I was not planning to speak on Third Reading, but I want to respond to a couple of points made by the shadow Secretary of State, particularly relating to Labour Members' concerns about special educational needs and inclusion. We should always use temperate language, and although debate on the Bill has been interesting and measured on both sides of the House, the extreme language used—we heard some recently from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson)—about social division, apartheid and exclusion has been incredibly unfortunate. As the Bill has progressed, we have received assurances from Ministers about the content of funding agreements with regard to social inclusion and SEN. It is incorrect to suggest that only Labour Members are interested in those issues. Many Members have raised concerns and received assurances from Ministers.
The Bill has been improved in another place, and welcome assurances have been received from Ministers. Ultimately, we should accept that parents will be given a choice, and it is for parents and governors to take the Bill forward and make what they can of it. The suggestion that schools will, in some way, do something bad for their community is a nonsense.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 225.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Percy
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Academies Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
514 c828-9 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 17:40:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659879
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659879
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_659879