---

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to ensure that patients can have confidence that National Health Service hospitals are clean, safe environments with infection firmly under control; congratulates the Government on its action plans for reducing infection rates, 'Winning Ways' and 'Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection', which include the new target for a year-on-year reduction in MRSA, and the designation of directors of infection prevention and control to bring about local change; notes that the National Audit Office report concluded that the introduction in 2001 of mandatory MRSA surveillance raised the profile of infection control with senior managers; expects that the new target will act in a similar way, and deplores therefore the suggestion that the target be abolished; acknowledges that improving patient safety is a difficult medical issue that calls for the hard work and care that is the hallmark of NHS staff; welcomes therefore the 77,500 extra nurses and almost 19,400 extra doctors that have become a part of patient care since 1997; and therefore congratulates the Government on a comprehensive programme of investment and reform that has equipped the NHS to deliver improvements in patient safety, and to reduce hospital-acquired infections.

 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 835
 

Point of Order

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is widely expected that a Bill to ban hunting will be announced in business questions tomorrow. However, an answer this afternoon to a written question from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), released in the Vote Office and the Library at 6.30 this evening, announces that any implementation of that Bill will be delayed by two years. That was the first official notification that the House had of the Government's intention, but anyone who read the Evening Standard at lunchtime will have seen such a delay announced on its front page. The news was also carried extensively on the BBC website. When we inquired of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs parliamentary office why that was, it said that the report was perfectly accurate, but it could not understand why it had been reported.

In such a matter, which involves the procedures of the House and the implementation of a Bill, it is extraordinary that the public are informed via the media six hours before shadow Ministers and other hon. Members of what the Government intend to do about implementing the Bill on hunting. What can be done—if anything—to protect the interests of the House in that regard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and although I am not in a position to comment specifically on the matter that he raises, I can say that the whole House will know that Mr. Speaker strongly deprecates the release of such information to the press before it is put before the House and hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman's point has made that very clear, and it is now on the record.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a further problem in that we will clearly have to consider the implication of the Parliament Act 1911, together with what has been said on many occasions about its use. Our problem is that with the Library closed it is difficult to get at the material that we require. At the moment then, people such as myself cannot do any original research, and it would be enormously helpful if the Library staff could be asked to prepare now a summary and copies of the debates associated with the Parliament Act in 1911, together with what material they can find relevant to the use of that Act on previous occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's great concern about this matter. The Library in Derby Gate is open, and I am sure that the Library of the House will do its best to solve the problems that he has identified.

ADJOURNMENT (PARTY CONFERENCES)

Ordered,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 16th September, do adjourn till Monday 11th October 2004.—[Mr. Heppell.]

 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 836
 

Alderman Knight School

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

7.31 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I am pleased to have secured this debate on the future of Alderman Knight school in my constituency. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for being here to support me in the debate.

I have raised this matter many times in the House, but I make no apology for returning to it because the school faces closure. Alderman Knight is a special school, accommodating in the main children with moderate learning difficulties but also those with severe learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties and physical handicaps. Gloucestershire county council's cabinet has voted to close the school. There has been a bit of a kick-back from the county's education scrutiny committee, but the cabinet and the Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled council are determined to close the school. Their policy is to include all children with moderate learning difficulties, at least, in mainstream schools. I shall return to that point shortly.

Whenever I have taken this matter up with Ministers—I also served on a Standing Committee considering a relevant Bill—I have been told that the legislation should not be seen as a green light for the wholesale closure of special schools. However, in Gloucestershire we have seen that programme being put into motion: Bownham Park, the special school at Stroud, has closed. I want to return to that matter, too. If the Government's policy is that their legislation should not lead to the wholesale closure of special schools, they really need to have a word with their friends on Gloucestershire county council, who are not interpreting it in that way.

There are many reasons to keep special schools open. The Prime Minister's wife alluded to those reasons on 23 June, when she said to me that inclusion can be a very good idea, but we also need special schools. I am sure that she will not mind my quoting her. I would be the first to say that many pupils with special needs can be integrated into mainstream schools—many already are, and very successfully too—but that is not suitable for all children with special needs. For some, integration now can mean exclusion in later life.

If we take what may seem an extreme example, although I do not think that it really is, and look at the prison population, we find that the majority of prisoners are illiterate.

There is a link between poor education or the inability to learn and going wrong in later life.

Mainstream schools will not be able to cope with a massive influx of pupils with special needs. The pupils at mainstream schools will be adversely affected by too many pupils with special needs going into those schools. Again, I make no apology for saying that. It is common sense. The children themselves could not cope with being in mainstream schools. That is my opinion. It is also the opinion of many other politicians, teachers, chairmen of governors, governors and parents. More importantly, it is the opinion of the children.
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 837
 

I shall read out three letters that I received from children who go to Alderman Knight school. Ben Waters writes:

"I was at Alderman Knight School for seven years and I used to be very worried about lessons because I was bullied but when I came to Alderman Knight School in 1997 I was very nervous but over the years I became more confident. If I was at Mainstream I wouldn't of taken five GCSE's or I don't think I'd pass them I had a D in English, D in Food Tech, E in Art, E in Science and a G in Maths a lot of those lessons I thought I couldn't do but now I can."

There is also a letter from Harriet Windsor-Clive who writes:

"Alderman Knight is my favourite school. It helps me learn and I have good friends.

I am sad for the younger ones because they will not have a lot more help. I feel very, very sad about my school closing and having to go to another school."

Jake Rose, who is 11 years old, met the Prime Minister's wife. Jake is autistic. He writes:

"I am happy at my school. My teachers help me to learn in a way I can understand. I feel safe at my school."

That is very important. A number of those children have been down to the House of Commons today to make their protest.

The education portfolio-holder at Gloucestershire county council says that children who are attending a special school now will be able to continue to go to a special school, even if it is not that special school. But if all the special schools are closed, how will that be possible? What about the officers? What are they saying? They say that their policy is to include children with special needs in mainstream schools, so we do not know what Gloucestershire county council is trying to achieve, other than the closure of special schools. The council does not seem to know which way it is going.

I refer to the flawed process that the county council has undertaken. It has held various consultations with the public. Closure was not mentioned in the final consultation. It was indeed mentioned in an earlier consultation, but the option was rejected by those who were consulted, so unsurprisingly it was removed from the final consultation. However, the council decided that it wanted to go ahead with closure anyway. What on earth was the point of the consultations? How much did they cost the taxpayer of Gloucestershire? Could not that money have been better spent at, say, Alderman Knight school?

When my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I attended a meeting with the county council leaders on 2 July, we were given a briefing paper. My hon. Friend will remember it well. On that briefing paper there is no mention of the option of closing the school. What on earth is the county council doing? The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.

The council predetermined the policy before it went out to consultation. I understand that there are rules regarding councillors, who are not allowed to attend meetings if they have a prejudged view—if they have already made up their minds. That is in the code of conduct for councillors. Yet the county council can have a prejudged view to the extent that it can reject the consultation results if it does not like them. It has clearly said that it does not accept keeping the school open
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 838
 
because that is contrary to the council's policy. I have that in writing. If that is not prejudging the issue, I do not know what is.

---