in a mainstream school and want the necessary support? Many, many of my constituents campaign to get that support, because they want their child in a mainstream school.

The hon. Lady makes another important point—a slightly different one from the hon. Gentleman's—about resources, which I was dealing with. It is crucial that if a child is to be successfully educated in the mainstream, proper resources and training be put in place to facilitate their progress. It is often difficult for parents to achieve a statement in the first place. The statementing process is still too often long, complex and bureaucratic. It bamboozles many parents. They are intimidated by the whole subject of their child's education and opportunities. I agree with the hon. Lady that it can be a struggle, therefore, for them to find their way through that maze, get the necessary resources put in place, get a statement that is appropriate to their child's needs, and get the education they need where they want it delivered.

I argue for parental choice and for the needs of the child to be paramount. I take the hon. Gentleman's point— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman points in a rather theatrical way to the new clause. No doubt he will make an interesting contribution to the debate when he has a chance to speak. I want to know whether he is on the side of the mainstream thinking, or on the side of the growing weight of opinion that regards the policy that has been put in place since Warnock as having failed. Baroness Warnock thinks so, the teachers think so and I think so. Does he wish to intervene and tell me?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

The intellect of Einstein and the eloquence of Demosthenes warrant a bigger audience than my hon. Friend enjoys today. May I put it to him that the sensible mainstream non-ideological rejoinder to the noble Baroness Blackstone in asserting the merits of inclusion should be, "Up to a point, Lord Copper"? In the case with which I am currently concerned—the future of the Nuffield speech and language unit—it is a matter beyond argument that the reason for a significant decline in the referrals to the unit is that there is pressure on local authorities to reduce the number of statements and, in particular, to avoid wherever possible the fact and cost of out-of-area placements. Should not we accept that sometimes it makes sense to include and sometimes it does not?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been a great champion of Nuffield. I was able to add to his campaign in a humble way in Committee by drawing attention to the excellent work done there. I congratulate him on all he does. He is, if I may say so, Jonathan to my David, Ernie to my Eric, Bosie to my Oscar in this respect.

My hon. Friend says, pertinently, that part of the problem is getting the right referrals. Because of doubts about resources, there is a reluctance to statement and to refer. Consequently, parental choices and children's needs are neglected along the way. I said at the outset that I celebrated the work of all those who made integration work for the very many children who have integrated into mainstream schools and enjoyed and benefited from the experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is right when he says that a one-size-fits-all policy—a broad-brush approach—is not right and not sufficient in relation to special needs.

If the hon. Gentleman does not want a one-size-fits-all policy and wants to be non-ideological and reasonable, why on earth does subsection (5) of new clause 4 refer only to the right to attend a special school and not to the right to attend a mainstream school? That is as moderate and as reasonable as I can be.

The hon. Gentleman needs to study the new clause. Subsection (3) says:

"If a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, any person exercising any functions under this Part in respect of a child with special educational needs shall ensure that he is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school, having due regard to—

(a) the wishes of the parent,

(b) the provision of efficient education for other children, and

(c) the efficient use of resources."

We make it absolutely clear that, given those important caveats about efficiency and appropriateness, a child could be educated in a mainstream school or a special school to good effect.

rose—

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again. If he wants to speak, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he can catch your eye later, but he is not going to intervene on me any more, much as I like and admire him, because I need to make some progress.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will indeed give way to my hon. Friend, because whereas the hon. Member for Kingswood has had three bites of the cherry, he has had only one.

May I simply underline the rather obvious point that we do not need to have some sort of Manichaean divide between mainstream on the one hand and special schools on the other? I put it to my hon. Friend—I think that he understands the point extremely well—that when one intervenes early in cases of people with very severe learning difficulties and has specialist provision outside mainstream for a period, one can then facilitate re-entry to mainstream, but to suppose that all children can get by in mainstream represents a triumph of hope over reality.

The point is twofold. First, special needs are dynamic, because their causes are often dynamic. A child's needs will vary; that is why we need to look at the statementing process to ensure that it is sufficiently sensitive to deal with those changing needs. Secondly, a child's educational progress may mean that they are better educated at different points in their education in different places. Again, we have to be sufficiently flexible to take account of that. A good example is indeed that of the Nuffield speech and language unit. My hon. Friend knows better than I do that the average time that a person spends at Nuffield is two years, because they move in and out of provision as their needs require. He is absolutely right that a static view about appropriateness has been one of the problems with policy.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Lady, who was an outstanding servant of the House when she served on the Standing Committee.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Education Act 1996 makes it clear that one of the criteria for placing a child in a special school is the appropriateness of the provision. The new clause would remove that criterion, and in effect prioritises the efficient use of resources over the appropriateness of the provision. Does not he agree that that in itself invalidates it?

The difficulty, as the hon. Lady will know from her experience in this House and previously, is that in practice a balance is often struck between appropriateness of provision and resources. Sadly, integration, if it is to work well, is often very resource-hungry. I do not want to be too simplistic about this because it depends on the need of the child at any one point in time, but the resource issue that the hon. Lady properly raises is one of the reasons why integration sometimes fails. That will be an ongoing concern and something that Members on both sides of the House will want to scrutinise and raise when appropriate, both nationally and in their own localities.

I must make a little more progress, or I will be chided by my own Front Benchers and other Members. [ Interruption.] Well, I know that they are enjoying it, but like all good things it must eventually come to an end.

The results of last year's comprehensive survey of schools by The Times Educational Supplement were shocking. It revealed that teachers believe that up to 25,000 children in mainstream schools in England and Wales would be better off in special schools. More recently, the National Union of Teachers has said that inclusion amounts to" child abuse" in some cases. It speaks particularly of those children with the most serious conditions who struggled in the confusing regime of secondary schools, where they could be taught by 10 or more teachers a week in different classrooms. Those findings followed a report that the NUT commissioned from Cambridge university. It is certainly true that teachers, head teachers and governors around the country are increasingly alarmed about the effect of inclusion when resources and training do not follow the child.

The second problem with the policy that followed Warnock is that many secure, supportive and vastly experienced special schools have closed, as a direct result of the pernicious Warnock effect. Ninety-three schools have closed since the Prime Minister promised that things could only get better in 1997. Before the Minister tells me, as I am sure that he will, that the same number of children with special needs are educated in special schools as always were, which is usually the rejoinder when one talks about special school closures, let me give him the figures. From January 1999 to January 2005, the number of children educated in special schools has declined by more than 85,000. The truth is that many fewer children are being educated in special schools.

rose—

The Minister is about to intervene on me with an even more salient and clever point than I anticipated, as he so often does.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I have been very patient. As he is interested in statistics, I remind him that in the past 10 years, 122 special schools have closed, while in the previous 10 years, 234 closed. The trend is going in the right direction. Since 1997, more than 300 special schools have opened, 90 in the past two years. We often use the statistic about the proportion of children who are in special schools, which has gone up by 1 per cent.

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will know that many of those openings have been special units within mainstream school campuses. By the end of the debate, can he unpick that figure a little more, break it down, and tell us how many of those schools are freestanding independent schools with their own governing body and so on?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have given way so often that I am beginning to tire of my own verbiage, but I will do so again.

I want to speak against the hon. Gentleman's new clause. As he has been addressing the House, I have become increasingly concerned by his repeatedly saying that the most important thing is structures, whether special schools or mainstream schools. Last week, the Education Committee went to Darlington to see a truly excellent example of an establishment that brought together a secondary school, a primary school and a special school, and where the education was entirely centred on the children's needs. The whole educational debate is moving on to be child-centred, so that we look after the educational needs of all children and stop having this obsession with structures.

As ever, the hon. Lady makes a good contribution to the debate. I was enjoying it immensely until she used the term, "child-centred" and then I began to think of all the dreadful, progressive, post-Plowden dogma about child-centred learning that did so much damage and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has drawn the House's attention on more than one occasion.

However, the hon. Lady is right that good education depends on much more than structure. It is sad that the Bill has necessarily focused our attention on structure when we should be discussing quality, as she so often does. Good education depends on the quality of teaching and learning; leadership; the home-school environment; and a proper understanding of children's needs. That mix makes for high quality education. Most important of all is the need to raise the status of teachers and to believe in education and in those to whom we entrust our children.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. He is being as generous as he was in Committee. New clause 5 deals with the closure of special schools. I am puzzled by an action by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the leader of the Conservative party, who declined to help the Vines special school in Battersea to prevent its closure. On 11 May, the governors and teachers called on him to help, but he declined. Does that mean that new clause 5 simply represents party politics? I am sad that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is engaging in that. If Conservative Members genuinely mean to prevent closures, why did their leader refuse to help? He was asked to help as Leader of the Opposition, not as an ordinary Member of Parliament.

The hon. Lady knows me too well to believe that I would make nakedly party political points about the subject. I do not make them. I acknowledge the point of the Minister for Schools that even more special school closures took place before 1997, when we were in government. I pointed out that the Education Act 1981 was introduced under our stewardship. My pedigree on the subject goes back to the 1980s when, as a county councillor, I defended, for example, Foxwood school in Bramcote from closure.

I shall not comment on the case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but I emphasise that although I am not interested in my advancement in this place and I would never toady to my leader or be a sycophant, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is not only noble, an intellectual giant and a fine leader of men, but that, in a short time, he will prove to be one of our nation's greatest Prime Ministers. Is that enough?

We should not ignore the cries from the heart and from the front line that we hear from teachers about special needs education. The practical cost of inclusion when it is not appropriate is clearly high, but that is not my main consideration. What we cannot quantify often counts most: the joy of a child who can relax, play and learn in the knowledge that he is safe; the relief of a teenager who no longer feels different; and the peace of mind of parents who simply want to entrust their children to people with the specialist skills and experience to help them achieve their potential.

One such parent wrote movingly to The Times only a few days ago. The letter stated:

"My 15-year-old son is autistic and has severe learning difficulties. He has flourished since he was 5 in a special school... where he has had specialist teaching and therapy and loads of support. Why on earth would I want him to be the odd one out, taught (or more realistically babysat) by an unqualified classroom assistant in a mainstream school? He isn't like most other kids and I won't have him sacrificed on the altar of political correctness... Inclusion, for kids like mine, doesn't work and never will."

Such stories are common and the consensus among the parents of special needs children, who are surely best qualified to judge, is clear. A special needs child has special needs, which are best served by specialised teaching and care in an environment that caters for them.

I greatly enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). He must have had one of his lunches at the Savoy in order to perform so well.

Much of our recent debate on these issues has become rather adversarial, which has polarised philosophies. A belief has grown that there is a stark choice to be made in regard to the means of educating special needs children between inclusion and special schools. That view is unhelpful, because it ignores the fact that children with special needs are as individual as the rest of us, that they often present with complex sets of needs, and that their education should to be tailored to reflect that. The hon. Gentleman's comments hinted that he understood that and showed some movement from the position that he held some time ago.

Our debate should therefore focus on how best we can develop a spectrum of provision in each local authority area. Such a spectrum should encapsulate special schools and special educational needs units in mainstream schools, as well as learning support units—which have a role to play—and pupil referral units, alongside provision developed and managed by the voluntary sector. In my constituency, for instance, we have an excellent facility called Pit Stop, which takes children with learning difficulties out of school and gives them the breathing space and focused attention that they need to get them back on track. Pit Stop works closely with its partner secondary schools and has a wonderful record of bringing children back into mainstream education. It is an excellent example of how special needs education can work more flexibly in the interests of the individual child.

It is true that many special needs children need the kind of education that only a special school can offer. I have no problem admitting that. However, those children can also benefit from mixing with their peers in a mainstream setting. Increasingly, special needs professionals are recognising that a flexible mix of provision, achieved by schools working together, is the way forward. That is why my local authority is redeveloping its provision, and building new fit-for-purpose special schools across the city, alongside the development of a series of SEN units in mainstream schools. This is not an either/or approach; it uses both options.

New clause 5 is unhelpful because it would limit the ability of local authorities to plan strategically the spectrum of provision that I have described. It would, for instance, limit Sheffield's plans slightly to reduce the number of special school places available for children with learning disabilities while increasing the number of special school places for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Local authorities are best placed to recognise and to consult on local need, and to remould the spectrum of provision accordingly.

New clause 4 would replace section 316 of the Education Act 1996. In so doing, it would remove the requirement for local authorities to consider in the statementing process the need to ensure that a child receives the provision that his learning difficulty calls for. It would replace that requirement with proposed new subsection 3, which asserts the rights of parents. That substitution ignores the fact that schedule 27 to the 1996 Act makes it clear that there is already a presumption in favour of parental preference for the placement of a child in a particular school. The schedule also contains the important qualification that, if a statement names a school, the school should be suitable in relation to the child's age, ability and/or special needs.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and for mentioning the naming of a school in a statement. Is she aware that the Government have plans to build another 200 academies, and that local education authorities will not have to name an academy in their statements unless the academy agrees to be named?

My local education authority has an agreement with our academies that they will take children with special needs as a top priority, and I call on all local authorities to work constructively towards doing the same.

The hon. Lady rightly says that there is merit in mixed provision. I entirely accept that. However, she said a few moments ago that local education authorities were best placed to make judgments on these matters. May I suggest that there is often a well-grounded concern, even among those who are not overly suspicious or cynical, that LEAs are at least partly motivated by the consideration that they need to save money where they can? In that context, is there not sometimes a conflict of interest between the LEA commissioning and providing the educational provision, and its being obliged to pay for it? Would it not be better if there were an independent element in the process, so that there would be no reason to question or impugn the motives of the LEA?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is important that the local people who elect their accountable representatives are listened to, and that they have the chance to remove a particular elected body if they feel that resources are being prioritised over need. That option is available and should be used.

The approach outlined in the Education Act 1996 is reasonable. It directs that parental preference should be strongly favoured, but requires that such preferences should be balanced, where necessary, with a professional assessment of a child's needs. New clause 4 would effectively prioritise the requirement to secure efficient use of resources over the need to provide the appropriate provision necessary to meet a child's special needs. I therefore believe that the new clause does not merit support today.

Amendment No. 16 is interesting because it draws attention to the needs of children who are sometimes badly served by our education system, a point to which I will return. However, the amendment, as it stands, is flawed. Non-statemented children with special needs are at present registered on school action or school action plus, but the code of practice that triggers entry to those registers allows for a great deal of flexibility in how schools interpret the criteria.

The criteria are drawn incredibly broadly and have led to wide and significant variations between local authorities. For example, Knowsley registers 21.6 per cent. of its pupils as having non-statemented needs, Rotherham 18.3 per cent., Doncaster 12.3 per cent. and Cornwall 16.3 per cent. Given those variations, it would be irresponsible to give admissions priority to children on those registers.

That does not mean that we do not need a debate about provision for non-statemented SEN children, because we clearly do. For instance, we need to discuss why there are such wide variations between local authorities. However, I suggest that the real challenge is to ensure that all our schools are equipped effectively to meet the needs of low-incidence special needs children.

New clause 31 would require governing bodies to secure the necessary support for SEN children, yet the SEN code of practice already places that statutory duty on those bodies. We have all heard stories of schools that fail to satisfy the demands of the code of practice and all MPs get complaints about children whose needs are apparently neglected. That point was also made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

I therefore ask the Minister to look closely at the evidence relating to provision for non-statemented children, and to act if necessary to strengthen the role of local authorities as champions of parents and children, in order to help to drive forward improvement in this often neglected area of education provision.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) suggested that Warnock had been pernicious, but I remind the House of what was happening pre-Warnock. We need to reflect on that, because we certainly do not want to go back to a situation in which children were institutionalised, regardless of the nature of their special needs, with no entitlement to a full and rich curriculum, and without the ability to mix with other children that they have today. We have had one of those infamous pendulum swings that take place in education over time and, possibly, it has swung too far. If the Minister shows total resistance to all the amendments, there is a denial that something is wrong, or at least a pretence that everything is right when, clearly, it is not.

The hon. Lady might know that the Education and Skills Committee is nearing the end of a thorough inquiry into special educational needs. I have been listening intently to the discussion, but in relation to the automatic suggestion that there should be an independent inquiry, I assure her that the House has an effective means of carrying out good, independent inquiries.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know, of course, that the Select Committee is carrying out that inquiry. The suggestion came from an earlier debate on special educational needs and I remember him responding during that debate. I hope that I was not ignoring the role of the Select Committee by pointing out that we need to have this debate about cost and make sure that the money is following the pupils, especially in this area.

Apart from the caveats that I have mentioned, we are sympathetic to the new clauses. I hope that the Minister will take our comments on board and give us some indication of the way forward. The severe pressures in mainstream school, which are not serving pupils, teachers or parents well, cannot continue.

I am delighted to speak to new clause 30 and other new clauses and amendments tabled by me and my hon. Friends.

Perhaps I can begin, as an effective way of structuring my remarks, by referring to the briefing on the new clauses and amendments, which states that they are designed to strengthen the rights and position of disabled children and those with special educational needs, with or without statements both for existing and for future schools. That follows on from discussions with the Special Educational Consortium and other disability and special educational needs groups about their concern that, in certain key areas, the Bill needs to be beefed up to ensure that the position of such children is protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has already mentioned the fact that his Select Committee is conducting a dedicated SEN inquiry. In its inquiry into the White Paper, we also took evidence on some of the issues, albeit briefly. I share the concerns of others that these matters need a broader airing on the Floor of the House, not least because they did not receive an adequate airing in the latter stages in Committee.

The amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends and myself cover three separate areas: setting training standards in special educational needs and disability issues for teachers; ensuring that fair admissions are a school requirement and are properly monitored; and, perhaps most importantly, strengthening the rights of SEN and disabled pupils in exclusion matters and educational support for excluded categories. I merely add at this stage that that is essential in view of alarming figures showing that SEN children have a disproportionate number of exclusions from school and that parents often fail to receive sufficient support and advice in those circumstances.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate and, indeed, the important new clauses that he has tabled. May I invite him to suggest to the Select Committee that it looks specifically at the issue of exclusions, which was raised in Committee by my hon. Friends? It is a profoundly important issue, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to encourage the Select Committee to deal with it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I would not want to prejudge the final deliberations or conclusions of the Select Committee, but I would say—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield would endorse this—that we have taken a broad range of evidence, both oral and written, and that the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are covered by it. I wholly accept that they are vitally important.

It is important to mention that about two thirds of all children excluded from school have special educational needs; that is, two thirds of the total number excluded at any one time.

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She will see, as I continue with my remarks, that I will provide further statistics that underline her point.

New clause 30 specifically deals with professional standards for teachers, aiming to ensure that they demonstrate an understanding of SEN and disability legislation. That is terribly important because, without ensuring the inclusion of SEN children and without specialist support services, many children will not achieve their potential. The majority of deaf children, for example, are now educated in mainstream settings, but many still need appropriate support and provision.

I refer hon. Members to the Ofsted report of 2004, which dealt with the issue of inclusive schools and children with special educational needs and disabilities. It states that only a minority of mainstream schools meet special needs very well and that others are becoming better at doing so. However, the report also notes that few schools evaluate their provision for pupils with SEN systematically so that they can establish how effective the provision is, with many schools undertaking too little forward planning to ensure that provision was in place. It said that

"when they coped poorly, this was often attributed to pupils' difficulties rather than the school's inability to provide adequately."

That is a leitmotif, highlighting an issue that we must deal with.

Does my hon. Friend agree that quite a number of the exclusions from schools and LEAs that involve pupils with special educational needs are caused by the delay in statementing those children? If the statement is not made at an early stage, all the members of staff will not be aware of that child's needs. That leads to more serious behaviour problems if it is not addressed very early in that child's life.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know of her strong interest in these issues, and she is absolutely right to pinpoint the issue of early intervention and the concerns that she expresses about statementing. Statementing is very complicated, but the sort of delays that she refers to are apparent. Despite the legislation, delays occur in providing alternative education for children with SEN who have been excluded. I caution Ministers not to believe that, merely because the extremely welcome new clauses on discipline will reduce the period in which action should be taken, we should automatically assume that that will mean that everything is splendid. A conscious effort needs to be made to monitor the implementation of those provisions, to consider the way in which local authorities deal with the issue and, where and if appropriate, to give further guidance and support in that respect.

I want very briefly to return to where we go on these issues. It is evident from what I have said and from the helpful responses that we have received that there is no one solution to the sorts of the problems that I have been highlighting today. The solution is not just a question of legislation, nor of guidance; it is not even just a question of good practice. It is a question of ensuring that all three of those aspects are joined together.

Yes, I believe that the Government should look carefully at the new clauses and amendments that we have proposed to see whether more could be done to strengthen the legislation, but the most important thing is that they see, and we all see, the connection between those three areas and the need to keep the pressure on, to put it bluntly. Only by keeping that pressure on will the needs of children with disabilities and SEN and of their parents be met. We must remember that a substantial number of children with SEN have parents who either have or have had special educational needs. Sometimes, it is a question not just of dealing with the needs of one generation, but of dealing with those of two generations.

I make my final point in reference to a previous discussion. I think that someone used the word "Manichaean" earlier, but please let us not get hung up on the idea that the special schools issue is a complex battle between good and evil, or this year's zeitgeist as opposed to last year's zeitgeist.

I want to speak in favour of new clauses 4 and 5. New clause 4 relates to the provision of education for children with statements of special educational needs. Subsection (3) of the proposed new section 316 refers to ensuring that a child with special educational needs

"is educated in either a mainstream school or a special school".

There is no trench warfare between mainstream and special schools. It is acknowledged that each child has individual needs, on which will depend whether that child is placed in a mainstream or a special school.

The wishes of the parent are very important. New subsection (3)(b) refers to

"the provision of efficient education for other children",

which is indeed an important consideration in mainstream schools. It is essential for proper provision to be made for the support of a child with special needs in a mainstream classroom, especially in practical terms. The practical tasks involved in looking after a child who is a wheelchair user and is unable to transfer from the wheelchair to an ordinary chair, or who needs a standing frame, are very time-consuming. There must be sufficient teaching and welfare support in the classroom, so that the education of the other children is not compromised.

New subsection (5), which has already been mentioned several times, states:

"A child with special educational needs being provided for under section (3) above shall not be educated in a mainstream school if that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents."

New subsection (4) is central to the decision that parents must make. Many parents, particularly if the child with special needs is their first and they have no recent experience of schools—perhaps no experience since they were at school themselves—will not know which is the best placement for their child. They will need to be presented with all the options and all the information that is available. They should be able to visit both local mainstream schools and special schools to gain an impression of provision there. They should be able to speak to head teachers, past teachers and assistants, and to members of the education authority, so that they can reach an informed decision about the best provision for their particular child.

I worked in a special school for many years during the 1970s and 1980s. The first thing that comes to mind is that it is impossible to generalise about children with special needs, and that therefore provision cannot be generalised. There was a fair amount of movement between the school where I worked, which is not there any more, and local mainstream schools, in both directions and with varying degrees of success. Again, it is impossible to generalise about whether movement from special school to mainstream or from mainstream to special school will succeed. It is necessary to take account of the individual child.

I recall one child with brittle bones who was highly intelligent. Her parents wanted her to try her luck in a mainstream school. She acquired a large degree of independence in a special school, because one of the rules was that, whatever a child's disability, that child should enjoy as much independence as possible. Unfortunately, when the girl went to a mainstream school, she was seen as a novelty: everyone wanted to help her, particularly the other children, who would fetch and carry for her. She lost much of the independence that she gained in the special school.

There was an enormous spectrum of disability at the school where I worked, from complex conditions affecting mobility such as Freeman-Sheldon syndrome, Friedrich's ataxia and spastic quadriplegia to disabilities that are not visible, such as chronic asthma, diabetes and heart conditions. In the middle of the spectrum are all sorts of other conditions which require very sensitive handling.

Special schools provide much more than education. Because they are so used to dealing with children with profound special needs, they are sensitive even to changes of mood, and to how a child may be affected by an incident in the classroom. They can avert episodes of children being unable to cope. It is that experience, built up over many years, that is so valuable to children, in terms not just of education but of emotional support. It enables them to cope with life as well as learning.

I recall another child. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) observed that people are not always conscious that children with special needs are often highly intelligent. There is an assumption that they are of low intelligence, which is wrong. One of our pupils, aged 16, had very mild cerebral palsy which affected only his speech. We discovered belatedly that his own family did not realise that he understood what they were saying to him. Because they did not understand what he was saying to them, it did not occur to them that his thought processes and intellect were perfectly normal. He reached the age of 16 before we were able to discover that, and to explain to the family that they could speak to him perfectly normally, as they spoke to everyone else, and he would understand: the mechanics of speech were his only problem.

Speech and language have been mentioned several times today. Even in the 1970s, there was a chronic, long-standing shortage of speech and language therapists. Since I have been in the House, I have conducted some research into why that might be. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of it. We have plenty of colleges and courses involving speech and language. They are full—they are not short of students—and they have a high success rate. Many students qualify, and there is not an unusually high drop-out rate. The mystery is, where do all the students go when they have qualified? They do not seem to go into the national health service, because my primary care trust cannot recruit speech and language therapists, and they do not go into special schools. The challenge for all of us is to redirect speech and language graduates to special schools and the NHS, where there is an enormous need for speech and language therapy. Whatever other problems they may have, if children cannot communicate with people whom they meet, that is almost the worst handicap that they could suffer.

Like the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, I have three superb special schools in my constituency: Corbets Tey, Dycorts and Ravensbourne. None of them, thankfully, is threatened with closure, which would be unthinkable. I cannot think of a single pupil in any of those schools who would be better off in a mainstream school. The children are flourishing, and their educational and social needs are being met. The schools also provide a support system for families. They often have great difficulty in conducting anything resembling what we would recognise as a normal daily life, particularly if they have children on the autistic spectrum. One function of those schools is giving additional support to parents and siblings. With the best will in the world, mainstream schools—given how busy they are and the enormous demands and pressures that are placed on them—do not have the time to provide such extra services to families with children with special needs.

My hon. Friend made some important remarks a moment ago about the need to improve and to maximise recruitment of speech and language therapists, and to get them into the national health service and, in many cases, special schools. This has been a good and stimulating debate so far, and I want to underline her point by saying that it is incumbent on all of us in public service to re-double our efforts on that front. It always strikes me that, when a popular local school or hospital is to close, there is a ready supply of articulate protestors. However, when a special school facility is to close and that closure will affect only a relatively small number of children, many people either are not aware of that threat and shortage of specialists, or, frankly, do not care enough about it. So Members across the political spectrum have a duty to step up efforts to meet the challenge.

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. We are all only too well aware of the shortage of such specialists. All of us do whatever we can, wherever we can, to encourage the greater availability of speech and language therapists. Even in the 1970s, children with speech and language problems in my school had a visiting speech and language therapist, who was able to give each child a quarter of an hour a week. Anyone who knows children with speech and language problems knows that that is hopelessly inadequate. So we all need to work very hard on the issue.

I turn to new clause 5, which deals with restrictions on special school closures. As I said, it would be unthinkable for any of the special schools in my constituency to close. New clause 5(2) states:

"The Secretary of State shall only consent to the closure of a special school if there are places at nearby special schools in sufficient number and sufficient quality to replace the school adequately."

I should be surprised to learn that there is a single constituency in the entire country in which special school places are available. Most such schools have no spare capacity and are unable to take more children who would like to be placed there. It is highly unlikely that any area has sufficient spare capacity to enable a special school to be closed in the light of the caveat in the new clause. That caveat is important in protecting special schools and the enormously good work that they do.

I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support not just new clause 4, but new clause 5.

I confess to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that, at one time, I was dogmatic. I was dogmatic for a brief period—I promise that it was brief—when I came out of a special residential environment. I spent six years in integrated education for the first time, on day-release from work and at evening class, before going into full-time integrated education for the first time at university. I was dogmatic because my experience had been a difficult one. My schooling had not offered the academic achievement that we would want for our own children, and, as with so many schools, the physical environment left something to be desired.

In the 1960s and 1970s, special schools, be they day or residential, were not what they are today. One precise reason why Baroness Warnock has changed her mind on this issue—and why, by the time that I became Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I began to see that it was absolutely crucial not to be dogmatic—is that the world has changed.

When I went to primary school, most of those whom I was at school with had just one special need: they could not see. By the time that that school closed because the number who simply could not see had dropped, the incidence of multiple disability—the multiple special needs that children had—had grown to the point where that type of education could no longer cope. So the school closed not because people wanted to eliminate a facility, but because it needed to be re-shaped for a different era, in which medical science had eliminated the original causes of special need, but had also kept alive children who previously would not have been in school at all, because they would not have reached school age.

My right hon. Friend is making an important point, and I have been of the same opinion for years. Small unitary authorities, in particular, are unable to provide the breadth of special needs education that larger authorities such as Derbyshire can provide. I hope that the Minister is listening to my right hon. Friend.