| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the schools in his constituency. He is well known as a champion of the excellent education in South Thanet, and his diligence in requesting this debate is a testament to his attitude to his constituency and its schools.
I want to begin by discussing some general issues that my right hon. Friend raised, not least the sparkling success of the schools in his constituency. I am delighted to hear about the high standards being achieved in Broadstairs schools, which clearly owe much to the excellent quality of the teaching. Once again, we must applaud the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, which has so rightly been described as a vocation.
School improvement is always at the top of the Government's agenda. It is also encouraging to note that this year's GCSE results for Broadstairs continue to be good. I am aware that three of the four secondary schools are grant-maintained, and their success is a testament to the GM policy.
We firmly believe that self-government is the best way of running schools. It sets schools free to decide for themselves how they use their resources and to target them where they will have most effect. It means that they can keep and develop their distinctive characters to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. Self-government releases the energies of teachers and governors by giving them responsibility for their schools' futures, and they certainly rise to that challenge. GM schools are well managed, achieve excellent results as they have done in Broadstairs, and are clearly popular with parents. They can get things done quickly, without waiting for town hall bureaucracy to get things moving, and they are directly accountable to local parents.
In Kent, more than half the secondary pupils are now being educated in GM schools. Parents have voted yes in ballots on going GM, so it is pretty clear that Kent parents support self-government of schools. It is a pity that we do not often see a positive approach on the part of Kent county council. It has been quite hostile to grant-maintained status, and it makes life as difficult as possible once schools have decided to ballot.
The development of GM schools is only one aspect of the Government's mission to promote excellence in education. We are also funding initiatives to encourage the
development of specialist schools, which bring together three important strands of our education and employment policies: raising standards, extending choice and diversity, and linking schools and the business community. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the popularity of our specialist schools programme; indeed Sandwich high school, in South Thanet, has recently been designated a technology college. That programme proves that education and business want to work together. Each technology or language college is backed by sponsorship of about
£100,000; private sector sponsorship for school education totals more than £14 million as a result of the programme.
The specialist schools programme is outstandingly popular. It was launched only in September 1993, but there are now more than 140 schools in it. There are 127 technology colleges as well as the first 16 language colleges. As there is stiff competition for places in the programme, all the schools approved can be proud of their success.
I have more good news about Kent to add to that presented by my right hon. Friend. We have been able to confirm our support for capital spending on schools. The figures for Kent are not available, but we have national figures, as I announced yesterday. Despite the tight public spending round, we have been able to secure capital spending for 1996-97 in local education authority maintained schools at a level that is 7 per cent. higher than the current year. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping LEAs improve the quality of their school buildings.
It is for LEAs, however, to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources that are available to them. The annual capital guidelines, the ACGs, that have been announced are not tied to particular projects. Nor do they represent the total of resources available to LEAs for capital spending. The authorities are able also to invest their capital receipts. They can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. The Government do not control the funding of individual projects at county or voluntary-controlled schools.
The Kent local education authority was given an ACG of £23,223,000 in 1996-97. That was by far the largest in the country. That sum represents 40 per cent. of its total bid. It is significantly above the national average of 23 per cent. The ACG largely reflects the extent to which the authority's plans for spending on schools matched the national priority criteria.
Allocations for voluntary-aided schools' capital works have increased by 7 per cent. to £62 million in 1996-97. There has been set aside £38 million for repair grants in line with 1995-96.
Allocations for basic need and exceptional basic need will be much higher in 1996-97 than in recent years. They will be about £6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995-96. The allocations for grant-maintained schools continue to show a healthy increase as well, from
£130 million in the current year to £138 million in 1996-97. Those figures demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving standards in education. The examples given by my right hon. Friend provide encouraging evidence of the success of our policies in practice.
My right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to Callis Grange and St. Peter's schools in Thanet. Both schools are in Broadstairs. I am sure that my right hon.
Friend will appreciate that as an enlarged county infant school and a new Church of England junior in Broadstairs will be considered in the context of statutory proposals, those matters are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the issues that he raised. I am well aware, however, of the problems surrounding the provision of primary school places in Broadstairs.
My officials visited St. Peter's junior school earlier this year. They were able to advise the governors and Kent LEA on how to proceed. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that I have listened carefully to what he said about the condition of the buildings used by pupils at Callis Grange and St. Peter's. I can give him my assurance that his description and the details that he has given will be taken into account.
Mr. Aitken:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive and helpful tone in which she is replying. I understand that, for statutory reasons, she cannot prejudge the ruling of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But what is the timetable within which my right hon. Friend will make a decision? If it is a favourable one, will it be made in good time to allow the building works to start within a period that will enable them to be completed so that the schools may open their doors in September 1997?
Mrs. Gillan:
I understand my right hon. Friend's determination to try to extract from me a timetable, but I am unable to give him one today. I undertake to write to him in the new year. I shall try to give him an idea of the timetable for my right hon. Friend's decisions.
As for St. Joseph's school, I should explain that we have not yet received any statutory proposals to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs. That remains an outstanding matter. If and when we do receive such proposals, we shall consider them fully and carefully, and as speedily as possible.
On a more positive note, I can confirm that we have accepted in principle the basic need case for additional primary school places in Broadstairs. For reasons that I think I have explained fully, I cannot comment on whether those places will be provided at St. Peter's and St. Joseph's, bearing in mind the need for the statutory process. I cannot go beyond saying that, if the proposals are approved, funding will, of course, follow.
I am sorry that I am unable to deliver all the Christmas presents on my right hon. Friend's list. I trust that he will accept my reply as just a little stocking filler.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West):
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the future of motor sport facilities in Scotland. I shall use the debate to highlight the success of Scotland's national motor sport centre at Knockhill in my constituency and express the grave concerns that I and many others have that a proposed alternative facility at Forrestburn in Lanarkshire could lead to no winners, only losers, and a waste of public money.
If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want an exciting day out, I recommend that they head for Knockhill rather than remain at Westminster. Knockhill is recognised by the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Motor Sport Federation as Scotland's national motor sport centre. The track deals with a wide range of car and motor cycle racing. It was declared the circuit of the year by the Touring Car Association. If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want to visit a successful private enterprise, I recommend Knockhill.
The track was rescued from receivership some years ago by the director, Derek Butcher, who has put more than £3 million of his own money into the venture. Knockhill has not received any public funding for capital expenditure yet it employs 16 full-time permanent staff directors. The track supports three franchise businesses on site with a further 10 permanent staff. It takes on up to an additional 100 part-time staff when there is a big event. It thus makes a considerable contribution to the local economy. In addition, when there is a big event such as the British championship for touring cars, hotels in the Fife area are fully booked. The circuit manager, Eric Houston, said:
Knockhill's success, however, is threatened by the proposed development at Forrestburn. I can understand the Minister saying that that is a shame but asking why it should concern the Government. Let me explain.
The Minister is aware that, because of their industrial decline, parts of Fife and parts of Lanarkshire are eligible for support from European structural funds. That means that decisions on proposed programmes for areas that seek European funding are taken by committees. The principal committees involved in taking decisions on individual projects such as that at Forrestburn are, I understand, the programme management committees for eastern and western Scotland. They are chaired by the Scottish Office development department, acting on behalf of the Government as the official implementing authority for European Union funding programmes.
The first reason, therefore, why the Government should be concerned about the future of Knockhill and the proposed development at Forrestburn is that the Scottish Office retains responsibility for the payment of European grant money and is ultimately responsible for the audit requirements. My understanding is that Forrestburn has been allocated £1.4 million in European grant money, so the Government have a direct interest.
The second reason why the Government should be concerned about the Forrestburn development is that there is strong evidence that the use of European money to
support the project will, in effect, displace an existing facility--in other words, it will put Knockhill out of business. I understand that such a displacement contravenes the rules for European funding.
The Treasury defines displacement as occurring when support for one project has the effect of reducing economic activity in other parts of the economy. I understand that a displacement analysis has been undertaken, but considerable concern has been expressed by many organisations that do not believe that it went into sufficient depth to enable it to be established that the only way in which Forrestburn could be successful was by taking much of Knockhill's business.
Knockhill Motor Sport Centre
1.26 pm
"We put more people into hotels than Open Golf does",
and that is once a year, not once every four years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |