| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath: Even grammar schools?
Mr. Luff: Yes, even grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman does not understand. If he had been listening earlier, he would know that I have already dealt with that point.
It matters, wherever possible, that siblings go to the same school. It will not always be possible. We live in the real world. Schools can be full, children may not have the required ability and individual problems may arise. However, when an elder child has gone to a school, the younger child of the family wants, if at all possible, to go to the same school.
The second good argument for accepting the amendment is the unfairness point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham dealt so ably. I will not draw on new examples, although I could cite them in my constituency. The Minister should listen to the specific examples.
Thirdly, and most important given from what I understand of the Government's perspective, is the serious inconvenience caused to working families, especially single parents, in trying to deal with different schools and fitting things into their crowded lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead spoke of different holidays. We should not seek to create imperfections where they do not already exist.
Wherever possible--it will not always be possible, because we do not live in an ideal world--we should help the typically poorer families who cannot afford the taxis, about which there were so many disparaging remarks earlier, to take their children to the same school. The point is that there will not be many of them. This is not a fundamental attack on the heart of the Bill. It is an easy and simple thing for the Government to accept.
Having been a governor of maintained schools, I know of the priority that such schools have given to siblings in their admissions policy wherever possible. That is entirely
right and honourable. When we set the admissions policies at the two schools at which I was governor, we gave that priority to siblings. It is a practice in the maintained sector, and the Government should find it in their heart to extend it to this limited area of the Bill.
I have many debates with my local education authority--Hereford and Worcester county council--about admissions policy when popular schools are full. I am not impressed by everything that the authority does--sadly it is in the wrong hands--but I am impressed by the sincerity with which it tries to deal with the problem of siblings. Although it often cannot be avoided, it tries to avoid separating them wherever possible. I pay tribute to the authority for that and I hope that the Government will follow that example.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I wondered whether I should stand up at all after the earlier comments of the Minister for School Standards. He made it clear, in response to points I was making about the difficulties that the legislation will cause for my constituents, that he was not interested in the impact of the Bill on people in Guildford. He was concerned merely with his master plan for the country. What a slap in the face for my constituents and, above all, what a slap in the face for nearly 10,000 people in my constituency who voted Labour at the election. I cannot help wondering how many of them would have voted Labour if they knew that the Minister responsible for the education of their children did not care one bit about what the legislation would mean for people in my constituency. I hope that, if he has the grace to reappear this evening or before it is too late, the Minister will consider retracting his remarks and giving the apology that he ought to give.
I have sired five siblings, of whom four had the good fortune to be at the same school at the same time. There is no doubt that, when members of a family are at the same school, a bond develops between them, which will be a benefit to them throughout their lives. That is why I think that it is a measure of the mean-spirited minds behind the Bill that they will not even consider at least allowing that something should be paid for siblings by the local authority.
We all know that the extra cost of the scheme on average is £1,000 per child, but, for an individual family, the cost of replacing the entire fees paid to a school is a great deal more than £1,000. It would be entirely consistent with the Government's professed aims to say that, for siblings, a payment equivalent to the local authority's cost per head would carry on being paid. In those circumstances, even if the family were not able to come up with the money, the school might find it from
general resources or a local charity or sponsor might be found, or, within the wider family, there might be an uncle, aunt or grandparent who could afford to pay the extra £1,000 a year, but could not afford to pay £4,000 a year, which is the average cost of the typical fees. The fact that Ministers have not considered the Bill's effects, which will means so much to siblings, is a measure of the mean-spiritedness and haste with which the Bill has been drafted.
Another factor to consider is the Bill's double whammy on siblings. I do not think that any hon. Member has yet mentioned that the proportion of fees that parents must pay per child decreases as the number of children attending under the scheme increases. For one child, no parental contribution is required from families earning up to £10,000 a year. If the family income is £18,000 a year, however, according to figures printed, in February, in The Guardian--
Mr. Flynn:
So the figures must be right.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
Yes, they must be right.
The parental contribution from such families for one child was £1,524, whereas the contribution for each of two children was £1,143, or a total of £2,286. The cost will rise under changes to the scheme. If one of those children is forced to leave his or her first preparatory school and is not allowed to continue independent school education, the parents will pay nearly as much--£1,524--to educate only one child. Almost the same exaction will be made from that family's budget, for the benefit of educating only one child and of dividing the family unit. The imposition of that double whammy on families that have two or more children but not much money is a good measure of the Bill's mean-spirited nature.
The Government should now halt further consideration of the Bill and allow matters to rest. They should not force a Division on the amendments to clause 2, but they should return with sensible proposals on how they will mitigate the real problems caused by the Bill for families with children who would like to attend the same school.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham):
Mr. Lord, you will forgive me--as a fresh-faced, wet-behind-the-ears new boy--if I take up the point that was made earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and say that I had had the impression, as I did when I spoke in the Second Reading debate, that this is a debating Chamber. Today, however, all the questions have been asked and all the points and arguments have been made by Conservative Members. It has been rather like trying to play frisbee with the Woodentops, because we have gotten nothing back. We have received no answers to our questions and there has been no consideration of the new points that we have raised.
It was real cheek for the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to ask why there are not more Conservative Members in the Chamber. Even with my
non-private school education, I can tell that there are rather more Conservative Members here than Labour Members.
Mr. Flynn:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton:
No, I will not; let me get on. I have been waiting all evening to speak.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted more debate.
Mr. Loughton:
At last, we may have some debate. If a few more of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had put down their creme de menthe frappes and pork scratchings in the bar and bothered to come into the Chamber, perhaps we might have had a proper debate, rather than relying all evening on Conservative Members to provide one.
Mr. Flynn:
When the hon. Gentleman's experience of this place stretches beyond four weeks, he might realise that the important events are the votes, rather than the debates--regrettable though that may be. The last vote was decided by 300 votes to 39. It is an utter disgrace that newly elected Tory Members play truant on such a vital Bill. It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to say that they are sincere in their views when three quarters of his party are at home in bed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |