| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley): Name one.
Mr. Clappison: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speaks to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment; we listened to the amendments that he tabled to the Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for--
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was there on that occasion. We said that we would think about the amendments. We accepted some amendments outright and were criticised--to be fair, not by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich but by some of his colleagues--for introducing legislation that was ill thought out and in a muddle and which needed to be amended.
If the Minister is prepared to take the matter away, think about it and speak to the Secretary of State about it, I promise that we shall not make any such suggestions or criticisms. I will be the first to praise the Government for listening to the arguments and for being prepared to be flexible and to accommodate individual cases.
I invite the Minister to consider the framework that already exists in the Bill, especially the transitional arrangements. Clause 3 describes the transitional arrangements. If the Government are unhappy with the
amendment, they may be able to find a way of incorporating the sibling connection in the transitional arrangements in that clause.
I ask the hon. Lady to be flexible, because her conduct will say a great deal about the Government's approach. The Secretary of State used fine words about putting children before dogma and the interests of the child being paramount, but we need more than words: we want a practical, positive response. We want deeds to match those words. This would be a good place to start because of the individual cases involved--the possible suffering if no sibling connection is introduced. I urge the hon. Lady to take the matter away and find out whether there is a way to do justice to it.
Many Labour Back Benchers who have been silent tonight--I make no criticism of them--have constituents whose children have assisted places in such schools, with sibling connections, and those families will be very interested in this matter, like the constituents of Opposition Members, who have spoken with great force. I invite the hon. Lady to live up to the fine words and to take the matter away and think about it.
The Government will set a bad precedent if they are not prepared to consider such cases. A message will be sent to the country that the Government will steamroller legislation through Parliament in a rush, without considering how it may be improved, conducting research or devising ways to accommodate individual cases. The Minister would do the Government and herself a great favour if she were prepared to show flexibility and come some way to meet the concerns that we have expressed about the sibling connection.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
Many arguments of principle have been advanced by my hon. Friends in the absence of any arguments from Labour Members. The few Labour Members who have agreed to attend this important debate have decided not to reinforce the general arguments advanced by the Government.
I wish to help the Minister by producing some specific examples that relate to siblings. If taken into account, they would greatly improve the Bill. My examples are based on experience in my constituency, and a school that is especially concerned with the effects of the Bill. I think that they will interest Labour Members because they concern an all girls school. We have heard this week that the Government have new proposals to improve, allegedly, the lot of women. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and her colleagues will be particularly concerned with girls' education and how to improve it.
The Ashford school for girls is an excellent independent school. For many years, it has dealt with the education of girls from many parts of Kent. It is extremely pleased to participate in the assisted places scheme precisely because it helps to preserve a social mix and to bring the benefits of the excellent education that it provides to those who could not otherwise afford it.
The school is slightly unusual in that it takes girls from the age of three right through to the age of 18. It will be especially badly hit by the Bill. The sisters of girls who are already there will be particularly badly hit by clause 2 if the amendment is not accepted.
We are talking not about siblings who might go to the school, but about girls who are already at the school who will not be allowed to continue beyond the age of 11.
There is no dividing line now at that age because educations runs from age three to 18. The consequences for the school will be particularly disastrous because girls' sisters who already attend the school will not be allowed to continue under the APS after the age of 11. At an especially vulnerable age--an important age for the continuation of their education--they will be forcibly moved to other schools.
I invite the Minister and Labour Back Benchers to consider the effect that such a move would have on the girls in question. It would be psychologically scarring, it would damage their education, and many hundreds of girls would be affected over the years in a way that is not intended by those who support the Bill.
I accept the Government's good faith in introducing what I consider to be a misguided Bill, but I ask them to consider the amendment on its merits. Labour Members should not regard it--many of them seem to do so, I regret--as a piece of dogma that needs to be driven through the House of Commons with no arguments put behind it from the point of view of preserving ideological purity. Instead, they should consider the effects of the Bill on the education of individual girls.
The Bill will have an effect on siblings and it will introduce a degree of retrospection, which is bad in any legislation. In the full knowledge that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would introduce a Bill such as this, Ashford school obtained the Department's agreement that it could take girls on assisted places with the expectation that, having entered the school at the age of three, four, five, six or more, they would be able to go right through to the age of 18.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
I wonder whether the Government and my hon. Friend have considered the possible effect on that school, and others, of their suddenly finding themselves non-viable and having to close as a result of the loss of siblings or the main assisted places. What would be the effect if all the children currently paying fees and not being assisted by the scheme were to go into local schools? Would that reduce class sizes, as the Government are pledged to do, or increase them?
Mr. Green:
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am happy to reassure him and the House that such an eventuality would not befall Ashford school, because it is such an excellent school that many hundreds of girls would still apply to attend.
My hon. Friend makes a good point, for two reasons. First, if pupils are withdrawn from schools, that may have a serious effect on the schools and cause them to close, thus damaging education in certain areas. Secondly, that would not only damage the independent schools in a particular area; it would have a serious and damaging effect on the state schools in the area. Pupils would be displaced and schools would have to take on a rush of new pupils. I beg the Minister to consider the fact that that would involve an increase in class sizes in the state schools. If the abolition of the APS caused the closure of independent schools, the effect would be to displace pupils into the state system--exactly the opposite effect to that which is intended. I urge the Government to consider that important point.
Mr. Lansley:
I am interested in my hon. Friend's observations from his constituency. Given that, in the
Mr. Green:
My hon. Friend makes two excellent points. In my constituency there would not be schools of a similar type. It is extremely important that as much choice as possible is available to parents, particularly to parents of girls. It has often been observed that all boys should go to mixed schools, but all girls should go to single-sex schools if their education is to be maximised. I agree with that saying.
11.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |