| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Schools (Security)
3. Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to enhance the security of schools. [37267]
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This question is about school security. Given that the matter of children's safety is involved in the answer to it, however, I should like to express my sympathy and that of Conservative Members to the parents, family and friends of Caroline Dickinson, the Cornish schoolgirl who was so tragically murdered last week in France. I should like also to express our sympathy and support for the head, governors and staff of her school, Launceston college.
The Government have accepted in full the 22 recommendations of the working group on school security.
Mr. Spring:
I thank my right hon. Friend for her reassuring comments. What she said about the recent tragedies is endorsed by all hon. Members.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful bids made by two schools in my constituency--St. Felix middle school in Newmarket and Mildenhall upper school--for closed circuit television, which will be greatly welcomed not only by parents, governors and teachers but by the community at large?
Mrs. Shephard:
I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome. More than 100 schools have been able to benefit from the Home Office's CCTV scheme, which will be a useful addition to the security of children at the schools involved.
Mr. Turner:
I know that the Secretary of State has already expressed sympathy to the parents, children and, indeed, the whole community in Wolverhampton, who were devastated by the tragic attack on the children and adults at St. Luke's school two weeks ago. I should like to say a very sincere thank you to all hon. Members who have, through the early-day motion that I tabled, expressed their good wishes and sympathy to everyone involved.
In view of that tragic accident, and many others that we have witnessed, would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the moneys that I know that she has earmarked for next year into this year's budget? There was a call at the Conference of Local Education Authorities' conference last week, urging the Secretary of State to make more resources available. Wolverhampton is spending £60,000 this year, but that is wholly inadequate to meet security needs in our schools. Will she please consider giving the money in this financial year rather than the next?
Mrs. Shephard:
This is of course a matter of great concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, I have been in touch with St. Luke's school in Wolverhampton. As he knows, schools and local education authorities are already spending on school security. The way in which the money will be spent is important. Schools have varying needs, and it is necessary that LEAs and schools conduct a thoroughly professional risk assessment of the type of arrangements that need to be made to improve school security. That is why they have already acted on some of the working group's recommendations on security, why we have already allocated more money through the CCTV scheme, why I announced yesterday that 60 schools would benefit from the schools renewal challenge fund to help them with their security arrangements, why LEAs already have guidance to help them decide how best to allocate the extra money when it comes and why schools will receive guidance in September. A great deal of work needs to be done. We will make new moneys available, but we have to be certain that they are allocated according to a school's need and spent in the best way.
Mr. Tredinnick:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the money that will be raised from this year's Burbage charity bike aid in my constituency will go towards CCTV in local schools? Will she congratulate the organisers on that decision and wish them well at that popular event, which is enjoyed by thousands of my constituents each year?
Mrs. Shephard:
I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their effort to help with arrangements for school security. There will no doubt be other such money-raising efforts but, of course, any money spent has to fit into a sensible framework to ensure that it is spent in the best way. As I said, the Government will be making extra money available.
Mr. Don Foster:
I join the Secretary of State in her expressions of sympathy to those affected by the recent tragedies and repeat my congratulations on her seeking and gaining widespread support for the measures now being proposed to improve school safety. Although it may be impossible to implement immediately, does she agree that it would be sensible to agree in principle that, over time, all schools should have a single boundary?
Mrs. Shephard:
Although I realise that the question was sensibly meant, that would be extremely difficult to put into practice because of the different geographical locations of school premises. It is important that schools assess their needs in the light of their own physical circumstances. In some cases, they may need a single boundary or entry point. The purpose of the conference that we intend to hold in the autumn will be to discuss best practice. Although there is a great deal of good practice, we found that those in the working group did not necessarily know about it. I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board and the conference might be able to disseminate it, but there will also be many others.
Mr. Congdon:
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about making additional funding available for school security. However, is it not important that we should not allow local authorities to get away with hiding behind the Government in respect of such an important issue? If a local education authority believes that priorities need to be addressed in terms of school security, should it not use the funds that are currently being wasted elsewhere rather than blame the Government for its own failure to act?
Mrs. Shephard:
Many local education authorities are extremely concerned about those matters. They already have--as we have just dispatched it--guidance on the arrangements that will be made for the new GEST--grants for education support and training scheme--money that will be earmarked for school security. The money will be available next year. If there were any local education authorities that needed reminding, they have their reminder.
4. Ms Janet Anderson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the failure rate in new businesses on employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. [37268]
Mr. Paice:
No direct assessment has been made, but research shows that new business survival, and hence employment potential, is affected by the level of business management skills and experience of the proprietor.
Ms Anderson:
Is not investment crucial to the long-term success of new businesses and the creation of jobs? Does the Minister accept that Britain now has a lower level of investment than in 1989? Could that be why the number of jobs in manufacturing has fallen by 500,000 over the past five years?
Mr. Paice:
The hon. Lady falls into the trap of equating numbers of jobs in a sector--particularly manufacturing--with the health of the sector. For decades, jobs have been shed in manufacturing because of automation and technology. That does not mean that the sector is less advanced or profitable--probably the reverse. All businesses need to invest, both in equipment--which is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor--and in their work force--which is my responsibility. That is why the Government have made a range of proposals targeted at small businesses and businesses generally to encourage them to invest in their work force.
Sir John Cope:
We all support reductions in the failure rate of small businesses. The Government are doing a great deal--through business links and other schemes--to reduce that failure rate. Does my hon. Friend not deplore, as I do, the emphasis that the question places on the failure rate? The main employment effect of small businesses has been a massive increase in employment as a result of the massive increase in the number of small businesses since 1979 of about 1 million.
Mr. Paice:
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There are now more than 50 per cent. more businesses than there were in 1979. That in itself is good for employment. He is also right that we should not dwell on what are often described as failures. Just because a business may cease to operate does not mean that it is a failure. [Laughter.] In their laughter, the Opposition demonstrate how little they understand about businesses. A business may stop trading in the same name because it has been sold or because the proprietor has retired, or for a whole range of reasons. The NatWest survey of small businesses demonstrated that 73 per cent. of cessations were for reasons not associated with bankruptcy or solvency.
Mr. Meacher:
May I associate myself and the Opposition with the words of concern and sympathy expressed by the Secretary of State about the tragic death of Caroline Dickinson last week?
Will the Minister confirm that the company failure rate, which we believe is significant, is running at nearly 1,000 a week and increasing, and that, each day, in the first three months of 1996, 2,500 people lost their jobs? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the impression that Ministers like to give--that unemployment is falling--the more accurate labour force survey shows that the number of people in employment fell by 74,000 in the first three months of this year and that there are still 1 million people fewer in jobs than there were the day that the Prime Minister entered Downing street? Is he not ashamed that, since 1979, Britain has had the worst job creation record of any major industrial nation?
Mr. Paice:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took so long in asking his question because as he did so his facts became more and more obscure. Unemployment has been
Mr. Batiste:
Is it not inevitable that, if there is a substantial increase in new business start-ups, there will also be a corresponding increase in the number of business failures? Is not the creation of new businesses the best way of increasing employment? Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to maintaining that momentum by opposing the national minimum wage and the social chapter, which are so destructive to businesses and so often lead to failure on the continent?
Mr. Paice:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important that we do whatever we can to encourage small businesses and the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that leads to their success. That is what the Government's policies are directed at. He is also right to remind us again about the minimum wage. Conservative Members have always been amazed by the fact that the Opposition have never said how they would resolve the problem of the restoration of differentials--a problem that is underlying the minimum wage and would destroy more jobs than anything else. We await with interest to see how they plan to address that issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |