Charles Walker supports the Bill as a step in the right direction and hopes it can reach out to young people who are disconnected with society and encourage them to pursue further education.

Mr. Walker: When I was elected to Parliament, I was told not to bring emotion to this place, but I have a list with me of 13 young boys killed in London since 1 January this year. It includes Jimmy Mizen, who was killed just a couple of days ago at the age of 16. Lyle Tulloch was 15; Amro Elbadawi, 14; and Devoe Roach, 17. These were young men killed by children and youngsters—people who have made the wrong decision in their lives.

I have a rage about the fact that that is going on, I really do. I was wondering about it, and I had this terrible thought. Why are people taking lives? I am so concerned that we have youngsters whose last thought before they go to sleep is, “Who am I?” and that the answer they get back is “Nobody, I am nobody.” Because nobody cares where they are going, who they are, what they have done or what their purpose in life is, they in turn do not care when they cause huge emotional disaster and tragedy by taking the life of someone’s child.

I hope that this Bill will reach out to some of those people who are lost to society and who make the wrong decisions. I hope that it will allow them to reconnect with society, to learn to read and write, to learn a skill, to remain in education and to have a job, someone who cares whether they turn up in the morning and a place to welcome them to work. Maybe if they become part of our society, we will save lives in the long term. That is why this Bill is so important. It really is important. I know it has its flaws. We know in this place that it has flaws, but we must do something to stop the tragedies that are going on week in, week out, on our streets.

We in this place, the people in the Press Gallery and the people watching this on television—the few out there—must all collectively say, “No more. No more tragedies.” We have to do something, and the Bill is a small step in the right direction. For that reason, I support it.

...

CHARLES' OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SAME DEBATE

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman define, in his own words, what he regards as a good school? What qualifies a school as a good school?

Mr. Chaytor: I would be inclined to repeat some of the criteria that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to earlier, but, to give the briefest possible definition, I would say a school that maximised the potential of the greatest number of its children and did most for their well-being and long-term future. However, that is not central to the issue.

We could all play around with our individual definitions, and I think we would all probably be in the same area in what defined a good school, but we must challenge the notion that a good school is one that happens to have a high proportion of able and motivated children. Conversely, we must challenge the notion that any school with a low percentage pass rate for those gaining five A to C grades at GCSE is necessarily failing. Too often—previous speakers emphasised this point—the good school and the failing school are, in our most selective areas, located next door to one another.

...

Mr. Walker: Why was the figure of 10 per cent. alighted on? Why is it not 5, 15 or 20 per cent.?

Ed Balls: The 10 per cent. figure has been there since the beginning of the specialist schools movement, which preceded the Government coming to power in 1997, so the hon. Gentleman may have to ask Conservative Members why 10 per cent. was originally chosen. We think that 10 per cent. allows a school to choose a minority—a tenth—of their pupils on the basis of aptitude, without aptitude becoming a proxy for academic ability. As I say, we will keep the Sheffield Hallam research under review. If Policy Exchange is right to say that the policy is a covert, back-door means of allowing selection, it would be right to take action.

| Hansard