| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: We have had quite a lengthy debate on new clause 2. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) wishes to discuss placing conditions on the operation of a clause that is not part of the Bill. His approach shows a justified awareness--
Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is suggesting that the debate is not in order because it was not agreed that new clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. Would I be correct in reminding the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you gave a ruling when I raised the matter yesterday? You said that it would be perfectly in order to discuss the matters that have been raised in this debate, and that it was for the Government to sort out the difficulties that they have created.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the present debate is perfectly in order.
Mrs. Gillan: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bath jumped to his feet so prematurely before I had completed my sentence. He is showing a justified awareness that any reversals in the Bill's progress will be merely transitory. I wished to thank him for his vote of confidence in the Government.
Mr. Jamieson: I am interested in what the Minister has just said. She described the problems that the Government are having with the Bill as transitory. How do the Government intend to reintroduce new clause 3?
Mrs. Gillan: The Government remain committed to the clause that was lost last night. We shall therefore seek to reintroduce it in another place.
There is no need for a review of school premises regulations. The regulations were revised only last year, as many hon. Members will remember only too well. We eliminated much that was bureaucratic and inflexible and retained the minimum standards that count. It is predictable that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) will try to relive that previous debate.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
Predictably, the Minister is wrong. I intended to ask her to confirm that the Government, in removing school places, took away the miserly minimum space per child and the minimum space for recreation that had prevailed for a long time before changes were made in the regulations.
Mrs. Gillan:
I remember that we gave more powers to local education authorities. It has been argued from the
28 Jan 1997 : Column 190
We are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of pupils, which is why we have retained the minimum standards that count. Before the new regulations were made, we carefully considered which elements of the old regulations needed to be retained. We consulted schools and LEAs, among others. Whatever were their individual concerns, there was consensus that change was needed. The new regulations retained the essential safeguards and eliminated irrelevant detail.
Mr. Spearing:
Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Gillan:
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because we have had several exchanges on these matters in previous debates. I know that he feels strongly about them. I am sure that he is about to say something that we have heard before, but I am willing to give way to him.
Mr. Spearing:
I am grateful to the Minister. It is right that we have had detailed debates in Committee on a former Bill. We are now, however, in the House. We did not have much opportunity to discuss the statutory instrument that followed that former Bill.
The Minister has talked about minimum standards that count. Of course there must be hygiene, fire and ventilation regulations, for example. Is the hon. Lady saying to teachers that adequate space and flexibility in a secondary school in arranging lessons and a timetable are not physically important standards that must be achieved--standards that she and the rest of the Government have swept away?
Mrs. Gillan:
I agree that such matters are important. The hon. Gentleman puts a great deal of faith in LEAs, and so did we on this occasion. It is for LEAs to manage their affairs, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
Does my hon. Friend accept that if the regulations had not been modified, the vast majority of village schools, which do an excellent job, would have faced closure?
Mrs. Gillan:
I cannot confirm what my hon. Friend says at the moment. I know, however, that many village schools do an excellent job. I am sure that all Members would endorse that.
When deciding to deregulate to allow grant-maintained schools to expand by up to 50 per cent. without the need to publish statutory proposals, we considered the effect on surplus places throughout the country. We believed that the net effect on the total number of surplus places would be minimal.
Yes, the expansion of popular GM schools may lead to surplus places in unpopular schools. As a result of parental choice, parents will choose the schools that they think best for their children. If that means that an unpopular school becomes unviable, there will be ways to deal with that. I hope that Opposition Members will not suggest that parents should be forced to send their
28 Jan 1997 : Column 191
We want to allow good and popular schools to expand. One effect of that will be to identify more sharply unpopular schools, which should be the first in line when considering how and where to remove surplus places. If the net effect is more places at good and popular schools and fewer at unpopular schools, will Opposition Members object to that outcome?
If surplus places and expanded GM schools are worrying Opposition Members, they do not need to become too concerned. Grant-maintained schools are popular with pupils and parents and they achieve good results. If there is no demand in a certain area, schools within it will not seek to expand. I remind the House that grant for capital work will not be automatically available to GM schools that wish to expand. Such schools will need to make a good case to the Funding Agency for Schools, or raise the money themselves.
It is--[Interruption.] I was not quite sure. I did not know whether you were looking at me in an appealing fashion or whether you wanted to intervene.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing me.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I shall address you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What does the Minister foresee in the theoretical demand for expansion of a GM school? How does she see the transition of other schools that, of necessity, will lose pupils to GM schools? Does she see those schools withering on the vine as pupils move out of them? Does she see them developing into sink schools, for example?
Mrs. Gillan:
The hon. Gentleman is not up to date. He seems to be caught in a time warp of grammar schools and comprehensives. I see choice and diversity. A school that is not grant-maintained may try to improve its targets. It may go for technology college or language college status. We are creating choice within the education system, but the hon. Gentleman is talking the language of 20 years ago.
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my inaccuracy. I am sorry that I addressed the Chair incorrectly. I did not think for one moment that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were looking appealingly at me.
The hon. Member for Bath queried the timing of the production of the Audit Commission's report. I think that he should apologise to the commission. It would not take kindly to having the date of its reports dictated by the Government or the Opposition. The report was published in December, and we shall obviously reflect on what it has to say. We welcomed the attention that the report gave to removing surplus places. We in the Department have been stressing the importance of that for some time. Considerable progress has been made. The number of surplus places has been about halved over the past 10 years.
Mr. Don Foster:
The Minister is talking about the removal of surplus places. A short while ago she referred to the Audit Commission's report. For the enlightenment
28 Jan 1997 : Column 192
Mrs. Gillan:
I have no idea. I have, however, had sight of a press release that was issued by the Department yesterday in the name of my hon. Friend with responsibilities for schools, which includes the latest figures on the reduction in surplus places. There has been a 1 per cent. fall to about 10 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.6 million places. That is encouraging, but some local authorities could do better. We share the Audit Commission's view that more could be done, such as encouraging LEAs to follow the examples of good practice contained in the report. Officials will continue to follow up individual local authorities whose returns suggest scope for action where it is not being taken.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |