| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
School Security
14. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve security arrangements for primary and secondary schools. [9429]
Mr. Robin Squire: Following the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, my right hon. Friend has established a high-level working group to advise urgently on what more should be done to improve security in and around schools.
Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling death of Philip Lawrence is a symptom of the wider problem of indiscipline in the classroom? What hope can he give the House that the Government are prepared to take the measures necessary to ensure that the 5 per cent. of pupils who are disruptive and unruly will not in future be allowed to disrupt the education of the 95 per cent. of pupils who want to learn?
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend draws attention to a subject that the House was discussing earlier. I reaffirm that the Government are utterly committed to all teachers and schools having a full range of measures open to them for tackling indiscipline. We are well aware of the urgency of the matter. The high-level group is discussing practical measures to improve school security, including updating and reissuing the Department's guidance on school premises.
Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that large-scale temporary classrooms and crumbling old schools present an attractive target to vandals and criminals? Will he confirm that there are a large number of temporary classrooms and crumbling old schools in Bradford? Does he understand why we were gobsmacked when, in the latest capital allocations, Bradford received just £4 million of the more than £40 million requested to deal with the problem? Instead of denigrating Bradford children and their examination results as the Minister did again today, when will the Government give Bradford the resources to ensure that all our children are given the most decent start in life and the best facilities possible to maximise their performance?
Mr. Squire: As the hon. Member well knows, the capital allocation formula is a universal one that is applied to all authorities, and the priorities were drawn up more than 10 years ago. Bradford is no more or less disadvantaged than any other authority. If the implication at the heart of his question is that in some way the state of a building is responsible for indiscipline or bad behaviour, I beg to disagree. There are clearly several causes, including a need for greater parental control and involvement, and--in some places--a need for greater teacher skills. I made reference earlier to the efforts that the Government are making, in partnership with local education authorities and the Teacher Training Agency, to ensure that those skills are more widely practised.
Mr. Atkins: Will my hon. Friend examine the security arrangements and ancillary matters at Lostock Hall high school in my constituency? Labour county councillors and Labour activists are seeking to frustrate the wishes of the parents in the ballot on grant-maintained status that is being held at the school this week. Such are the antics that extreme disquiet has been expressed by parents and governors alike. Will my hon. Friend invite the Labour party to desist from involving its local members politically in what should be an educational decision that will affect the future of the children at that school and their parents?
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on the specific example that he has given,
especially as the ballot is in progress. I can say that, sadly, what he has described, if it is happening, is only too reminiscent of what colleagues have reported when either Labour or Liberal Democrat councillors seek to frustrate and disrupt a ballot on grant-maintained status. It is for that reason, if no other, that any comments from Opposition Members that they are truly and deeply supportive of GM schools must be dismissed as garbage.School Funding (Nottingham)
15. Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital funding allocations have been made to local education authority schools in Nottingham for 1996-97. [9430]
Mrs. Gillan: The annual capital guidelines for capital work in schools in Nottinghamshire local education authority in 1996-97 are £2.811 million.
Mr. Simpson: Will the Minister explain to parents in Nottingham if there is any fairness in a system that makes available on average £5,000 in capital allocations to a local authority school, compared with £250,000 in capital allocations to grant-maintained schools? Will she also explain fairness in a system that made available four times the amount of capital allocations to the city technology college than to all the Nottinghamshire schools combined? Is that not an example of a Government committed, if not to capital punishment, to capital programme punishment of the state education system?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman should know the answer to his question. Capital funding comparisons on the basis of central Government support alone are misleading. Local education authorities have access to capital receipts and revenue moneys, while GM schools are almost entirely dependent on Government grants. It is for the local education authority to decide what proportion of its capital spending is directed towards schools in Nottingham and whether to supplement borrowing sanctioned by its ACG from other sources, including capital receipts and revenue budget.
I suggest that, as the Labour party has controlled the county council for 14 years, perhaps the hon. Member should address his questions to his own party members.
Unemployment
16. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to tackle unemployment among those over 45 years old. [9431]
Mr. Paice: We intend to continue the successful economic and labour market policies which, together with the campaigns to which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), referred, have reduced unemployment for that group by 21 per cent. in the past two years.
Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister agree that it is outrageous that people over the age of 45 should feel that they have been thrown on the scrap heap? Does he also agree that there is age discrimination in the workplace? If
he is not prepared to introduce legislation to resolve that, what evidence does he have that the voluntary scheme is working?
Mr. Paice: I entirely agree that discrimination on the ground of age is unjustified and unfair. There is ample evidence, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, that many businesses now recognise the greater skills and greater commitment--among other attributes--that older workers can provide. We have been running a number of campaigns, to which my colleague referred earlier, and we are conducting an evaluation process to discover the success of those campaigns and to establish the attitude of employers.
I believe that the vast majority of employers--but not all of them--are beginning to recognise that older workers represent a tremendous resource which they ought to be tapping, to provide their future skills needs.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend accept that the best way to help the over-45s who are unemployed--or indeed anyone who is unemployed--is to create the right economic climate for industry? The country to which we have all looked in the past as a superb example of this, Germany, is now finding out that the minimum wage and the social chapter are catastrophes. Unemployment in Germany is rising beyond 4 million, and it is exporting manufacturing capacity abroad, is it not, faster than any other European country?
Mr. Paice:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The real way to deal with unemployment and job-search difficulties for any age group is to have real growth in employment created by the economy. That is what has been happening over the past few years under this Government and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is not happening in a number of European countries.
My hon. Friend rightly reminds us of Germany. Only a week or so ago, I met some German industrialists who were bemoaning Germany's situation and the imposts of taxation and of regulation of their labour market--and the increasing unemployment that they are causing. It means that they are being forced to look abroad to continue investing. I am delighted to say that these particular industrialists were investing in my constituency, but they would usually prefer to invest in Germany. They do not do so because of the imposts of the social chapter, the minimum wage and the sort of regulation that we would have again if the Labour party was ever given the chance to implement its policies.
17. Dr. Wright:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations she undertook before proposing to amend school admission arrangements. [9432]
Mrs. Gillan:
The consultation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for giving schools and local education authorities more flexibility over school admissions does not finish until 22 February.
Dr. Wright:
I am grateful for that answer. Can the Minister explain to those of us who are serious about
Mrs. Gillan:
I am very pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government's education policies so robustly by sending his children to selective schools. I am delighted that he has made the right choice as a parent.
At present, all schools can select 10 per cent. of their intake; our consultation is looking at increasing that to 15 per cent., thereby providing more choice and diversity in the education system.
Mr. Neil Hamilton:
Is my hon. Friend aware of the impact on social cohesion of the Government's policies on parental choice? Is she aware of the conflict to which this can give rise between middle-class and working-class parents--for instance, in the Labour party, in which it is largely the middle-class Blair glitterati who have chosen to send their children to grant-maintained schools? What can we do to improve the consciousness of people like the deputy leader of the Labour party concerning the benefits that the policy can bring about for working-class parents of working-class children?
Mrs. Gillan:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had much publicity over the past few days, as a result of Opposition Members, on the choice in education that is provided by the Government, and that will bring it forward. I do not understand why Opposition Members oppose the choice that we put into the education system--for example, assisted places, the very existence of which allows a wider socio-economic spread of children within the independent sector. The Conservative party provides real choice in the education system for all parents.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |