| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Regional Development
20. Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of grants allocated to recipients in England from the European regional development fund since its inception. [15042]
Mr. Greg Knight: Of the £7.1 billion, in 1996 prices, allocated to England for the period up to 1999, £5.3 billion has already been earmarked for recipients.
Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those are considerable sums? Does he further agree that they play an important part in strengthening the British economy? Are the British people fully aware of the size of those grants and, if not, what steps is he taking to publicise them?
Mr. Knight: May I, first, say to my hon. Friend that when I was in his constituency recently I was impressed by the buoyant mood of business men there. As he knows, his constituency qualifies under the part of the fund for the midlands uplands programme. I welcome the fact that some of that money will go to his constituency.
The availability of those funds is fairly widely publicised, and from time to time we consult local authorities and others to see whether further measures need to be taken.
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Would a point of order be in order, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: It would not be a perfect day without a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Faulds: I appreciate your appreciation, Madam Speaker. A little earlier this afternoon, an hon. Gentleman on the other side referred to a statement being made to the viewers. That really is unacceptable in this ancient Chamber. Would it not be advisable that, when these occurrences take place, the hon. Member should make a requisite apology to the House? Would it not also, in addition, be advisable to consider the removal of these objectionable cameras, which give an extremely false impression of the House at work?
Madam Speaker: The original reference to the television came from an Opposition Front-Bench Member. I deprecate the reference that was made. Such behaviour is infectious, and it was referred to again by a Conservative Member. However, I have received an apology from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who seems to be itching to say something, and no doubt to apologise.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): I apologise for referring to the cameras. All I can say is that it was a slip of the tongue under pressure.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): On a wholly different point of order, Madam Speaker. You have always deprecated the release of information outside the House that ought properly to be given to hon. Members in the House. I want to draw your attention to my complaint about the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee, which met in Montrose on Monday. I tabled Question 2, which was about the local government funding formula imposed by the Scottish Office on local authorities. During that meeting, we expected and received from the Secretary of State for Scotland an announcement of a change in the capping formula. The change affects not only my constituency, but 15 local authorities.
Immediately the Secretary of State sat down, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I went next door to telephone our local authority to get its reaction. We informed it of the statement, only to be told that it already knew about the change, because it was mentioned in a local newspaper, which, it turned out, had received a fax from the two prospective Conservative candidates for our constituencies.
The seriousness of the complaint was such that I wrote to the Secretary of State about it. In his reply, he said that no discourtesy was intended and added:
I find that absolutely intolerable. We are sent here as Members of Parliament to represent everybody in our constituencies. It is intolerable that Departments should release information in advance, not to the elected Members of Parliament but to prospective Conservative candidates. That is quite unacceptable.
Madam Speaker:
I have read the correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland, which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me. I have carefully examined that exchange of correspondence. As the House knows, I deplore any breaches of the convention that important information on public affairs should be made known to the House before it is released to anyone else. There was a deplorable lapse in this case and I look to the Secretary of State, as I do to all Ministers, to take particular care that that convention is observed at all times.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I should like to raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, as I am also itching to say something. In his very courteous answer to Question 1 earlier, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said that Ministers in his Department were not particularly responsible for relations with Madeleine Albright in London. May I take it that that will be brought to the attention of Downing street and the Foreign Office, so that the question of Libyan sanctions can be brought to her attention?
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not authorised to say more than I did earlier, but I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's point of order to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Sir Ralph Howell, supported by Mr. Frank Field, Mr. David Alton, Sir Wyn Roberts, Mr. David Howell, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Michael Alison, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Bob Dunn and Mr. Winston Churchill, presented a Bill to establish the right to work and to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to offer work instead of benefit to persons who would otherwise be without work in the United Kingdom; to establish a system of grants to certain parents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 113].
Mr. Peter Butler (Milton Keynes, North-East):
I beg to move,
The Bill deals with the growing problem of school intruders, which has been highlighted by recent tragic events. The presence of intruders on school premises is always unsettling to children and staff, and can be extremely dangerous. At present, staff can only seek to persuade the intruder to leave, and the police, if they are good enough to attend, do not have the backing of criminal law to deal with the problem, unless the intruder has committed some further specific offence, such as frightening or terrifying people on the premises.
The current inadequate law covering such circumstances is found in section 40 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. It covers only local authority and--now--grant-maintained schools and requires the intruder to commit some further offence on the premises, following which he can be removed from the premises by a policeman, but nothing more. He can only be escorted outside the school gates. He cannot be taken further away or prevented from walking straight back on to school premises, either immediately or as soon as the police have left the scene. He can be guilty of an offence that is dealt with only by means of a summons and carries a maximum fine of £50. That wholly unsatisfactory piece of legislation is no longer adequate to deal with the problem faced today by schools.
I take the view that school premises must be made more secure. The Bill would be a significant and practical step towards achieving that. I do not want, even if it were possible, 10 ft high fencing around schools and padlocked gates. I have seen it elsewhere and it does not create an atmosphere in which I want my children or any other children to be educated.
The Bill would return to head teachers control over school premises for which they are in many respects legally responsible, but over which they have inadequate legal powers. The police would have the power to attend and to remove intruders forthwith, securing the safety of the children and the staff. Our schools are currently wide open to ill intentioned intruders who create problems ranging from mere nuisance right up to seeking customers for drugs. Society should no longer have to tolerate that. The Bill would give schools a significant and important power to make them safer places for pupils and staff.
If I am given leave to have the Bill printed, it will consist of three clauses, the first stating simply, subject to the remainder of the Bill:
The head teacher would be the key. If he refused to allow someone to remain on the premises, that person would have to leave. Failing that, the offence would be complete. We would not have to wait, as at present, until children are cowering in the corner of the classroom before anybody can do anything. We would not have to ask teachers to go out, unprotected by the law, to try to persuade dangerous, worrying or disturbed people--criminals, often--to leave the premises. The Bill would also apply in other circumstances.
I do not intend to give examples from my constituency, because it would be invidious to single out a school and worry the parents of the children at that school. However, I challenge any hon. Member who is doubtful about the need for the Bill to ask teachers and head teachers, "Have you had a problem with school intruders? Could you deal with it properly? Would you like the power to do so?" I suspect that all hon. Members on both sides have already done that. I think that they will have had the same answers that I have had.
"My special adviser telephoned Scottish Conservative Central Office as soon as the Committee was informed."
If that is true, I have no objection. But the time was clearly on the fax, and it was sent before the Secretary of State had even risen to speak to the Scottish Grand Committee.
3.35 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an arrestable offence of unlawful intrusion into designated educational premises.
A generation ago, when you, Madam Speaker, and I were at primary school, we worried about all sorts of things. I was lucky enough to attend Brooklands school in Stafford--an excellent school--where I worried about the work because I could not do it, games lessons because I could not do games and mostly about whether that awful milk would be frozen again. However, I never worried about security, and I do not believe that my parents did, either. That was then, and this is now. The world has changed and I am old enough to begin to regret that.
"Any person who, without lawful authority, enters onto or remains upon educational premises and who, having been asked to leave those premises by the head teacher or principal or someone
19 Feb 1997 : Column 928acting on his behalf, either refuses to leave those premises or re-enters those premises within the period of 24 hours shall be guilty of an offence."
That offence would be arrestable, so that the police had a duty--or at least the power--to attend and to arrest and remove. It would carry a prison term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £2,000. That is the least protection that we should offer our children and those who teach them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |