Clause 1 - School travel schemes
School Transport Bill
Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I wish to underline what the Minister said. I did not realise that this was the first time that the hon. Gentleman had been in control of a Bill in Committee, so I hope that he will realise that on such occasions Ministers are accommodating and take on board a lot of Opposition amendments, and are always keen to split the difference on issues that arise. At least, I think that that is what happens. I want to put on the record how pleased I am to see you in the Chair, Mr. Conway, as I will also be pleased to see Mr. O'Brien this afternoon. I hope that we shall enjoy the experience.
The purpose behind the Bill was summed up beautifully for me when I read some oral evidence presented to the Education and Skills Committee, when a thoughtful witness, Mr. Sykes from Herefordshire, who has experience of many school transport schemes, came out with a somewhat unguarded comment. He said:
''Surely the Bill is about unpacking the procedures around the three mile entitlement, as far as I can see that is the Bill, that is what it allows authorities to look at. It allows the flexibility to move into those areas, fundamentally that is what the Bill is unpacking.''
The point that the Bill is a reversal of entitlement was made on Second Reading.
Amendment No. 21 is designed to deal with an issue that crops up soon in connection with reversing the entitlement, which is what will happen to
denominational and other schools that fear that they may be adversely affected, and that either pupils will not attend the school or, if they do, they will not represent a wide enough social mix. When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he wanted assurance that everyone was truly on board. At the moment there is no such assurance, and we do not know whether the Bill will provide that assurance. The amendment proposes that schemes can come forward, but that there should be a process through which schemes are properly evolved, after consultation with school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies. I assume that at some point, various archdiocesan and diocesan authorities will have impact on, and input into, such matters.
If we are to have uncontentious schemes that deliver a satisfactory outcome for the full range of schools, it is essential that, when any scheme is introduced, it is adequately consulted on by school governing bodies and other relevant admissions bodies, not simply imposed by the local authority.
Consultation can have various meanings in different places. It often means that people are asked what they want to happen, after which something is done anyway. All hon. Members who have had anything to do with consultations on post office closures will be familiar with that pattern. However, a meaningful consultation on any school transport scheme is essential to make it work. Apart from anything else, a certain amount of information needs to feed up from below to the people who devise the scheme and a number of practical considerations must be raised. The effect of the school transport scheme on the range of people who may go to a school is crucial.
The amendment would be just the kind of helpful addition that Ministers usually want to take on board, particularly in their first Bill, because it is moved truly in the spirit of consensus and conciliation.