---

Mr. Clarke: The requirement on Welsh-speaking education is the same as the requirement for those going to their first desired school in relation to a particular church. That will continue under the current proposals.

Private car use on the school run has doubled— I emphasise, doubled—in the past 20 years. We want schemes to change that and to encourage more cycling, more walking, more car sharing and greater bus use. Through that, we will achieve a range of benefits—environmental, health benefits for pupils, educational benefits stemming from pupils arriving fit to learn and better access to opportunities presented by the 14-to-19 curriculum. There are also social benefits such as improved social skills developed through travelling in groups and carrying forward those issues. That is why
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1611
 
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and other colleagues in the Department for Transport are working so closely with us on these questions. That is why we want schemes to support greener, safer and healthier journeys to school. That is why we want a Bill to enable LEAs to run travel schemes tailored to the needs of their particular areas.

To return to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), although the schemes will apply to children not above the compulsory school age, the prospectus will make it clear that we want local authorities to link their schemes to post-16 arrangements. We want the schemes to address issues surrounding the extended school day and after-school activities. By the way, that is a very important aspect of the development of the curriculum, because the fact that transport does not exist for some people seriously inhibits many schools from developing the extended day and out-of-school activities. We will address the 14-to-19 agenda.

The schemes will be required to address transport to denominational schools and, as I said a few moments ago, in respect of Wales, to English and Welsh-medium schools. We want LEAs to be innovative. We do not want to prescribe what LEAs should include, but we are aware of a number of important, positive emerging themes as a result of the overall discussion and debate. We are aware of the development of area-wide concessionary fare schemes, enabling weekend and evening use, as well as school use, of buses. We also know how inadequate public service provision has been tackled through dedicated bus services. There are also allowances for cycling and cycle loan schemes and we have also seen the use of some of the revenue generated to increase the number of school crossing patrols, escorts for walking buses and cycle training. There are a range of benefits, which we believe are important.

Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): The Secretary of State mentions denominational education and he said earlier that he had the understanding of the churches. Would it be fair to say that he has their wholehearted endorsement for this legislation?

Mr. Clarke: No, that would not be right. We talked a lot to the Church of England and it would be fair to say that it is supportive of what we are doing. The Catholic Church had some concerns, which have been widely discussed, about particular parts of the country where there have been particular problems. I chose my words carefully when I said that we had the understanding of the churches, but if the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to say that we have their wholehearted endorsement, I cannot say that because it is not the case in respect of every part of the country in every circumstance. It is the case that the churches came to us at the outset to say that the current arrangements were not working as they should, so they invited a discussion about how best to proceed and what we should do. That is precisely the discussion that we have had. The solution that we have advanced—of allowing flexibility, particularly local government flexibility, which at least some Liberal Democrats favour—is, I believe, a good solution to the
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1612
 
problems. Part of the local flexibility in particular local areas will result from LEAs talking to the churches about particular problems.

Scheme arrangements replace the existing legislation contained in section 509 of the Education Act 1996, which requires LEAs to provide free transport for school pupils where it is considered necessary to facilitate attendance. LEAs that volunteer, by applying to become scheme authorities, will make travel arrangements that they consider appropriate, for which they may charge affordable fares.

I want to make it clear, particularly in view of several remarks by Conservative Members, that this is not a cost-cutting device. The revenue from fares will be re-invested in the sort of improvements that I have just described. The expectation is that fares will remain heavily subsidised, but that removing the sharp divide—the almost arbitrary divide that currently exists—between free and full-cost transport will enable more equitable and wider distribution of subsidy and will allow scheme LEAs to target resources according to local priorities. The rhetoric of the Opposition parties suggests that they support that, but when it comes to the reality, they are not prepared to do so.

The Bill defines protected children—children from lower income families who will receive free transport when they attend the nearest school. We have defined a national minimum level of protection, but want local authorities to put forward definitions suitable for their localities, which is important. Similarly, we have maintained the definition of walking distance as the minimum guarantee. The purpose of school transport remains to ensure attendance, but the prospectus makes it clear that we expect local authorities to address the needs of all pupils—those living within and outside the walking distance. The Bill shows that that can be done in a variety of ways—through safer walking and cycling routes as well as by better bus provision.

To summarise this aspect of the Bill, where transport currently exists, LEAs will still be obliged to provide transport beyond the walking distance for children who are going to the school that they need to attend. For children from lower income families, LEAs will still be required to provide such transport free. Those will be requirements that will have to be addressed in any scheme that is proposed. Outside that, we argue that we need more flexibility and greater possibilities.

Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the utmost priority of the UK Youth Parliament over several years of debates has been transport. Can he confirm that he will encourage local authorities to engage in full consultation with their local MYPs and members of youth forums about these issues so that imaginative schemes can be developed?

Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that precise assurance. Indeed, I have been lobbied to that effect by MYPs from Norwich and they raised the precise point that my hon. Friend mentioned. He is absolutely right that transport has been a matter of consistent concern over a long period. That is why I say we should use the
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1613
 
substantial money that we now have to secure better results, better quality and better opportunities for young people.

Mr. Collins: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the Bill provides for a continuation of free school transport entitlement for families on low income. Will he confirm that the definition remains that of families whose children are entitled to free school meals—namely, families whose income is below about £13,000 a year, which is well below the national average—and excludes the large number of families who receive the working tax credit?

Mr. Clarke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to keep with the free school meals definition. It is set out in the Bill and it is our intention, but I should say that there has been much discussion, as implied in the hon. Gentleman's question, about whether entitlement to free school meals provides the best definition of poverty. There are other approaches, as the hon. Gentleman said. We are prepared to consider alternative ways of defining it, but I can give the absolute assurance that the Bill works on the free school meals definition, which is the conventional one.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State will be aware that Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the National Children's Home and others have warmly welcomed the Bill. One of their reservations was mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) a few moments ago. A further reservation is that LEAs must do more, as far as free school meals are concerned, to deal with the issues of stigma and awareness of entitlement. If we are going to use that definition, we need to overcome some of those difficulties.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree, and I am very grateful for the general support that the children's charities have given this Bill. My hon. Friend is right to say that stigma is a major concern in relation both to free school meals and to transport. I assure him that we will try to ensure that schemes operate in a way that does not stigmatise.

As a further safeguard, all schemes approved by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will have to consider the needs of all pupils. I give an assurance, in terms, that schemes that are purely cost-cutting will not be approved—that is unequivocally the case. We want to be as flexible as possible, to test the range of options and to keep the situation under review. For the optimists among us—I am certainly one of them—I am encouraged by the fact that the local authorities that have expressed an interest, whether formally or informally, are seeking not to cut costs but to improve the quality of their services. They know that they can innovate and do better, and that is what they want to do—even Conservatives, although I hesitate to say it to Opposition spokesmen.

The Bill includes a power to repeal if the pilots are not deemed a success, but it can be used only after we have had time to evaluate the schemes and have reported to Parliament, and it lapses after the evaluation period. If, as I consider far more likely, the pilots show the
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1614
 
approach to be a success, the scheme approach will be open to all authorities that want to adopt it. It will remain voluntary, and if authorities want to continue under the current arrangements, they can. I emphasise yet again that it is a matter for local authorities to decide. Moreover, the Bill includes the power to relax the requirement in the Transport Act 1985 for local authorities to register closed services where a fare is charged. This will reduce the bureaucratic burden on local authorities.

This is a short Bill. It will introduce flexibility for the scheme authorities to address urgent cross-cutting issues of health, environment and safety. It is voluntary in nature, both during the pilot phase and in the longer term. It will enable local government to innovate and make arrangements that meet local needs in the 21st century. I repeat that it cannot be made statutory, the voluntarism cannot be removed, without primary legislation.

I believe that local government is at its best when it is at its most innovative, identifying local needs and taking on and responding to new responsibilities. With the Bill, the Government are saying to local authorities that they can design a system that is right for the schools, pupils and communities that they serve. Even at this late stage, I urge Opposition parties to abandon their dishonest opportunism and support their own colleagues in local government who want to build constructive policies for the future health and welfare of their communities. I commend the Bill to the House.

2.23 pm

---