| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Meg Munn: In Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled similar amendments relating to guidance for school transport, which he then withdrew. In respect of school transport, the Bill contains exemptions for local education authorities and public authorities from the provisions on discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Local education authorities have a statutory requirement to provide free home-to-school transport for certain pupils and they also have some scope to decide when transport is necessary in other circumstances. Each pupil's case will be considered on its merits, taking account of all relevant factors, including a parent's wish that their child attend a school of the religion or denomination to which they adhere. That discretion means that LEAs often provide subsidised transport for pupils of a particular faith to attend a school of that faith located outside the local area. An exemption from the Bill's discrimination provisions was included to ensure that that practice could continue. Otherwise, local education authorities would be vulnerable to challenge of transport policies that take into account the historical distribution of religious schools, which have often been built on out-of-town sites.
I emphasise that local education authorities may—it is, indeed, our view that they should—provide subsidised transport to a non-faith school for a child whose parents are strongly opposed to their attending a faith school close to home. That, too, would be unlawful without the exception in the Bill.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister confirm that all those functions are, in fact, judicially reviewable, if a local education authority is not providing them in a fair and reasonable fashion?
Meg Munn: That is certainly my understanding.
The exemption has been included merely as a protection for local education authorities against those who may use religion as the basis for a claim if they have not received free school transport for which they may have applied. There are no new school transport provisions in the Bill that warrant accompanying statutory guidance, yet this is the second time that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has tabled an amendment attempting to introduce such guidance. I have sympathy with some of his concerns
16 Jan 2006 : Column 589
about school transport and have already indicated, both in Committee and subsequently in writing, that I agree that policy on school transport needs updating. I can confirm that that is being addressed by the Department for Education and Skills.
I have already agreed with the hon. Gentleman that new guidance is needed. I agree that it needs to make it clearer that cases of those seeking school transport to non-denominational schools should be treated in the same way as the cases of those who seek transport to denominational schools. I have indicated that new guidance will be produced, but it can be produced only by the DFES following consultation, development and the passage of the education and inspections Bill, which will, among other things, tackle school transport policy. We do not propose to produce statutory guidance for schools, but non-statutory guidance will be produced, which will make it clear that exceptions under the Bill do not override rights of non-discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory note to the Bill is not properly even-handed and we shall ensure that the note to the final Act puts that right.
This Bill is totally different from the education and inspections Bill, which is progressing on a different time scale and is not as far advanced. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns; indeed, the interest he has shown with such tenacity has served to reinforce the need for guidance in this area, but it cannot be given under the Bill. I hope that, once again, he will agree to withdraw his new clause.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister's excellent speech got better as it went along, and was somewhat better received, at least by me, than the contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who apparently takes the view that guidance confuses rather than guides. I have heard him on a number of occasions eloquently demanding that mystifying pieces of legislation, of which the Government are, no doubt, on occasion capable, should be explained through guidance. I guess that those areas must have been more carefully chosen than the one that I chose today. [Interruption.] I shall certainly give way to allow him to respond to my gentle teasing.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that I do not think that guidance may not, on occasion, be useful. My experience from having seen home-to-school transport in operation on many occasions is that guidelines are already in force in my local education authority area that are extremely complex. If people fall foul of them, they end up being taken to court. I do not think that a general, Government-issued set of guidelines will easily meet the multiplicity of problems that different local education authorities, each of which has completely different circumstances, face on home-to-school transport. It was the particular guidelines about which I was troubled, not necessarily guidelines in general.
Dr. Harris:
I am reassured and hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if a party believes in better regulation, it is preferable to ensure that public authorities are guided on how to avoid multiple judicial reviews and the costs thereof, although they might bring
16 Jan 2006 : Column 590
his profession some benefit. Local authorities should not have to rely on constant challenges to law that is unclear and not made clearer by guidance, although I accept that it is a difficult area.
I understand that another Bill will deal with school transport and, therefore, the Minister feels that it would be more appropriate to update the inadequate guidance under that legislation. People will have to cope for a few more months or years with the existing guidelines and more judicial review may be necessary. However, I thought that it appropriate to allow the Minister to set out on the record her views as communicated to me about future guidance and the problems with current interpretations. I am especially pleased that she had the good grace to recognise that the explanatory notes continue the culture of assuming that transport on grounds of religion applied only to those with religion and could never apply to those without religion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 43, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'particular.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—
'(iii) all staff transferring to the Commission from the former Commissions shall be deemed to have continuity of service for the purposes of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.'.
No. 24, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, at end add—
'(6) The protection afforded by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981, No. 1794)) shall apply to all staff of the former Commissions whenever they join the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.'.
No. 16, in schedule 1, page 60, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
'(a) ensure that no fewer than one half of the Commissioners have personal or direct experience of one or more of the causes of discrimination or prejudice referred to in section 10(2), and
(b) have regard to the desirability of their together having experience and knowledge relating to the matters in respect of which the Commission has functions, including, in particular, human rights.'.
No. 17, in schedule 1, page 60, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
No. 20, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
'(d) at least two Commissioners with experience and knowledge of trade unions and employee relations.'.
No. 10, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that not less than one quarter of Commissioners appointed under paragraph 1(1) are from a black or other ethnic minority background.'.
No. 18, in schedule 1, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |