UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: David Evennett

  • David Evennett – 2022 Speech on Southeastern Railway Timetable Changes

    David Evennett – 2022 Speech on Southeastern Railway Timetable Changes

    The speech made by David Evennett, the Conservative MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 6 December 2022.

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris; it is the first time for me as well. I am particularly pleased to see my personal and political friend, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) in his place to respond to the debate.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), from my neighbouring borough, on securing this important debate and thank him for doing so. He made a powerful case with the facts and figures on passenger numbers. That is very important and he has done a good job and a good service for us in south-east London by raising those figures.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such an important issue on behalf of my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford. The decisions affect so much and so many people adversely. I am pleased to see present a number of colleagues from both the Conservative and Labour parties, singing from the same hymn sheet. It is important that these issues are considered to be cross-party. We are grateful to participate in the hon. Member for Eltham’s debate.

    Bexley is not on either the London underground or Docklands light railway network. Although the Elizabeth line was originally proposed to run through Bexley and hopefully to Ebbsfleet, it now terminates at Abbey Wood in Greenwich, so there are limited viable alternatives to Southeastern rail services for the people of our area to use to get into central London. For example, although it is fewer than 15 miles from my home in Bexleyheath to Westminster, to travel exclusively by bus would probably take two hours, which is just not practical in any day-to-day commute. My constituents are therefore more reliant than most on rail services to travel to central London, whether to commute, to go to health meetings or for social reasons. For hospitals, work and pleasure, they use the railway and they use those services.

    I know the hon. Member for Eltham is, like me, a regular commuter, as we often travel on the same train. As such, we know and appreciate constituents’ anger about the services that they pay for and share the view that Southeastern, having a monopoly, is failing its customers. However, rather than talk about the shocking service that we have suffered over many years, and which the hon. Gentleman and I have batted away regularly over the past five or six years at least, I shall focus today on the inconsiderate, unfair and damaging new timetable that Southeastern plans to implement later this month.

    The new timetable affects all three of the lines that go through my constituency, as the Bexleyheath, Sidcup and Woolwich lines all go through Bexleyheath and Crayford. My constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford is currently served badly by those services, and the changes will be a disaster because the service will suffer, as the hon. Member for Eltham said in his excellent speech.

    The Bexleyheath line is served by Barnehurst and Bexleyheath stations in my constituency and by Welling station, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) but is used by a number of my constituents. The changes will mean that the line will no longer enjoy off-peak or weekend services to Charing Cross. The services running will be only two trains per hour to Cannon Street and two trains per hour to Victoria.

    The Sidcup line, which serves Crayford station in my constituency, will lose the off-peak and weekend services to Cannon Street, with the majority of those services being transferred to Charing Cross, with the result that four trains per hour will go there. The timetable changes mean the loss of our loop line, with the end of the direct service to get on the Elizabeth line at Abbey Wood. That is a disadvantage for commuters who need to go to the Docklands or other places via the excellent Elizabeth line.

    The Woolwich line is served by Slade Green station in my constituency and by Erith station, which is used by a lot of my constituents in the Barnehurst and North End wards. The relevant services will go only to Cannon Street at both peak and off-peak times.

    The new timetable has met with huge dismay across our borough of Bexley, and indeed throughout other parts of south-east London. My constituents and I are bitterly disappointed by, and rather angry about, the lack of consultation on the dramatic changes that are taking place that will affect rail users and businesses across our south-east region.

    Southeastern has explained the reasons why it did not consult, which I do not accept—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has been even more robust in that division. I advise Southeastern, and the Minister, that if it consulted on the timetable now, it would be amazed at the overwhelming opposition from people from all sections of the community, of all ages, and from all the travelling public. I remain totally unconvinced about why some of the Cannon Street services at off-peak times and at weekends cannot be substituted on the Bexleyheath line for some Charing Cross services instead.

    Southeastern has explained to me—very badly and disappointingly—that the reason for the new timetable is, as the hon. Member for Eltham said, to untangle the crossovers in the line at Lewisham and improve punctuality. I was at meetings with the hon. Gentleman about a previous consultation when that was disproved. I do not accept the views of Southeastern. It has failed to acknowledge the disruption and the added time that journeys will require in order for people to change at London Bridge, which will cause more inconvenience for our constituents when they travel.

    The Bexleyheath line has enjoyed direct services to Charing Cross since the Victoria era. A year or two ago, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Crayford line, which goes through Sidcup. The new timetable will see the Charing Cross to Bexleyheath line come to an end for off-peak services, with only two trains an hour at peak times, which is totally inadequate for the needs of constituents. Those commuting at that time often face delays that tend to originate from Dartford, at the kick-off, not from the crossover at Lewisham.

    The status given to Cannon Street as a major terminus area is absolute nonsense. Cannon Street is a commuter line. It is a ghost area outside the rush hour. Families would not take the train to Cannon Street to go to a Saturday afternoon matinee at the theatre or to an appointment with a doctor or consultant at a London hospital. It is unbelievably crass to suggest that that is fine. Barely anyone wants to travel to Cannon Street for non-work purposes, while Charing Cross is the most popular service for rail users travelling to London from Bexley for both work and leisure. The staff and the ambience at Charing Cross is very good, commensurate with safety and security, and there is a buzz there. I do not think there is that buzz at Cannon Street, even in the rush hour.

    Frankly, the changes are inconsiderate, totally unfair and lacking in logic. As I have mentioned, although it is a London borough, Bexley does not have a tube station. The residents therefore want a reliable, good service to get them to their place of work, hospital appointments and social events. We have fought on a bipartisan basis across my borough of Bexley and Greenwich, and also with Lewisham, to say that this is what people want and expect. In other parts of the country, such as on the Essex side of the Thames, the train service is so much better. I can never understand how it is that my personal assistant Perry Taylor can get in much quicker and easier from Billericay than we can from south-east London. We are closer to London than he is, and he is never late—I hope he will not be late tomorrow, at any rate.

    The train service available for rail users at London Bridge to get to their destinations is unacceptable. It will also add unnecessary stress and time for passengers. A number of people based at the House of Commons do not work peak times. They are going home, as we are, after 10 o’clock at night, which means that they have to change at London Bridge station. That makes things far worse and they will get home even later. I know we have more user-friendly hours in Parliament than we were used to in the past, but we were still here last night voting at 10 o’clock. The staff have to be here after that. A lot of them work in this property and are on our line down to Dartford.

    There are also vulnerable passengers, such as the elderly, those with mobility issues and parents with pushchairs, who have to navigate lifts, escalators and stairs to get on to the main concourse and on to the next line. Whereas, when they come to Charing Cross, they can go straight through to Eltham, Welling, Bexleyheath or wherever, without changing. Once they are on the train, they know they are there until they get to their destination station. Coming home late means more time, more hassle and more stress. We are here as representatives of the people to support constituents and the best service for them—not one that is convenient to civil servants and Southeastern, but one that is convenient to the people who pay the bills. That is why I am passionate and cross about the new timetable.

    One concern raised by people in Crayford is that they lose the loop around to Abbey Wood. Although that is not devastating, it is certainly disappointing, because people moved to our area in the belief that it meant that they could commute reasonably quickly into London, but that will not happen under these new proposals. A lack of connectivity with the Elizabeth line is a great disappointment, and I ask for that to be looked at again.

    Bexley borough generally has poor transport links from north to south. Buses and trains run more from east to west, though buses are impacted by traffic. There is considerably more traffic in Bexley now than there was a decade ago. We have been given no reasonable explanation why the connectivity service should be removed.

    I have had many meetings and discussions, as well as written communications, with Ministers present and past from the Department for Transport over the years, as has the hon. Member for Eltham. That includes the current Minister over the past month or two. I have also asked questions in Parliament, raised debates and collaborated with parliamentary neighbours and the leader of Bexley Council on transport issues affecting our borough. Yet we have seen no progress, despite the increasing cost of fares and the frustration for railway users.

    We need—we deserve—to see improvements finally, and we thought we were getting there with longer trains, more trains and newer trains. Does the hon. Member for Eltham remember that? We were going to get all those things. Well, they have not materialised. Now we are getting detrimental cuts to our services, just when we are trying to encourage people to go back to the office and other workplaces, and to go to the city and enjoy the recreational facilities in London, which is the greatest city in the world.

    I appreciate the time and sympathy that our new Rail Minister has given me and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and colleagues on the Labour Benches. He has listened and we appreciate that very much. However, the new timetable needs to be amended and changed, so that residents in south-east London—not just Bexley but all south-east London boroughs affected—have the benefit of a better service. They need to be consulted. This needs to be thought about again. We are being told that we cannot do anything because this has already been agreed with everybody, even though we did not agree with it and did not even know much about it until quite recently. We need to be consulted on changes for when the next timetables come in, because these new timetables are not fit for purpose.

  • David Evennett – 2022 Speech on the Future of the UK

    David Evennett – 2022 Speech on the Future of the UK

    The speech made by David Evennett, the Conservative MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford, in the House of Commons on 16 May 2022.

    It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech. In this debate on making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old in, I will focus on education. I appreciate, however, that inflation and the cost of living are top priorities for my constituents at this time. The Government need to do more to alleviate the consequences of rising prices, and I believe that they will.

    The UK is, and always has been, one of the best places to grow up in, and I am convinced that it remains a great place for those of all ages to live in. Through education and the opportunities that it gives, and especially through great state schools and teachers, people from my background have been fortunate enough to reach our potential. However, despite the fantastic opportunities, and the increase in finance that the Government have put into our education system, a number of issues still need to be addressed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is determined to tackle them. We congratulate him on his March White Paper. I know that he aims to improve standards and achievement. I look forward to participating in debates on the schools Bill when it comes to the House.

    I have worked as both a teacher and a lecturer, so I know how vital it is that every child receives the best possible education. Education and social mobility have always been key political issues for me, and I passionately believe that every child deserves the best possible start in life. I am a strong supporter of lifetime learning. Education is not just for the young, but for all age groups, particularly at a time when the world is changing rapidly.

    As we all know, parents are a child’s primary educator. A parent’s education level has a significant impact on their children’s success and can significantly affect opportunities later in life. However, talent and hard work alone should determine how far people can go, whoever they are, wherever they come from, whatever their background. Opportunity is key, and this Government believe passionately in opportunity. I believe that talent is widespread across our nation. Unfortunately, there are certain groups and areas where opportunity is not open to all, for many and varied reasons, so fair funding, accountability, a safe environment and attendance are vital. I look forward to further debates on the Bill.

    In my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency, we are very fortunate to have a diverse and fantastic collection of schools at primary and secondary level. The borough is a social mobility hotspot, and a wide variety of education offerings are available, including church, grammar, comprehensive and single-sex schools, all of which achieve good results and give young people excellent opportunities to develop their talents. Children from across Bexley, from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds, achieve great results at school and benefit from the wide range of opportunities.

    We have an excellent local further education provider—the Bexley campus of London South East Colleges—that offers a wide range of choices and courses. When I visited recently, I particularly enjoyed the media and special needs facilities. Last week, I also visited Woodside Academy, a special school that supports children from the age of four to 19 with a wide range of learning difficulties. It is part of the London South East Academies trust, and is another example of working together. It does innovative work to support the children under its care, both with their education and with wider health concerns. I watched, listened and learned about their specialist eye testing on site. The trust’s chief executive, Dr Sam Parrett OBE, and her team are doing a superb job.

    However, even in areas such as Bexley, where we are making great progress, more can always be done. I recently visited Bedonwell School with my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). It has outstanding special educational needs provision, but it highlighted concerns about SEN funding. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the concerns it raised during our visit.

    The Schools Bill will make it easier for schools in England to join multi-academy trusts, strengthen the regulatory framework, reform the schools funding formula to make it fairer, and strengthen the school attendance regime so that children can benefit from being in school. Those are vital issues, which is why I strongly support what the Government are doing. Madam Deputy Speaker insists that I keep to five minutes, so I cannot talk about the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which is also great news. I think we all agree with it on the Conservative Benches, so I do not have to go into detail on it.

    To conclude, by levelling up skills and education, we not only help to unleash the potential of every area in our United Kingdom, but grow the economy and boost our GDP. There is a clear theme from the Queen’s Speech that needs to be promoted loud and clear: the Conservative Government believe in social mobility, opportunity and an education system that offers the best to all, so that every individual can maximise their life chances.

  • David Evennett – 1986 Speech on Crayford School

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Evennett, the then Conservative MP for Erith and Crayford, in the House of Commons on 14 March 1986.

    I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the future of the special support unit at Crayford school.

    The past year has been extremely difficult in education. All the bad news has hit the headlines and the recent teachers’ dispute has caused problems for schools, parents and, most important of all, children. We must be concerned primarily with children, as education is about their future, their training for life and their ability to cope with the world of tomorrow. It is intended to help them to play their full part in society as decent citizens.

    The Government have achieved much in education and are attempting much more. They have my full support. Without doubt, considerable progress has been made and I am pleased to be able to report a real success in education today—the special support unit at Crayford school. The school is in the southern part of my constituency, in the London borough of Bexley, which is the local education authority. It is a small school with about 560 pupils on its roll, all of whom are accommodated on one site. The school has had several difficulties recently, but they have been overcome by the combined efforts of the acting head, Miss Woollett, dedicated staff and a supportive parents association.

    The school is an integral part of the local community and commands the wide respect of local citizens. With that local backing, the support of the governors and of the local education authority, the staff, who are extremely talented and highly motivated, have become pioneers in special education, with the establishment of a special unit. They are to be congratulated, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.

    The Education Act 1981 paved the way for the integration, as far as is reasonable and practicable, of children with special educational needs and children without such needs. Opening the Second Reading debate on the Education Bill on 2 February 1981, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who was then the Secretary of State for Education and Science, said:

    “We have constantly stressed that we wish to see the largest possible number of children with special needs educated in ordinary schools … However, our aim is not simply integration for its own sake. It is the provision of appropriate education for individuals. For many children I believe that this can and should be done in ordinary schools.” —[Official Report, 2 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 30.]

    Long before the 1981 Act, Crayford school possessed a special unit for children with impaired hearing to ease their path into mainstream classes.

    Today, there are three special units at the school—the unit for hearing-impaired pupils, the support group and the special needs centre. The special needs centre provides an in-school service, while the other two units are boroughwide.

    The unit for hearing-impaired pupils was established in 1972 as a resource for secondary age pupils from all parts of the Bexley local education authority area. The facilities cover the range of hearing impairment from moderate to profound hearing loss. Since its formation, the unit has endeavoured to achieve the maximum integration for each pupil in social and academic areas, and many pupils spend ​ almost all their time in mainstream classes. The unit has two full-time members of staff and 13 pupils, although it can cater for a maximum of 16 pupils. Each child in the unit has an individually tuned radio hearing aid which picks up and amplifies the teacher’s voice via a radio microphone which the teacher wears around his neck. During my visits to the school I have seen the equipment in use; it was interesting to note the ease with which all members of staff wear the microphones and the fact that the system operates without comment from the other children.

    At Crayford school, the use of radio equipment is part of everyday life. To children with hearing loss, school and much else in the world often seems hostile. In addition, their need for some special education provision often means that the school which they attend is not in the immediate area in which they live. For those reasons, it is important that they feel comfortable at school and that they are part of the school. The attitude of the staff and pupils at Crayford school ensures that the pupils in the unit for the hearing-impaired are not set apart, but belong to the school community in the widest sense.

    The other boroughwide facility at the school is the support group, which was established in September 1984 to cater for secondary school pupils who are experiencing social, emotional and behavioural problems, and who have been statemented under the Education Act 1981. That unit is staffed by two full-time teachers and can deal with up to 10 pupils. The unit aims for the maximum social and academic integration and attempts to return all pupils to mainstream classes within a year. Pupils in the unit follow the school curriculum. Rules must be obeyed and good behaviour is rewarded. Incentives are also offered to encourage pupils to want to return to mainstream classes. Here, encouragement is the key.

    The third unit at Crayford school is the special needs centre, which is a school-based facility for pupils with learning difficulties. One full-time member of staff co-ordinates the work of the centre and specialist subject teachers provide individual support in mainstream lessons.

    Teachers have received much bad publicity of late, a great deal of which is completely undeserved. My hon. Friend the Minister will agree that most teachers are dedicated and hard-working professionals. At Crayford school, that is the case in the special unit and in the school in general. I have received many letters from parents praising the school, and especially the staff. The results from the children speak for themselves.

    The heads of the three units all have the status of heads of department. From the point of view of sensible organisation, the three units have been placed together to allow the all-important co-operation between teachers which is so evident in the school. Teachers from the special units teach some mainstream classes, and last year the interchange was widened by a rearrangement of the school timetable to allow some mainstream teachers to take groups of special needs children for some subjects, such as physical education and art.

    The staff at Crayford school have been willing to be pioneers and to look to the future. Those teaching mainstream classes have been happy and willing to have other members of staff in their classes to give additional help to children from those units. Extra resources have also been available to class teachers and, in addition, the presence of a special unit teacher in the classroom has often been of benefit to the other non-unit pupils.

    In any debate on education, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree, the children are of paramount importance. We must never overlook the welfare or understate the needs of children. At Crayford school, the pupils are all-important, and in my visits to the school I have been impressed by their behaviour and attitudes. I have been particularly impressed by the attitude of the staff and other pupils towards the children in the special units and can say without fear of contradiction that the pupils in those units are full members of the school in every sense. It is essential for the success of the units that the pupils are made to feel so. They wear school uniform; they register with the rest of their form each morning; they attend morning assembly. They play a full and active part in the life of the school, and that is important to their integration or reintegration into the main stream.

    Teachers, parents and pupils have all commented that the size of the school is one of the main reasons why the special units have been integrated so successfully. I am a product of a good grammar school; I was fortunate to attend Buckhurst Hill county high school for boys, which had a school roll of around 600. The head and senior staff knew all the boys by sight, and the vast majority by name. Such a size of school was friendly and manageable, and allowed the individual child to feel part of the school community. That is how I believe the children of Crayford school feel.

    I regret the trend in the 1970s towards larger schools with rolls of 1,500 or more. In such institutions, despite great efforts, I am sure, by the head, staff and pupils, the community spirit is often lost. Individuals feel lost and the head and deputy heads have difficulty knowing their pupils. I do not wish to be partisan, but I feel that that is the heritage of the Social Democrat-led Labour Government of the 1970s, who allowed education to decline so much. I would welcome a trend away from larger schools towards smaller schools, especially when, as in this debate, we are talking about special needs provision.

    Children with special needs already have difficulties not experienced by others, and integrating them effectively in vast and impersonal schools is not possible or practical. They tend to be isolated in special units, which is as unfair as the old separate special schools. Not only is it unfair, but it is unwise, and harmful to their educational and personal development.

    The present size of Crayford school enables pupils with special needs to be effectively monitored and integrated for the majority of their time in school—in most cases, for over 70 per cent. of the school day. The provision of the support units is almost unique, as there are few similar units in the country. A recent report in The Times Educational Supplement said:

    “few schools can yet have had the same experience or success at integrating children with special needs as Crayford, an 11–16 school in the outer London Borough of Bexley”.

    Integrating special needs pupils is not simply about putting them into an ordinary school. The National Foundation for Educational Research report, entitled “Educating Pupils with Special Needs in the Ordinary School”, published in 1981, set out the criteria that it believed would ensure successful integration. They are, first, the understanding and commitment of the head teacher; secondly, the prior existence of some sort of special facility; thirdly, mainstream staff with positive attitudes and the ability to deal with special needs pupils; ​ fourthly, close liaison with external agencies, such as social services; fifthly, suitable accommodation for full integration to foster the sense of belonging; and, sixthly, the integration of both mainstream and special unit teaching staff.

    Not only are those criteria met by Crayford school; it could almost be the model upon which the criteria are based. The attitude of all at Crayford school is one of care, compassion, co-operation and integration. Such rapport has been built up over the past few years and cannot be transported elsewhere easily or built up overnight.

    I have to report that the future of the special unit at Crayford school is in jeopardy. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware, Crayford school is currently under threat of closure. The proposals of the local education authority to cease to maintain Crayford school are now with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science for his consideration.

    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has recently met a delegation from the school in his ministerial capacity. I realise that, as he is replying today in that same capacity, he is unable to comment on the closure proposals at this stage. However, I hope that he will take my comments on board and convey them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    I feel that I must make clear my total opposition to the closure of Crayford school. I appreciate that the school rolls are falling and that, as a consequence, education authorities must look for savings, but I believe that savings can be achieved in alternative ways which will be more satisfactory on educational grounds.

    Crayford school is part of the local community. It is the only local secondary school for the children in Crayford and its closure would mean long journeys to schools outside the area for the vast majority of mainstream local children. In addition, the rolls in that area are not falling as rapidly as in other parts of the borough; indeed, a great deal of house building is taking place in the area which will ultimately place a greater demand on the local schools.

    The closure of the only local secondary school would be a bitter blow to the community, not only from the practical aspects which I have mentioned, such as the travelling which would be involved for local children to get to school, but from the social aspect. Children travelling to schools away from the area in which they live tend to have two groups of friends—those at school and those near home. That fact, together with the sensible attitude of parents that children who have to travel to school outside their local area may often have to go straight home after school in winter, weakens the community spirit of the school. We heard a debate earlier this afternoon on neighbourhood watch and crime rates in this country. In any event, the closure of Crayford school would be a severe blow.

    The closure has a wider impact. It affects not just local children but those in the special units. For them, the impact on the local community is not so important because many of those children have to travel, regrettable though that may be. But the effect of closure on their education is vital. The closure proposals include a statement that the unit for the hearing-impaired will transfer to Bexleyheath school. That school has a public intake of 10 forms of entry and a capacity of over 1,800 pupils. That is also where it is envisaged that a large percentage of Crayford school ​ pupils would go. The support group would be transferred to alternative suitable provision in consultation with parents.

    As I have already said, the effectiveness of the special unit at Crayford school is a result of their total integration with the rest of the school. The units are part of the school and cannot be looked at in isolation. The pupils are in the mainstream classes for the bulk of their time in school, which means that transferring the units elsewhere, even if kept together, would not be enough. It is the positive contribution that mainstream staff make at Crayford school which makes the units so successful. I do not believe that that success will continue if the special units are moved elsewhere.

    For the staff of the unit to build up the same relationship with a new group of mainstream staff would take time, during which the education of those in the units would undoubtedly suffer. The position will be even more difficult if the units are moved from a close-knit school of less than 600 pupils to a vast school of over 1,800.

    For the children in the unit for the hearing-impaired and the support group, closure, and the disruption it would cause, would place their educational prospects seriously at risk. For many, yet another move of school would be necessary, and for some the third or fourth move in their secondary education. Pupils with hearing impairment would undoubtedly suffer the most.

    In view of the time, I realise that I cannot say all that I would like to say about the school and the units in this short debate. I must draw my comments to a close. I hope that my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Under-Secretary, appreciates, after my few brief words, the tremendous work that has been done, and is being done, by the special units at Crayford school and their importance to the children with special educational needs. All that good work is under threat. The future of the units is bleak, because they are under sentence of death under the borough’s proposals. So much good work has been done and so much has been achieved, yet the future is so uncertain.

    Without doubt, the subject of this debate is a success story and all involved in this important work must be complimented. What will happen if Crayford school closes and the units are disbanded or moved elsewhere? How will the children fare in a much larger and perhaps less friendly environment? The safeguarding of the future of the special units is another reason why Crayford school should be retained.

    Crayford school is an outstanding example of good practice with respect to special needs integration, with special needs pupils fully provided for while integrated as far as possible into mainstream classes. To lose the units, which are so effective, would be educationally detrimental to many pupils. I hope that these points will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he looks at the proposals for Crayford school. I urge him to give full consideration to the educational arguments and hear my plea for a future for Crayford school and its special units, which are so important, effective and valuable.