Standing Committee A
Tuesday 9 November 2004
(Morning)
Derek Conway
9.25 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I beg to move,
(1) during proceedings on the School Transport Bill, in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 a.m. on Tuesday 9th November, the Standing Committee shall meet at—
(a) 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 9th November, and
(b) 9.25 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Thursday 11th November;
(2) proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Thursday 11th November.
I take this opportunity to welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, and that of Mr. O'Brien, who will be chairing this afternoon's sitting. I wish to express my pleasure in presenting my first Bill for scrutiny in Committee. The Bill has already been scrutinised extensively through a process of pre-legislative debate and scrutiny by both the Transport Committee and the Education and Skills Committee.
The Bill is short. It has only seven clauses and I am confident that we can have a full but brisk debate in Committee under your excellent chairmanship, Mr. Conway. As you know, the Programming Sub-Committee has already met, and I am pleased to move the motion based on its resolution. I look forward both to your chairmanship and to the deliberations of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table in the centre of the Room. I also remind colleagues that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my co-Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during the afternoon sitting of the Committee. Clause 1
School travel schemes
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 1, page 1, line 14, after 'may', insert
', after consultation with school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies,'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 56, in
Column Number: 4
No. 30, in
clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'2 Prior to making a scheme, the scheme authority will consult with interested parties including, but not limited to—
(a) the Schools Forum,
(b) representatives of denominational schools whose pupils might be affected by the scheme,
(c) teachers' organisations,
(d) representatives of special schools whose pupils might be affected by the scheme,
(e) parent governors of schools whose children will be affected,
(f) further education colleges,
(g) parents whose children are already in receipt of transport provided by the scheme authority,
(h) bus operators, and
(i) other organisations with an interest in the education of children in the scheme area.
3 (1) The scheme authority will publish the details of the proposed scheme and seek comments from interested parties, who will have 28 days from the date of publication of the scheme to comment.
(2) The scheme authority will submit to the appropriate national body a summary of the responses to the consultation together with the scheme authority's own response to the consultation.'.
No. 24, in
No. 59, in
Dr. Pugh: I wish to underline what the Minister said. I did not realise that this was the first time that the hon. Gentleman had been in control of a Bill in Committee, so I hope that he will realise that on such occasions Ministers are accommodating and take on board a lot of Opposition amendments, and are always keen to split the difference on issues that arise. At least, I think that that is what happens. I want to put on the record how pleased I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Conway, as I will also be pleased to see Mr. O'Brien this afternoon. I hope that we shall enjoy the experience.
The purpose behind the Bill was summed up beautifully for me when I read some oral evidence presented to the Education and Skills Committee, when a thoughtful witness, Mr. Sykes from Herefordshire, who has experience of many school transport schemes, came out with a somewhat unguarded comment. He said:
''Surely the Bill is about unpacking the procedures around the three mile entitlement, as far as I can see that is the Bill, that is what it allows authorities to look at. It allows the flexibility to move into those areas, fundamentally that is what the Bill is unpacking.''
The point that the Bill is a reversal of entitlement was made on Second Reading.
Amendment No. 21 is designed to deal with an issue that crops up soon in connection with reversing the entitlement, which is what will happen to
Column Number: 5
denominational and other schools that fear that they may be adversely affected, and that either pupils will not attend the school or, if they do, they will not represent a wide enough social mix. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he wanted assurance that everyone was truly on board. At the moment there is no such assurance, and we do not know whether the Bill will provide that assurance. The amendment proposes that schemes can come forward, but that there should be a process through which schemes are properly evolved, after consultation with school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies. I assume that at some point, various archdiocesan and diocesan authorities will have impact on, and input into, such matters.
If we are to have uncontentious schemes that deliver a satisfactory outcome for the full range of schools, it is essential that, when any scheme is introduced, it is adequately consulted on by school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies, not simply imposed by the local authority.
Consultation can have various meanings in different places. It often means that people are asked what they want to happen, after which something is done anyway. All hon. Members who have had anything to do with consultations on post office closures will be familiar with that pattern. However, a meaningful consultation on any school transport scheme is essential to make it work. Apart from anything else, a certain amount of information needs to feed up from below to the people who devise the scheme and a number of practical considerations must be raised. The effect of the school transport scheme on the range of people who may go to a school is crucial.
The amendment would be just the kind of helpful addition that Ministers usually want to take on board, particularly in their first Bill, because it is moved truly in the spirit of consensus and conciliation.
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway. Like the Minister, I am a novice in leading on a Bill.
Dr. Pugh: It seems that we are in the hands of complete amateurs. [Laughter.] It is my first Bill, too.
Mr. Hoban: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to your chairmanship, Mr. Conway. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will see, as the Committee proceeds, who are the amateurs.
I shall speak to amendment No. 30, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is important that the Bill, which will radically change the provision of school transport and affect the way in which it is provided to many children throughout the country, has a proper consultation process underpinning any scheme that comes forward from local education authorities wishing to take part in the pilot project.
That is important because it will lead to significant change for many children who currently enjoy free school transport and will impact on many children
Column Number: 6
with special educational needs. It will impact on the institutions in LEA areas, such as the denominational schools, special schools and schools in rural areas. There is a huge impact in terms of the number of people affected, and also for the institutions.
It is important that if people will lose out as a consequence of the Bill—where they will be charged for transport that has hitherto been free—they are consulted when the scheme is drawn up. The guidance currently available to LEAs is too brief, which is why amendment No. 30 fleshes out the consultation process. The Select Committee on Education and Skills, in paragraph 112 of its pre-legislative scrutiny report, said:
''Well-run schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about their proposals.''
That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment No. 30 sets out the range of organisations that we wish to see consulted. The school admission forum is the perfect body for an LEA to consult, because it is already set up to talk about issues, such as school funding and budgets and service contracts between schools and LEAs, and is an automatic, logical focus for consultation with schools to discuss the draft and proposed schemes.
We must also ensure that representatives of denominational schools are consulted properly. It is important to recognise that there is concern within faith groups about the Bill. In later debates on other amendments we will talk about some of the aspects affecting denominational schools. Many such schools are concerned that charging for school transport will reduce the choice available to parents. We must ensure that they are happy and that they understand the schemes. They have concerns not only about the impact on their schools, but about the impact of charging on some of the less affluent families in our communities.
Another group will be affected too. On Second Reading we highlighted the fact that two thirds of the existing school transport budget is spent on children with special educational needs. That is a very visible part of the budget, and some local education authorities might feel that costs could be squeezed out of it through introducing these schemes. We must ensure that schools that have pupils who receive free transport because they have special educational needs should be part of the consultation process, so that the people who draw up the scheme can fully understand the impact on children who attend such a school, and think carefully about the distances that they travel.
I want to pick up on the issue of further education colleges as consultees. The implementation of the Tomlinson report on the education of children aged 14 to 19 will require greater flexibility between schools and further education colleges. Many more children aged 14 to 16 will access vocational parts of the curriculum at their local further education college. We must ensure that any draft scheme that comes forward takes into account that changing architecture of 14-to-16 education, and that further education colleges
Column Number: 7
express their views about how schemes will affect children who want to attend such colleges for that part of their education.
The bus operators too will be affected by the Bill, particularly in areas where they currently operate schemes that a local authority might seek to take over—through yellow buses, similar schemes, or their own plans to provide transport for children. As so many bus operators already provide significant transport to our schools, we must ensure that they are part of the consultation process.
Proposed new paragraphs 3(1) and 3(2) in amendment No. 30 arise from my concern to ensure that the scheme authorities have a proper consultation process and that time is taken over it; we have suggested 28 days for people to comment. It is also important that when the scheme comes forward to the Secretary of State for his approval, scheme authorities have identified the local concerns to him. Before he approves the scheme, he should know what they are and, more particularly, how the scheme authority has responded to them. The Select Committee said that it was important that
''Well-run schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about their proposals.''
Clearly, a scheme that attracts widespread opposition from the local community, which has not been responded to fully by the scheme authority, is unlikely to be effective in achieving the Government's objectives. I think that the amendments are sensible and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. They are about trying to ensure that the consultation process that underpins the scheme rules will be thorough and full, and will deliver the agreement of all stakeholders interested in school transport.
|
