| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Examination Results
19. Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (a) grant-maintained and (b) local education authority schools are represented in the top 50 state schools measured by A-level results. [7069]
Mrs. Gillan: Thirty of the top 50 schools in England are grant-maintained and 20 are LEA-maintained.
Mr. Spring: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the pattern of GCSE results is similar to that of A-level results in grant-maintained schools, and does she agree that the excellent results from grant-maintained schools vindicate the wide diversity of parents who choose GM schools for their children?
Mrs. Gillan: I can indeed confirm that. The GCSE results tell the same story: half the pupils in GM schools
11 Dec 1996 : Column 279
achieved five good passes at GCSE, compared with 41 per cent. of pupils in local education authority schools. I am delighted that GM schools are achieving such excellent results, not only at A-level but at GCSE and in the national curriculum assessments; they figure strongly both in the top 50 at A-level and in the Office for Standards in Education's list of outstanding schools. They account for a quarter of all schools with sixth forms and three fifths of the top 50 at A-level--and we all know that the Labour party would abolish them.
Mr. O'Hara: The Minister knows that her last statement is erroneous. The presumption behind the question demonstrates the fault of the obsession with
11 Dec 1996 : Column 280
league tables. Would it not be more relevant to compare the performance of grant-maintained schools with what they achieved before they were grant-maintained? There is an element of self-fulfilment in the league tables. How many grant-maintained schools are diagnosed as failing and what will the Minister do about them?
Mrs. Gillan: The Labour party's opposition to everything that the Government have done to improve our education system is well known. It opposed league tables and grant-maintained schools and it would abolish assisted places. The performance tables have operated for five years and are respected throughout the education system. The Government will continue to produce performance tables, as we have promised.
11 Dec 1996 : Column 279
11 Dec 1996 : Column 281
BILL PRESENTED
War Widows and Pensioners (Equal Treatment)
Mr. Simon Hughes presented a Bill to end the differential treatment of war widows and war disablement pensioners by local authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997, and to be printed [Bill 56].
Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the understanding that the next financial settlement in Wales will result in at least 1,200 teachers being dismissed, has the Secretary of State for Education and Employment applied to make a statement to the House? If not, why not? Given the serious situation, should she not do so as soon as possible?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. No Minister has let me know today that they are seeking to make a statement. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.
Fire Safety
3.31 pm
Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the protection of persons from fire risks; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Keighley mill fire in February 1956 resulted in the death of eight people and led to the Factories Act 1961. The Hendersons department store fire in June 1960 resulted in the death of 11 people and led to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. The Top Storey club fire in Bolton resulted in 19 deaths and led to greater powers for fire authorities under the Licensing Act 1964. The Rose and Crown fire in Saffron Walden on Boxing day 1969 resulted in 11 deaths and led to hotels and boarding houses being designated under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The Woolworths store fire in Manchester in 1979 resulted in 12 deaths and led to the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations 1980. The Bradford football stadium fire in May 1985, in which 58 people died, resulted in the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. Finally, the King's Cross rail fire of 1987 resulted in 31 deaths and led to the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989.
Those pieces of legislation had one thing in common: they were what is known in the trade as tombstone legislation. People have had to die before action has been taken. I should love to be able to say that I am proposing legislation that will stop tragedies happening rather than legislation as a result of tragedies. Unfortunately, I cannot, because on 6 September 1993, two firemen were killed at Sun Valley Poultry Ltd. in Hereford.
That happened in a former factory that had been turned into a poultry processing plant. Panels had been built round the inside of the building, creating a building within a building. Fire broke through one of those panels. Firefighters who went to fight the fire did not know what was happening in between those panels. The roof burned and collapsed and two firefighters, who were doing the work that they did every day for all the people of this country, were killed. That is one of the reasons why I present the Bill, but there are other reasons.
There was much speculation in 1994 about the weakening of fire safety regulations under the deregulation initiative. I am anxious to ensure that I have cross-party support for the Bill, but it seemed to me, at a time when most people realised the need for greater fire safety, that we were taking forward measures that could cost people's lives. Since then, there seems to have been literally review after review, recommendation after recommendation and report after report. Some the Government have accepted and some they have not, some rightly so. One thing that has become clear as a result of that constant review is that there is a need after more than 25 years to review fire safety legislation.
The Fire Precautions Act 1971 served its purpose well. Most people agree that it was a good piece of legislation, but it did not do what it set out to do. It set out to be an all-embracing Act that would take in every fire safety measure. My Bill would do that. It would consolidate all fire safety legislation. It would replace in part or in total
11 Dec 1996 : Column 283
My Bill is also progressive and forward-looking. It incorporates many new recommendations that were made as a result of the 1993 Home Office review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. My Bill supports the Government's view announced in May 1996 that fire safety should in general be treated separately in legislation and that its enforcement should rest principally with fire authorities. Indeed, one of the main intentions of the Bill is to create a one-stop shop for fire safety. The one-stop shop would be the fire authority and the Department responsible would be the Home Office.
The Bill is also designed to complement the Government's proposals on the EC framework workplaces directive. It is designed to be compatible with the directive and to use the same general duty principle and risk assessment approach as do the Government's proposals. The Bill will use risk assessment to determine fire standards, so that the measures taken are appropriate but not excessive. It will be flexible enough to incorporate all future European legislation.
Even more important, for the first time ever in fire safety legislation, the Bill will take into account not just the safety of the public--most fire legislation has taken that into account--but the safety of firefighters and give them some protection. We are currently building in England and Wales--not in Scotland; they seem to have more sense there--gigantic buildings with no compartmentalisation. It seems to be the view of many people that it is acceptable for such places to burn down; that if there is a fire, the fire services should get the people out and let the building burn. That is not acceptable when it results in the death of firefighters. Nor is it acceptable in terms of insurance, because insurance companies have to meet the cost of fires. That means that all of us suffer as we have to pay extra insurance. Furthermore, it is not acceptable in terms of the effect on the environment. Some fires can be devastating to the environment in general. For the first time, the Bill imposes a duty to think not only of the safety of people, but of the safety of premises. It is a genuine fire safety Bill.
I suspect that, if there is any criticism of the Bill, it will be that it has been designed for firefighters. I make no apology for that--firefighters are the people who, year by year, week by week and day by day, put their lives on the line for the rest of us. As far as I am concerned, they are the experts on fire safety, because they are the ones who tackle fires and who know what needs to be done to put fires out.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |