Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520
- 539)
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY 2004
MR STEPHEN
TWIGG AND
MR DAVID
JAMIESON
Q520 Jeff Ennis: We also had the
issue of the Lancaster rule recently on the human rights issue.
Do you think we ought to be giving more guidance within this Bill
on that particular issue?
Mr Twigg: Whether it is in the
Bill, I am not sure, but, yes, we do need to be giving more guidance
and we are taking a look at some of the issues that arise, both
from that particular case but also a rise from what I imagine
was quite an interesting session with the Christians and the atheists
last week.
Helen Jones: It was.
Chairman: It was a very stimulating session.
We enjoyed that session.
Q521 Helen Jones: Could I follow
that up, Minister, because it is a very difficult question. It
seems to me there are two problems. First of all, as many local
authorities do exercise their discretion to allow free transport
to denominational schools—and certainly the Catholic Education
Service would argue that they have previously placed their schools
to take in a wide catchment area and therefore some obligation
is owed to them—why would any local authority politically,
particularly in areas where there are large numbers of denominational
schools, suddenly announce they are going to start charging for
transport? Have you given any thought to how that problem might
be overcome?
Mr Twigg: It is interesting that
that is happening in some authorities. I think it is probably
more for financial reasons than any kind of hostility to the existence
of those schools within those authorities. But we have a position
where 137 LEAs do provide, according to our information, either
free or assisted transport: with about 80 it is free, a further
30 free but with a maximum mileage or time limitation, and 27
assisted, and it is generally to the nearest relevant denominational
school. But, I think, partly because of the spiralling costs of
home to school transport, a lot of LEAs are looking again at how
they exercise their discretion and are bringing in charges, sometimes
quite steep charges, for travel to denominational schools. So
I think that is happening already. I know there are concerns,
which were clearly reflected in the evidence session last week,
particularly from the Catholic Education Service, but I said to
them when I met them yesterday that potentially there is an opportunity
for them in this Bill, because there may well be children who
currently are not benefiting, because the local discretionary
practice is different, who perhaps could benefit from at least
a subsidised place because of a wider availability of bus transport
because of the extra money that comes into the system.
Q522 Helen Jones: All right. Could
I ask you a little bit more about the human rights implications.
We accept that what happened up in Lancashire does not set the
precedent for anything because it never went to court, not even
a court of first instance, but I think there are major difficulties
in dealing with this problem, not least, as I keep pointing out,
that we do not have secular schools in this country. How has your
Department gone along so far with wrestling with the kind of guidance
you ought to give to local authorities, and how could you prevent
it being abused? We had a very clear case before us where the
gentleman concerned only had a denominational school in his village
and did not want his child to go to a denominational school. You
could see that argument being used elsewhere, could you not? "I
do not like the ethos of this particular school. Even though it
is a community school, I do not like the fact that they teach
too much RE, so I want my child to go somewhere else." How
are we going to wrestle with all those problems and give the right
guidance to local authorities, so that they cope with their responsibilities
under the Human Rights Act but do not fall into the trap where
that can be exploited and then cost them a lot of money unnecessarily?
Mr Twigg: I think the honest answer
to that is we are still wrestling with it.
Q523 Helen Jones: It is work for
lawyers!
Mr Twigg: It is plenty of work
for lawyers, yes. As you rightly say, we do not have secular schools.
The churches tend to have ways of identifying that people are
Anglican or Catholic, like going to church, whereas if you are
an atheist it might be more difficult. To demonstrate that you
do not go to church might be more difficult than to demonstrate
that you do.
Q524 Helen Jones: You are a Catholic
if you are baptised, by the way. You can lapse, you cannot leave.
Mr Twigg: There you go. By its
nature, agnosticism is not going to be something that is going
to lend itself to that.
Q525 Chairman: Our faith witnesses
point out that there are two different criteria. Do you remember,
they said there was a disparity or a difference between the two
methods. In terms of entry to that school it is on your family
actually practising; to get the school transport, all you have
to prove is an affiliation, it does not have to be attendance
or anything else. Two interesting criteria that never seem to
be joined up.
Mr Twigg: As David said when the
evidence was given, the references in the European Convention
on European Rights are on religious or philosophical grounds.
I think there is a real set of issues there, but I am afraid if
I carry on answering I am simply going to carry on wrestling and
probably the more sensible thing is for us to explore this further
within the Department.
Q526 Chairman: On Monday morning,
I was in Thurrock, at a wonderful school, the Gateway School,
listening to parents talking about what they want out of school.
The message that came from them was that they wanted excellent
community schools. In any joined-up thinking that this Government
has, surely anything it does about transport is to help good local
schools to flourish and to be more attractive.
Mr Twigg: Absolutely.
Q527 Chairman: Is there a "joined-upness"
about your thinking, or do you just think this is a good idea
and it does not matter what the implications are for supporting
local schools?
Mr Twigg: In terms of what we
are doing with regard to school transport, absolutely. Jeff quoted
what Charles Clarke said at the select committee and that is absolutely
the position that we have outlined. But we also believe that choice
is available and we respect the different choices that parents
will make. That will mean, along with other factors such as sparsity
in rural areas, that there will always be children who are travelling
and who will require support with transport.
Q528 Chairman: This Committee looks
at a range of policy: we look at admissions policy, we look at
diversity policy, we look at schools transport policy. They do
not seem to be very joined up from where we are sitting. There
seems to be one real push to make children travel further for
different kinds of types of schools, at the same time as you are
saying, "We do not want children to travel so far."
Mr Twigg: There is a tension—which
is the word I used earlier. I do accept that. I need to be clear
that our overriding objective in terms of our policy is about
high school standards and children having access to high quality
education. That must override other policy areas. That must be
the key determining factor.
Q529 Chairman: Even if that meant
getting rid of selection and grammar schools, that is what you
believe, is it?
Mr Twigg: We would certainly look
at the evidence, as David Miliband and I said when we appeared
before the Committee on that issue before.
Q530 Chairman: We are delighted to
get you to quote that. We may quote it back at you.
Mr Twigg: That we would look at
the evidence. Absolutely.
Q531 Helen Jones: Could we move on
to look at the status of protected children under the bill. The
draft bill, as I understand it, defines protected children as
those who are eligible for free school meals or free school milk
in England. Did you look at any of the definitions? Did you do
any costings or potential costings on different definitions of
eligibility for free transport?
Mr Twigg: We have not done that
but we have said, first of all, that the definition in the bill
is the bare minimum standard: it is a minimum standard and no
scheme will be accepted that would expect a child eligible for
free school meals to pay when they do not currently have to pay.
We have given a green light to authorities to come forward with
schemes that are wider and more generous. There is a real issue
here about access to information; for example, about working tax
credit. We are in discussion between our officials and officials
in the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and DWP about information
sharing, which, if we can take that forward, would potentially
give us the information to provide a more generous definition
for this purpose and potentially for other purposes. We have had
correspondence about free school meals itself, and potentially
there is that benefit. We are still in those discussions with
the other government departments about how that could be done.
Q532 Helen Jones: I think that would
be interesting. As you know, we have had correspondence not just
about free school meals but about charging for school activities,
where this is quite a difficult issue. There are two things which
follow in that case, Minister: the draft bill has something different
in it where it relates to Wales. It says it must include those
on free school meals but may be extended. Why is it different
for Wales?
Mr Twigg: I think the answer to
that is devolution and that is what the Welsh have come forward
with.
Q533 Helen Jones: It is a very difficult
thing to sell to anyone in England, is it not? Why is it not on
the face of the bill for England?
Mr Twigg: I think our purpose
is to have flexibility. We wanted to provide a minimum protection
everywhere, but we are very much encouraging the 20 (or however
many it turns out to be) pilot authorities to come forward with
schemes that potentially are more generous and go more widely
than that.
Q534 Helen Jones: I understand that.
It is what is on the face of the Bill I am querying with you.
Perhaps we could come back to that. The other problem that also
follows is we all know that eligibility for free school meals
does not necessarily mean that the family claims free school meals—in
fact, there are quite a lot of families who do not, for various
reasons, one, in my view, being the quality, but the other being
the bureaucracy that is involved. Have you given any thought to
guidance to local authorities on how those families who may be
eligible for free school meals but are not claiming them are going
to exercise their right to free transport for their children?
Mr Twigg: Yes. That is a very
important point and one that has been raised with me in some of
the consultation meetings I have had with head teachers who are
obviously concerned about access for pupils within their own schools.
We are looking at a number of discussions with experts in this
field about how that can be taken forward. I am not in a position
to say now, but we are very much aware that that is an issue,
the gap between eligibility and take-up. It is particularly an
issue in many rural areas. It is something that is raised a lot
by rural schools, and clearly because of this Bill's particular
relevance to rural schools it is important we get it right. We
are working with a number of head teachers, head teacher associations
and local government on how we can have a guidance that maximises
the number of children eligible to have free travel still getting
it.
Q535 Helen Jones: Will an assessment
of how that works be part of an evaluation of any pilot programme?
Mr Twigg: Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely
right. It must be, because, of course, in setting a minimum we
do not want to have kids who should be benefiting from that minimum
not benefiting from it. We want in fact to be looking at widening
it wherever possible. No answer about Wales has yet appeared.
Q536 Helen Jones: An answer is just
being provided.
Mr Twigg: They want to make their
own regulations—so it is devolution. They are having their
own discussion in Wales about free school meal eligibility. It
is because they are having a debate about the very issue of who
is eligible for free school meals, which of course we have corresponded
about.
Q537 Helen Jones: I think I might
say that is an answer but not an explanation. Could we carry on
to look at SEN children. There is very little in the draft Bill
about this. Currently, of course, if your statement says you are
eligible for free transport for an SEN statement, then you are.
This Committee often hears a lot about the law of unintended consequences.
I wonder if you have given thought to the fact that, first, there
obviously needs to be some special protection for children with
special needs who need to travel to a particular establishment
or who cannot travel on ordinary public transport, and perhaps
you could explain the thinking on that. Secondly, do you not perversely
encourage some parents to go for a full statement for special
needs because it carries the free transport with it if it says
so in the statement?
Mr Twigg: I read that had been
suggested by one of the witnesses that came before the Committee.
I am not entirely convinced that would be the case. We have said
we want the implications for children with special educational
needs to be explicitly addressed in the schemes that come forward,
and clearly the situation is going to vary according to the nature
of the special need. There will be children who are receiving
transport at the moment for whom this Bill will be totally irrelevant:
they should absolutely continue to receive that transport on the
basis of their need, whether it is set out in the statement or
not. There could potentially be some benefits, going back to our
earlier discussion, in terms of being able to have more flexibility
in linking up with other transport fleets, for example in health
and social services, so we may be able to get some better quality
transport facilities available for those children with disabilities
or special needs who need those forms of transport. But there
will be other children with a statement who are perfectly able
to be travelling with other children. There is no issue at all
for them, and they will be treated in the same way as other children,
and the circumstances for them will simply depend on family income
with respect to charging, as would happen for other children.
There is obviously a much bigger issue here, that goes beyond
the Bill, about SEN transport and getting the quality right and
looking at the enormous variation between different parts of the
country in the quality and the cost, and you are probably aware
that we are having a piece of work done at the moment specifically
around SEN transport. If that does have implications for the bill,
then I think it is going to be important that we reflect that.
Whether it would need to be reflected on the face of the bill,
I am not sure, but it probably would need to be tested in the
pilot.
Q538 Helen Jones: Do you not think
this links up with the whole issue of who supervises school transport
and whether there is someone on the buses not simply to ensure
good behaviour but perhaps to provide a helping hand for some
children who have disabilities but are able to travel on the school
bus with a bit of assistance? Would investment in that area not
only perhaps cut down the bill for some SEN transport but also
benefit the children concerned because they could travel to school
with their peers?
Mr Twigg: Absolutely.
Q539 Helen Jones: Have you given
any thought to that?
Mr Twigg: Certainly. The suggestion
of escorts or, however they are described, adults being on the
buses is, I think, a very, very positive one. Obviously there
is a lot of concern about behaviour of, for example, pupils who
are travelling by public buses and the impact that has on other
passengers. I know that witnesses before the Committee talked
about the prevalence of bullying, particularly of children with
special education needs, and clearly having an adult present will
make a difference. We are positively encouraging pilots to come
forward that use some of the money that they could raise through
charging to have escorts on the buses, but I actually think it
is a broader issue than the pilots. I think it is one that we
would want to encourage to be taken up more generally, even in
authorities that are not pilot authorities.
Mr Jamieson: If I could add a
point. We are very aware that driving a bus full of adults is
a different matter from driving a bus full of children. It does
place a very considerable responsibility upon a driver, particularly
of a double-decker bus, of having children who, particularly on
the journey home, may be letting off a bit of steam. We have in
place some guidance on training of drivers, particularly those
involved in the school run, which I think is very important, and
I know the Transport and General Workers Union have had a considerable
amount of concern about this, not least because some of their
drivers were actually fearful of doing the school run. Clearly,
that is unacceptable for the drivers and it is not good for the
children. It is also the case that some drivers have less difficulty
than others. Anybody who has had experience of handling children
will know that a certain amount of experience and training will
help them make a better job of what they are doing. We do see
the training of drivers as very important as well.
| 
