| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Adult and Continuing Education
14. Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): What steps he is taking to increase the provision of adult and continuing education. [109144]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Adult and community learning is a vital part of the Government's plans to drive up achievement, widen participation and--most significantly--strengthen communities. With the establishment of learning and skills councils in 47 communities, we will aim at bringing about a step change in the scale and range of attractive and accessible opportunities available locally. We already plan to double our standards fund support for local authorities' adult and continuing learning, with £18 million from this coming April. That is just a small part of the money available from central and local government for adult education.
Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that family learning initiatives can have a major impact on the educational achievements of children and parents? Will he commit himself to a major expansion of family learning initiatives in Edmonton and across the country?
Mr. Wicks: My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in family learning. Next year, we shall spend £7 million on family literacy and numeracy schemes. We also include family learning in a wide range of educational programmes. I agree with my hon. Friend's emphasis on family learning. We must establish the idea that, when a child receives his or her first chance at education--in nursery or primary school--it can provide a second chance for the mother or father, not least in terms of basic skills. Educationally, what happens in the home may be at least as important as what happens in the school.
Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): May I ask the Leader of the House to 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 21 February--Opposition day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Excellence in Education: the Government's Failure to Deliver". Followed by a debate on the Millennium Dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Tuesday 22 February--Debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion (First Day).
The business for the week following the Adjournment will be:
Monday 28 February-Conclusion of debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion.
Third Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
Tuesday 29 February--Remaining stages of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
Wednesday 1 March--Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 2 March--Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 3 March--Private Members' Bills.
The business for Monday 6 March will be:
Monday 6 March--Second Reading of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 1 March, there will be a debate on European Union humanitarian and development aid in European Standing Committee B.
I should like to give the House advance notice of business to be taken in Westminster Hall for the remainder of March.
Thursday 9 March--Debate entitled 'Work/Life Balance'.
Thursday 16 March--Debate on the Sixth Report from the Public Administration Committee Session 1998-1999 on Quangos.
Thursday 23 March--Debate on Pensions Reform.
Thursday 30 March--Debate on the Seventh Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1998-1999, on Women and Development.
The House may also wish to know that following discussions through the usual channels, it was thought to be for the general convenience that business on Tuesday 22 February should be taken on the pattern of sittings employed on Thursdays. Business will therefore commence at 11.30 am.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business, and for that for the following week.
On Tuesday, the House heard two important statements, which require debate in Government time. The first was on the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, and the second was on the Waterhouse report on child abuse. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that she will find time for those debates in the near future?
On Monday next, the Government face defeat in another place on free mailshots for candidates in the London mayoral election, an issue on which they have few friends. If they are defeated, can the House have a statement on their plans, as time is beginning to run out?
I welcome the two-day defence debate. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that we shall also have the traditional three separate debates on defence matters?
When can we expect an announcement on the BBC licence fee? The Government have had the Davies committee's report for more than seven months, but there is still no sign of a decision.
Finally, next Tuesday marks the anniversary of the Prime Minister's statement to the House on the national changeover plan. Will he come to the House then to tell us the Government's estimate of the costs of changeover, and how it compares with the £36 billion estimated in today's newspapers?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman asked for debates on the IGC and the Waterhouse report. On the IGC, he knows that such matters do not move at break-neck speed, so I take heed of his observation. We shall look for an opportunity to find a slot in which those matters can be aired--although such an opportunity might not be exclusive to the IGC.
The Government realise that there is great interest in the Waterhouse report on both sides of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, time for debate on the Floor is at a premium, but we may be able to find time for an initial debate in Westminster Hall--we could explore that.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility of a Government defeat in another place. It is interesting that he makes that point. If the Government are defeated, we shall have to take account of that and consider whether to make a statement to the House. However, it is a bizarre proceeding when a House in which not one person is elected presumes to make a judgment as to how an election should be run.
It is even more bizarre because the cost of a free mailshot, in what is--with respect to this great metropolis--a local election, would be about £15 million. I understand that that would be the cost of employing another 500 or 600 police officers. The people of London would probably think that Opposition parties had strange priorities if they chose to spend public money in that way. Standing would be a good investment for any candidate--another factor that a responsible Opposition might take into account--because, for a few thousand pounds, that person would get a free mailshot to every home in London.
It is bizarre that, for the first time since 1968--when, by a remarkable coincidence, there was also a Labour Government--the House of Lords might choose to flex its muscles in that way. I hope that it will have more sense than to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would hold the three separate day defence debates. We have given an undertaking that those debates will be scheduled
in due course; we stand by that. I cannot tell him when an announcement on the licence fee will be made, although it will not be next week.I have not read the stories about the national changeover plan to which he referred, so I am unable to assess their validity. I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will rush to the House on Tuesday to discuss the matter.
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): May we have a debate on genetically modified foods and producer liabilities? I ask that for two reasons. First, I have received a letter from NFU Mutual Insurance to an east midlands farmer, Peter Lundgren, pointing out that he and other farmers are not insured for the loss of value of farm land on the open market resulting from the growing of GM crops; nor are organic farmers covered for the loss of GM status. No farmers will be covered for the potential loss of crops through cross-pollination.
Secondly, the matter needs to be debated urgently because I understand that Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials are advising the Government to accept the registration of GM crops on the European common register. That would invalidate all our constraints on field and farm trials and may saddle farming communities with liabilities and bankruptcies, which would be disastrous for everyone concerned.
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in that matter. I am not aware of the advice given by MAFF officials to their Ministers--let alone the decisions that they may take. He raises a serious issue and although I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate, I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |