| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
School Places
12. Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): What discussions he is holding with directors of education to ensure that there is an adequate supply of school places in areas where housing growth is expected to take place in the near future; and if he will make a statement. [94261]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Responsibility for the adequate supply of school places rests with local education authorities, which take proposed new build into account in their planning.
Mr. Flight: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I am sure that she is aware that there is a major problem in my constituency and in many other rural areas in the south-east. With the additional housing forced on areas by the Government, there are not sufficient schools places for children, so young children must travel five, six or seven miles to primary school. Will the Government ensure that that contradiction in policy is resolved? It is unsatisfactory that such problems should be forced on children.
Jacqui Smith: I am sure that, for those reasons, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the number
of infants in class sizes of 30 in west Sussex has fallen from 3,875 last September to 1,251 this September; that the Government have made available in his constituency an extra £8 million, through the new deal for schools and class size capital; and that the planning undertaken by his local authority through the school organisation plan has been approved by the local schools organisation committee, which gives a role to schools and head teachers in the planning process. Hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would do away with that if they were allowed to put their own policies into operation.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I congratulate my hon. Friend and my very good friend on her promotion to the Front Bench. I know that she will make a great success of it. I draw to her attention the number of rural schools that were closed under the previous Conservative Administration. Does she agree that the Government have done much to safeguard schools in rural communities, such as one primary school in my area, to keep them open and to protect them for the future, so that they can meet the needs of all the children in the communities where they are situated?
Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her words. I agree that the activities of the previous Government with regard to rural schools give the lie to the Conservatives apparent concern for promoting those schools now. The Labour Government have provided support through the small schools support fund, which will enable small schools, particularly in rural areas, to work together constructively to safeguard those facilities for local communities and to raise standards.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in welcoming the hon. Lady to the Front Bench. Is not my hon. Friend right in his analysis--that the extra development of 1.1 million houses in the south-east is likely to be in areas where schools are already oversubscribed? What the hon. Lady has just said about class sizes is likely to make that situation worse. Would it not be common sense to try and plan so that local authorities would not be obliged to provide further development in the green belt and on green-field sites? In our schools, we rightly teach children about the importance of the environment. Should we not plan so that we can avoid development that ruins the environment?
Jacqui Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that it is important for local education authorities to work with district councils in looking at local structure plans in planning their school places. That is why the Government, in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, required LEAs to produce school organisation plans which are subject to local decision making through school organisation committees, which, I reiterate, involves local schools and local head teachers. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has already announced that she would get rid of all that, presumably to reduce the level of local planning and the influence of schools and head teachers in the planning of school places in local authorities.
Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 1 November--Remaining stages of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the Administration Committee's second report on record copies of Acts.
Tuesday 2 November--Until 7 o'clock, Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day Second Part]; there will be a debate entitled "Planning, Greenfields and Brownfields: The Two Britains" on an Opposition motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
Wednesday 3 November--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Thursday 4 November--Progress on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill.
Friday 5 November--Debate on family friendly employment policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Sir George Young:
The House is grateful for next week's business. We note that the Leader of the House is unable to shed any light on business for the week after next, although the options must be narrowing. Nor can she give us the date of Prorogation.
There is a meeting of Finance Ministers to discuss the withholding tax. Will the Chancellor be coming to the House next week to make a statement assuring us that he will exercise his veto on that proposal?
On Northern Ireland, as Senator Mitchell has said that he plans to return on Sunday, might we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the review talks?
The right hon. Lady will know that there is substantial pressure on the Government to complete their programme, with four major Bills still to come back to the House--the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Greater London Authority Bill and the House of Lords Bill. Two of those Bills are ready and two are not. The Bill that was ready first is not to be debated at all next week, whereas a Bill that has not completed its passage is down for debate. Is that not a perverse way to manage the business of the House?
The right hon. Lady announced as the business for Thursday consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. As 750 amendments have already been agreed to, with 35 still to be debated and more to be tabled, how long does she think the House will need to do the Bill justice? When it left us, it had 330 clauses and it now has 413, as well as five new schedules, including a new clause on the part-privatisation
of the tube. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other contenders for Mayor of London will want ample opportunity to debate that and all the other amendments. We certainly will and we need adequate time.
Finally, last week I asked the right hon. Lady to find time for debates on important issues, not least the royal commission on long-term care, and my right hon. and hon. Friends made other suggestions, as did Labour Members. No one asked for a debate on whether the public records should be printed on vellum or paper, but that is the debate that she is visiting on us on Monday. With all the pressures on Government business, the Government amendments to important Bills, and a guillotine on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, is that really the best use of this Chamber's time?
Mrs. Beckett:
If the Chancellor believes that there is something that he needs to report to the House on the withholding tax, he will no doubt seek an opportunity to make a statement. But since the Government have said repeatedly and on every occasion when it has been discussed that we shall certainly veto any settlement that we regard as not being in Britain's interests, it is not clear to me that there is anything new to say.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland and the fact that Senator Mitchell has said that he may return on Sunday. Obviously, I know no more than he about where matters stand or what, if anything, is likely to be able to be reported to the House, but of course I give the undertaking that we will do everything we can to keep the House informed, as we always have, on this difficult and delicate issue.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |