Orders of the Day — School Transport Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 2:23 pm on 28 October 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Tim Collins Mr Tim Collins Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Education 2:23, 28 October 2004

The Secretary of State says that, but he knows that many Conservatives in local government strongly oppose the Bill. He is right to say that some Conservatives in local government are quite interested in some of his proposals, although some of the people whom he believes to be in favour of the Bill have begun to revise their views. He might have meant Essex county council, which has expressed an interest in the Bill. It pointed out:

"We would rather not make a charge, but that would mean the Government giving us considerable grant aid".

The Government have created a system that has so boxed in many local authorities that, no matter who is in control, they will look at any and every method of giving themselves a little more flexibility. It does not follow that Conservatives in the House have to take the same line, any more than the Secretary of State could possibly say that his party was unanimously in favour of top-up fees. If he contends that political parties should be unanimous on the issues, he hardly managed to deliver that on his flagship legislation earlier this year.

Our third concern about the Bill echoes the logic, although not the conclusion, of the Education and Skills Committee.

When it considered the draft Bill, it concluded:

"The Government seems confused as to the objectives of its draft Bill. The Secretary of State has said that it will encourage more children to walk or cycle to their local school, yet this does not sit easily with Government policies to increase diversity in schools and to allow for the expression of parental preference: an approach that encourages greater mobility."

The Committee concluded, in effect, that the Government should keep the Bill and scrap choice. We urge them to do the opposite: make choice a reality and scrap the Bill.

The Committee is right to say, however, that Ministers cannot stick by both the Bill and their words on choice. For thousands of parents, perhaps ultimately hundreds of thousands, the Bill will make choice entirely unaffordable. They will have to send their child to the nearest school, whether or not that is their real preference, simply because it is the cheapest option for them.

Worse still, the Government explicitly acknowledge that those who choose to send their children to a faith school may lose out. The explanatory notes refer to article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which provides that

"the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure . . . education and teaching in accordance with their own religious and philosophical convictions"; yet the Government state in the notes:

"However, in the Government's view this does not mean that there is any positive obligation to subsidise a particular form of education in order to respect a parent's religious or philosophical convictions. Consequently this Article does not of itself create any obligation to make arrangements for school transport or for free school transport to assist or enable parents to send their children to schools of their choice."

That means that, although at present about 80 per cent. of local authorities have provision for free school transport to denominational schools, under the Government's arrangements, such provision would be much less prevalent. Conceivably, it might disappear completely in some areas.