| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I welcome the Bill. The Government are being incredibly brave—some would say foolhardy—but somebody, somewhere, some time has to do something about the problem of school transport. The collective view of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is, "Sorry, we haven't a clue." In neither submission did I hear a suggestion.
One can oppose and criticise, and one can say that the Government are being opportunistic, but in this case I have to say that they are being anything but opportunistic. This is not an easy subject; it is a minefield. We all know that we are going to get letters because there will be some losers. Sadly, however, there are already many losers under the existing system, as I shall explain. The Government are right to look at this matter.
We want constraints on the pilot schemes. I can say from the outset that my local authority in Gloucestershire is not looking to be a pilot. I know because I have asked it, although it may change its mind. I can speak freely because I cannot in any way fetter its views. The authority has done a great deal of research on this matter. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen managed to prove between them, it is easy to find the problems but much more difficult to look for solutions.
I genuinely think that this is an enabling Bill; it is about pilot schemes. The Government have tried pilots in the past, and where those have worked they have gone headlong into extending them, rather than trying more pilots. I hope that they will learn a lesson from that, and that they will try to learn from the experiences of the different schemes.
Inevitably, we have talked almost exclusively about the bus versus the car, but one of the good things about the Bill is that it allows other things to be considered. The view is that school transport is principally about motorised forms of transport, but many children walk to school. I am not sure where Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen got their figures from, but the figures that I have seen show a gradual decline in the number of children walking to school. Interestingly, the number who cycle bobs up and down between 2 and 4 per cent. The latest figure for those who walk is 44 per cent., but that has fallen from over 50 per cent. seven or eight years ago. That is not down to the election of the Labour Government; it is the result of a change in culture that means that people see themselves as more dependent on the car. We all know the impact that that has on people's health, let alone on congestion.
My first accusation about those who do not want to see any attempt at change is that they view the past as a different country. I cannot believe that what is happening in my local schools today is radically different from events in the local schools of Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1629
Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to speak to those who do not want to see any change, but there are no such people in the Chamber. Most of us want some change, but we do not necessarily want the charging that the Government envisage.
Mr. Drew: I want to see exactly how the measure will work out and, if chosen to sit on the Standing Committee, I shall try to be my usual, helpful self and to scrutinise the Government's proposals carefully. However, it is a mistake to view the Bill as saying that charging is a wonderful way to sort out school transport. There are many other aspects to the matter, not least the fact that we have a pot of money that is reasonably limited, unless we are going to spend even more of our education funding on moving children around, which most of us would agree is not a good way to get the best out of the funding. We shall have to suck it and see.
It seems that there is an historic view. Now, however, many of the primary schools in my constituency are beginning to run after-school clubs. There are also breakfast clubs. They would like to get back into providing sporting activities. As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are doing our level best across the political spectrum to get more children to stay on at school post-16, or into college post-16. One of the great unfairnesses is that a pupil of lower means can go from having free school transport up to 16, only to find that because he or she wants to go to college, transport is no longer free.
Stroud college is not in my constituency—it is in the area represented by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—and the student may live in Wooten-under-Edge. They then have to pay exorbitant charges, if they can get to the college at all, to travel by bus on a circuitous route. We must have regard to the 14–19 curriculum, and even more so to the post-16 curriculum. As I have said, there are great unfairnesses.
I welcome flexibility but I shall set out where I do not see room for change. I am a Christian and I support denominational schools. I welcome people who choose to send their children to a school of their faith, and they should not be discriminated against for doing so. I look to the Government to provide clarity and to tell us how they will ensure that pupils at denominational schools are not adversely affected.
In a sense, there has always been a problem with the idea of choice. More often than not, people of lower means have had to go to the local school. That is because they have not been able to pay for transport. If the local primary school is 2 miles away or if the secondary school is slightly less than 3 miles away, there will be charges. That has always seemed to me to be very unfair.
There are even more bizarre situations. For example, two families may live on the same street. The children of one family get free school transport and the children of the other family, because they happen to be slightly closer to the school—we measure distances as the crow flies—are subjected to charges. It is difficult to provide an explanation. We use a blunt instrument to measure who is entitled to free transport and who is not. The Government are right to examine the issue. We know that there are increased costs.
We must be careful about special needs, and I want some assurances. I have seen the benefits of inclusion. We saw the closure of a moderate learning disability
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1630
school in my constituency. The closure was generally well received because the heads of all the other schools worked together to ensure that there was general inclusion. It was not popular in all sectors of the community but, largely, the programme has worked. I do not want to see the proposals before us tied in with inclusion policies. That should be a separate argument, to ensure that there is appropriate choice. If children are entitled to receive special needs education at an appropriate special needs school, transport should not become discriminatory. I hope that assurances will be provided. I hope also that the detail will be provided in Committee, and that we shall see strengthened the provisions set out in the Bill.
Other matters are worthy of debate and, as I have said, I hope that there will be clarification when we consider them in Committee. In a sense, this is a local-versus-central debate. The parties are somewhat split, not necessarily in this place but outside it. Some local authorities will be looking for more discretion in the way in which they operate. There are great unfairnesses in the way in which the system works. I have referred to the measurement of how far a child is from a particular school. There is also the issue of entitlement to free school meals.
There are examples of how things have gone ludicrously wrong. Although it is easy for me to make a cheap party political point, I will do so. I dread Septembers. They have become better in the past couple of years, but it is September when the children go back to school. In the Strouds of this world, bus companies can often hold education authorities to ransom. As a result of deregulation, there is a state of anarchy. There have been children in my constituency at bus stops, in the morning and at night—this has been during the first few days of September—who were completely unclear about whether a bus would pick them up. That is because of the last-minute haggling that takes place, with the bus company saying that the subsidy is not enough. I know that this issue is outwith the Bill per se, but I am asking for greater flexibility.
There is the issue of children travelling longer distances by bus to their schools, but we must ensure that children who travel shorter distances are able to use effective transport. We know that they are the ones who will get into their parents' cars to be dropped off at school. We must make the bus system work better. It does not work at the moment because of the mass of bus companies and the lack of co-ordination. There must be co-ordination in the wider arena so that the general public, who also will be using some of the buses, are made to feel welcome on them. The behaviour of children must be appropriate and good enough. We must try to get the best of all worlds.
If we are to deal with global warming, the greatest challenge is transport. Unless we get more people to walk, to ride or to use public transport, we are, to use that immortal word, doomed. We must do what we can. That is why I welcome the Bill. It has been easy for the Opposition to score points. It has been easy for them to pick out parts of letters. I have read letters where scepticism has been expressed by churches, charities and teacher unions. However, the totality of their contributions is that there are many worries and we do not want to see the proposal as a precursor to charging. At least the Government are brave enough to be
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1631
considering that option and they are right to consider a series of pilots. It is to be hoped that a sufficient number of authorities will examine what they are willing to do.
I am prepared to extend the benefit of the doubt. I want assurances in the areas that I have outlined. Even more so, I want additional resources so that the system can work. If we find that the system is working because of those resources, we would be sensible to make a wider move. We should take a hold of the underlying social policies of school transport. There are genuine economic issues and we should see these proposals as a way of introducing a more rational use of public transport, including voluntary transport.
When children in my constituency do not go to the nearest school—I am sure this is true in other constituencies as well—their parents may club together and hire minibuses, taxis and so on. Such arrangements should be properly scrutinised and evaluated to see whether we can introduce alternatives to something which, I am sure all hon. Members agree, is not working terribly well. I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that we look at its details carefully. We should add red lines so that denominational schools and special needs education do not suffer, but the Government are right to introduce the measure.
3.29 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |