|
Mr. Twigg: I agree that it is important that local education authorities should consider human rights questions when structuring their schemes. Whether or not individual schemes comply will of course depend on their precise features. The legal duty to ensure that they comply falls on individual local education authorities; but in a sense it is a shared responsibility, as the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales should not approve schemes that do not comply. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we in the Department for Education and Skills should give as much help as we can to local education authorities, accepting that we cannot foresee all the issues that might be raised.
The draft prospectus was produced when the Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny, and public consultation included a section on human rights. We did not receive any responses on human rights issues during that consultation. However, the Education and Skills Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights both recommended that the Department should produce more detailed guidance for local education authorities on human rights. For example, they wanted us to include material explaining that LEAs must afford equal treatment to parents with strong philosophical and religious views, and give a careful steer on those areas likely to pose particular practical problems.
I am pleased to say that longer and more detailed guidance is contained in the latest version of the prospectus. The sections were forwarded to the Joint Committee in September, and they now include some helpful suggestions from the Clerk of that Committee. We have not yet received any advice from the Committee, but we will make further changes if they are needed.
The guidance explains that three principles underpin human rights obligations in that area. First, every child has the right to an education. Secondly, parents have the right for their child to be educated in accordance with their philosophical and religious convictions. However, there is no absolute right to attend a school of a particular religion and therefore no right to free or subsidised transport to those schools. Thirdly, discrimination is illegal, unless objectively and reasonably justified.
The guidance goes on to explain that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will not approve school travel schemes that are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It then deals with specific situations that we envisage, such as local schools that do not cater for parents' religious or philosophical beliefs or linguistic preferences. That was already set out in the guidance.
Column Number: 109
I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will agree that we have made considerable progress. We are in discussions with the Joint Committee, and we await its guidance in that respect. I repeat the commitment that we will make whatever changes are necessary in light of their comments. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hoban: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I ask him to endeavour to ensure that the Joint Committee comments on the guidance before Report. Given the reservations expressed in its report, it is important that they are properly dealt with and that the Committee is satisfied with the guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 4.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Drew, Mr. David
Edwards, Mr. Huw
Foster, Mr. Michael
Kidney, Mr. David
Twigg, Mr. Stephen
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Young, Sir George
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Piloting of new provisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I want to ask the Minister about subsection (2). The explanatory notes say:
''It is currently anticipated that regulations will impose a limit of 20 school travel schemes in England.''
Will the Minister tell us why the Government feel that it is necessary to impose such a limit on the number of school travel schemes? There are a couple of explanations for that. The first relates to the cost to public funds, but that is surely an argument for limiting the amount of taxpayer subsidy that can be given under the Bill, which it is not included in the clause and is not a reason for reducing or limiting the number of schemes. The only rational explanation for including this centralising control power is because the Government want to control the whole process through rationing. As you know, Mr. O'Brien, that is the preferred socialist method of control, which in turn leads to queuing and can be linked to the ability of the Government to allow its own pet local authorities to jump the queue. That is what this limit is about, and it is the only reason for the inclusion of subsection (2).
Some school travel schemes would not need to be expensive. For example, it would not cost so much to have staggered school starting and finish times. Some
Column Number: 110
schemes could result in the generation of additional revenue. A local authority, for example, might wish to introduce a radical travel plan including the power to charge parents of children living in the 3-mile limit, but not charge those who live further from the school than that. Giving children access to a bus provided for school transport would prevent them travelling to school by car. Such a scheme would give additional income to the local education authority and would not impose any costs.
Why should those sort of imaginative schemes be limited by number? Surely the important thing is to ensure that all the proposed travel schemes are of sufficient quality to merit acceptance by the Government. I hope that the Minister will accept that by including subsection (2) the Government are relying again—as so often in the past—on patronage and favouritism.
Mr. Edwards: The stand part debate gives me the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to something that I hope could go into the piloting of the new provisions, especially under subsection (3), which says:
''Power to make regulations under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory instrument.''
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider ensuring sufficient protection to avoid overcrowding. I mentioned that earlier in Committee, and I am grateful to the Clerk, officials and Ministers with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss the subject.
11.15 am
My main concern is about what is known as the three-for-two rule. I, of course, would like that rule abolished in all cases. The issue has come to my attention because of the situation in my constituency. I am talking about service buses—not contracted buses—such as the No. 69, which goes from Chepstow to Monmouth. On reaching the village of Llandogo, it used to have a number of passengers on board. Then, it would take on 40 to 50 pupils, and then some more passengers. Such buses were particularly overcrowded, and the seating capacity of the bus on any particular day determined the level of overcrowding, which was sometimes gross; I have been on the buses in that situation.
My main concern is that the local authority entered into contracts with the bus operator—at the time, it was Stagecoach—that almost assumed that there would be overcrowding, or institutionalised overcrowding, as buses call it, because of the company's ability to take advantage of the three-for-two concession. I understand that the rule goes back to the Education Act 1944 but, more importantly, it is also in the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984, which say—this is mainly in relation to the number of seated passengers—that,
''subject to sub-paragraph (a) above, three seated children each of whom is under 14 years of age and none of whom are occupying a seat provided with a seat belt shall count as two passengers.''
So three under-14s can sit on a double seat. That means that a bus with 52 seats could technically take 52 plus 26 passengers, if they were all under 14—and not under 15, as I told the Committee on Tuesday.
Column Number: 111
Mr. Hoban: How is that rule policed in practice?
Mr. Edwards: Well, it is certainly policed by the parents of the children of Llandogo. The considerable representations that I made to my local authority meant that eventually the situation was changed. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because there was no sort of approval to check whether pupils who happened to sit on overcrowded buses were under 14. In many cases it is likely that there would have been one under-14 and a couple of over-14s sitting on the same double seat.
As parents point out, children are heavier than they were in 1944. They are bigger, and are more likely to carry more equipment to school. I saw pupils carrying their school bag—some of them were still carrying satchels—and a kit bag, trombone case or violin case. Many of them were standing, too; it was a horrendous situation. One could not imagine a school trip to Tintern abbey, which is in my constituency and is down the road from Llandogo, on which pupils were allowed to sit or stand on such a bus. There would have to be risk assessments, but no such assessments were made in the case that I mentioned.
There was no obligation on the Health and Safety Executive to look into the matter. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to try to ensure, in the piloting of the new provisions, that a safeguard to ensure that the three-for-two rule is not implemented, and will not be taken advantage of by the commercial bus companies.
I had a mischievous thought when coming to Committee this morning. The prospectus, which I have only recently seen, says that there will be open evaluation of the pilots. I do not have the legal training that some of my hon. Friends have, but I am a social scientist, and am interested in evaluation, policy-related research and the ability to evaluate policy in order to improve it. I wondered there could be, as in a randomised control trial, one pilot in which we were insistent that the three-for-two rule would not be applied—say, a pilot in Burton that extended to near the River Trent—and another pilot that actually maximised the three-for-two rule. We could call that the Moorlands pilot; in that case, the bus would be allowed to carry an excessive number of children under the three-for-two rule. If those pilots were evaluated, I am sure that hon. Members and Ministers would think that the latter pilot was an appalling situation.
| 
