| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 2
9.45 pm
Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 24, after 'school', insert 'and their siblings'.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in clause 5, page 4, line 40, after 'year', insert
'or the siblings of any such pupil'.
Mrs. Gillan: Having witnessed today's display by Labour Members, I do not suppose that they will be very interested in amendments Nos. 9 and 24. They have shown that they are not interested in stopping and thinking about the Bill's implications and, sadly, I do not believe that they will take any notice of the points that we are attempting to make by tabling this group of amendments. Although our amendments affect only a very few people, I urge the Minister to consider them very carefully. Nevertheless, I expect that the Government will treat those few people with the same contempt as they are treating all the other families whose children could have been part of the assisted places scheme, had it been allowed to continue.
The Bill will deprive brothers and sisters of the opportunity to attend the same school and of continue their education in the secondary school that they could reasonably have expected to attend. Our amendments, however, would allow siblings to take an assisted place if one is offered, which would be the fair and equitable action of a generous and fair minded Government.
In the Government's offerings to date, it has been obvious to the Opposition that Ministers are remote from the people who will be affected by the Bill. In moving amendment No. 9, I shall attempt to bring Ministers a little closer to the people they will be hurting, because, in their arrogant rush to introduce this very poor legislation, they are hurting families across the United Kingdom.
I have spoken to people associated with the assisted places scheme, and they have provided me with several examples of families who will be bitterly affected by the Bill. I have permission, with one or two exceptions, to use the names of those families, because I think that the Government must answer directly to the citizens who will be so badly disadvantaged by the Bill. I will, therefore, cite some case histories. They are not fictitious case histories, but stories of real people who will suffer because of this Bill.
Mrs. Penny Brayley is a single parent with two daughters, aged 12 and 15, on assisted places at Edgehill college in Devon. There has been a massive improvement in their academic performance since they took up their assisted places. Mrs. Brayley has also a 10-year-old son, called Benjamin, who, possibly in September 1998, would have taken up an assisted place at the same school as his sisters. Under the Bill, there will be no possibility of Benjamin joining his sisters. I hope that the Minister will think about Benjamin as this Bill is rammed through the House in a quite undemocratic way.
Another citizen of this country has two daughters on assisted places at Talbot Heath school, one aged 12 and the other 10. The 12-year-old will be able to continue
at the school until she finishes her A-levels at 18. The 10-year-old, who had a difficult time at her state primary school, has now taken up her assisted place at Talbot Heath and is extremely happy. She will be forced to make a painful and traumatic return to the state sector in one year's time. I ask the Minister to think about that child as she takes the Bill through.
Mrs. Anna James has a son on an assisted place, studying for his GCSEs at Haberdasher's Aske's boys school. She has a daughter aged 10 who has set her heart on attending the sister school, Haberdasher's Aske's girls school, in September 1998. I hope that the Minister will be able to look that child in the eye and explain to her why she cannot join her brother. That is the effect of this Bill. [Interruption.] The Ministers are sitting there laughing. That is the arrogance of this Government, who could not care less what happens to those children as a result of the Bill.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend is talking about my constituents. They are not alone. There are a number of such cases at Haberdasher's Aske's school. My constituents and other parents at the school will be listening to this debate with great interest. They will want to hear a serious response from the Minister.
Mrs. Gillan:
I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened. It is obvious from the smug look on the Minister's face that he could not care less about these children. I find that appalling.
Mr. James Tester has a seven-year-old son, Miles, who will start at Ardingly college on an assisted place this September--thanks to the Labour party agreeing, before the election, that I could continue with the programme. When Mr. Tester's son was offered the place, he had no hesitation in accepting, because his understanding was that his son could retain his assisted place at Ardingly until the age of 18 or, at the very least, 13. The Bill will prevent that. If Mr. Tester had known that his son would have to suffer the disruption of a return to the state sector at the age of 11, he would hot have accepted the assisted place.
The Government have already rejected our amendments to take more time in abolishing the scheme because they do not care what happens to Miles or about the disruption they are causing children and their families.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
My hon. Friend is aware of the Ursuline college in my constituency. She has been helpful to the school in the past. She knows that it has a modest number of assisted places. As a convent school, it takes children from quite large families. It will be a bitter disappointment to them that their brothers and sisters will not be able to attend the same school. Surely a fundamental principle of our education system is that siblings are enabled to be educated together. Is not the Government's attitude disgraceful and sheer spite?
Mrs. Gillan:
I know of the school. My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. Families do not consist of just 2.4 children plus a dog, but of perhaps three, four or five siblings. The implementation of the Bill will set brother against brother and sister against sister.
I do not want to delay the Committee for too long, but I feel strongly that Ministers have taken the Bill as a bit of a joke so far. The Minister who replied to the debate on the previous group of amendments took little notice of our reasonable questions, and did not answer them. A responsible Minister would have taken the issues that we have raised into consideration before introducing the Bill. I do not hold out much hope that the Minister--a different Minister--who is to reply to this group of amendments will take the debate any more seriously.
I should like to read a letter sent to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment from Mrs. Ann Nourse. She writes:
I find it hard to believe that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who I know to be a kind and understanding person, can sit there and let the clause go through without the amendment being accepted. I hope that she will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled.
I firmly believe that any Minister who had any regard for the welfare of children would accept that it is a reasonable amendment, tabled with the best intentions to ensure that the very examples that I have laid before the Committee do not become a reality. That is a horror story for the families involved. I have no children, but I can imagine having two who are--
It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
"My personal big concern about this Government is the discontinuance of new Assisted Places after the September 1997 intake. Mr. Blunkett has given no thought to the effect this action will inevitably have on the siblings of Assisted Place holders.
Ministers are not evening listening to the letter. They are just chatting away to each other. Mrs. Nourse goes on:
My elder son Philip is a shining example of what Assisted Places were introduced for. He is predicted to achieve straight As at GCSE this summer. My other son is 5½ years younger and wants nothing more than to attend the same school as Philip. Matthew goes to everything with us at school. He sees the high standard of concerts and drama and sports events. He even helps out at the Nearly-news and Christmas Fairs. He's involved with the school already. He was going to start in year 1 in September '98."
"It seems very likely that I will have to explain that his hopes will be dashed. That he won't get an equal opportunity to Philip. He's going to be very upset and disappointed and could carry it with him for the rest of his life.
She goes on to say:
Many siblings up and down the country are going to feel like Matthew. I can see it breeding ill-will, envy and resentment in families between brothers and sisters.
My elder son Philip thinks it's so unfair on his younger brother.
Labour are ignoring the 3 years notice that should have been given which would have given more chance for siblings to be treated equally. This is all being introduced so rapidly it doesn't seem right."
"Please would it be possible for you to table an amendment to the Education Bill whereby siblings of Assisted Place holders would also be offered Assisted Places beyond September 1997. Even if it was only for the next three years--the length of time that schools should receive in notice, should either side want to opt out . . . This would help a lot of children and families.
We have taken up the amendment that Mrs. Nourse asked for. Now is the chance for the Government to prove that they are not so arrogant and can listen to the voices of Mrs. Nourse, Mr. Tester, Mrs. James and Mrs. Brayley. They should think hard about the children they will affect with the Bill, but I see no sign of it and I am deeply worried about the future of a Government who can disregard children in such a cavalier fashion.
Even if these unfortunate children could be allowed a grant equivalent to the cost of their education in the state system, it would help some children to gain an equal education to their siblings.
The feelings of these children are being totally disregarded by Mr. Blunkett, could you not appeal to his better nature?
I should be so grateful if you could take up the plight of the siblings of Assisted Place holders please, Mrs. Shephard."
That, at this day's sitting, the Education (Schools) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 39.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |