|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): I know that parents, teachers and children will be concerned by the reports over the weekend about the flu outbreak in Mexico. As a contingency measure we shall today remind schools and childrens centres of our detailed guidance on planning for a possible flu pandemic, but our clear advice is that they should continue to operate as normal, taking their usual precautions against the spread of seasonal flu outbreaks and viral infections. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make a detailed statement to the House this afternoon.
We are publishing the Jim Rose review of the primary curriculum on Thursday, and ahead of that we are today publishing Sir Alasdair MacDonalds review of personal, social and health education. Our expectation, following his review, is that PSHE will become compulsory from September 2011, and we shall consult on the draft regulations alongside Sir Jims final report.
Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The only non-denominational all-girls school in my borough is at the far end of the neighbouring constituency of Wimbledon, which means that a large number of parents have been to see me recently because they wanted a girls school for cultural, religious, social or other reasons but have been unsuccessful owing to proximity being the only criterion. Can my right hon. Friend do anything to look at how we select places for all-girls education to ensure that it does not just favour the most well-off parts of our boroughs?
Ed Balls: As we heard earlier, my hon. Friend is a champion for children and parents in her constituency. As she knows, it is the local authoritys job to commission those places, but it is perfectly possible for parents to make proposals for new schools. It is also now the case that under the admissions code parents should be consulted about admissions arrangements. If unfairness and lack of choice are problems for parents in my hon. Friends constituency, I encourage her and local parents to make representations as part of the admissions code process for next year.
Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD):
The Minister recently announced that Lancasterian school in south Manchester had been successful in becoming a
specialist school for communication and interaction, so does he agree that Manchester city councils plans to cut provision at Lancasterian threaten its future and should be shelved to give the school, which was rated as outstanding by Ofsted, the opportunity to become even better?
The Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight): I am not personally familiar with the Lancasterian school, so I am not familiar with the circumstances and with what Manchester city council has said, although I am sure that I will be able to read the hon. Gentlemans press release later. I am happy to see whether there is anything I need to look into more thoroughly.
T2.  Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): Following the exchanges that we have just heard, can my right hon. Friend tell me how many times he personally pressed Ken Boston about SATs results and tests?
Ed Balls: I can, and I would happily have answered the question directly if the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) had raised it with me. I have nothing to add to the evidence that I gave the Sutherland inquiry, which showedas I said to Lord Sutherlandthat following the exchange we had in oral questions on 19 May, I immediately, between my office and Ken Bostons office, raised the question with him and asked for reassurances, which I received. Secondly, I had a meeting with him on 2 June where I was reassured. Thirdly, on 6 June I asked Ken Boston to respond to a constituent of mine who had raised concerns, and Ken Boston wrote on 16 June to reassure my constituent that things were on track. As Lord Sutherland shows, Ministers regularly pressed Ken Boston and the QCA. It was only at the end of June that the actual problems arose. As Lord Sutherland says, his inquiry was fair. It had broad terms of reference and it concluded that ETS and the QCA were at fault. I entirely support Lord Sutherlands inquiry and his conclusions, and we will implement them, as is the proper thing to do.
T3.  Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): I am encouraged by Ministers comments about the reinstatement of sixth-form school funding. The Coopers Company and Coborn school in my constituency faces underfunding of 12 per cent. for its sixth-form pupils, while the Sacred Heart of Mary girls school faces similar underfunding of 10 per cent. They are eagerly awaiting a letter confirming that their funding will be reinstated. Will the Secretary of State confirm irrevocably that Coopers Company and Coborn and Sacred Heart of Mary will receive funding for all their pupils in this year and to 2010?
The answer is absolutely and irrevocably yes. The Learning and Skills Council wrote to all schools this morning to say that its plans as of the beginning of March will be delivered. It will come forward with more detailed allocations in the next few weeks. What happened was the number of those wanting to stay on was much larger than our budgets allowed for, and the LSCwrongly in my viewcommitted to schools that such numbers could be met, without the funding being in place. We had extensive discussions about the budget, which led to the £654 million, and that means that we can now meet the September guarantee. It is only when there is
money in the budget that a commitment can be made, and we now have the money in the budget and are making a clear commitment. I urge the hon. Lady to ask her colleague, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), to reply to my letters, because he will not match my commitment at the moment.
T4.  Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): On Friday, I will visit the STAR centre at Keighley college. The centre, which is for primary and secondary children, promotes science, technology, engineering and maths, and puts an emphasis on aerospace research. Will the Minister assure me that funding for such centres will continue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): As a former vice-chair of the all-party group on space, and having visited many of our companies and businesses that are devoted to aeronautical and space research, I can guarantee for my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to continuing to support the technological industry, which will create many new jobs in the future.
T9.  Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): The Secretary of State is pleased to describe school governors as the largest team of volunteers in the public sector, but they are beginning to feel that they are the most put-upon volunteers in the public sector as his endless review of their role goes on. What plans does he now have for changing school governance, or does he agree with many school governors that as the system is not broken, it does not need to be fixed?
Jim Knight: Although the hon. Gentleman turns his back on reform altogether, there is a case for building on school governors strengths. Most school governors would agree that they could do with a better commitment to training to fill any skills gaps in the governing body. Many would agree that a commitment on trained clerks to governing bodies would be helpful to guide their work. There is plenty more that we can do to improve both the challenge and the support that governors offer schools. We are hugely grateful for their work. I am reviewing their role with others, and I expect to be able to produce proposals in the next couple of months that will take school governance forward.
T5.  Mrs. Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op): Last week, with a delegation from Halifax, I met the Minister for Schools and Learners to stress the need for Building Schools for the Future funding to cover Calderdale council as a priority. Will he assure me that Calderdales case will be considered, and will he visit my Halifax constituency so that he can see our need for such investment, especially as it will be a major consideration for Lloyds when it decides on the security of HBOS jobs in Halifax?
I certainly enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) last week, along with others from Calderdale. It is really important that we continue to consider the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) makes, particularly as regards Castle Hill and Todmorden schools in the authority. The matter is not straightforward, as she knows, but she
is making an exceptional case. I just remind her, and anyone from her constituency who is listening, that it is the Labour party and this Government who are committed to Building Schools for the Future and to continuing that funding, rather than cutting it as the Conservative party would do.
Ed Balls: That was a recommendation of Lord Sutherlands that we will seek to take forward in future years. In 2005, the QCA announced its decision not to proceed with online marking in 2006 and 2007, and in 2008, when Ken Boston, then chief executive of the QCA, wrote to me about the testing contract with ETS, he made no proposal for online marking. At no point has Ken Boston ever pressed on me the case for online marking. It is Lord Sutherland who is now pressing that case on the basis of his thorough, effective and independent review.
T6.  David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I note from reports in the media that senior staff of examining boards now sell their services to schools and teachers, advising them how best to prepare pupils for the exams that they will set and mark. Is that not a clear conflict of interest that blurs the boundaries between private profit and public service, and should it not be outlawed if we want to continue providing our children with the high-quality, objectively assessed state education that will benefit them all?
Jim Knight: I was very concerned to hear of some of the practices advocated during one particular course or session that someone associated with one of the examining boards was last weekend reported by the BBC to be carrying out. I know that our independent regulator, Ofqual, and the examination board involved were equally concerned about that, and are looking into the matter. I do not think that I should make any further comment at this stage.
Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): What recent assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness and adequacy of child employment and child performance legislation and regulations, and is it not time that some progress was made with reform, before there is serious injury or damage to children?
I looked into this a few months ago. The legislation is in place; the issue is whether local authorities are properly implementing the legislation and the guidance. We contacted local authorities, and will continue to do so, to press them to take seriously their obligations to make sure that the registration schemes in place work
properly. Our view is that it is not right to toughen up the law. The important thing to do is to make sure that the law that applies is implemented. That is the approach that we are taking to the very important issue that the hon. Lady raises.
T7.  Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): The Secretary of State will know that one of my local nursery schools has been treated quite appallingly by Ofsted. Is he prepared to meet the headmistress of the nursery school, along with the chairwoman of Ofsted?
The Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Beverley Hughes): My hon. Friend has kindly corresponded with me on the subject. I think that Ofsted has agreed that the initial report was unsatisfactory, and that the issue now is the rather large amount of compensation being pursued because, for six days, the report was on Ofsteds website. As he knows, Ofsted is a separate Government department, answering directly to Parliament and not to my Department. I would advise the nursery owner to go to the independent adjudicator, and/or through him to the parliamentary ombudsman, who can perhaps help to resolve this outstanding matter.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): Will the Minister take action to stop Essex county councillors selling off Castle Points school playing fields for development, and will he accept my congratulations on the Governments record on protecting our school playing fields?
Jim Knight: It has become a bit of a treat for us at topical questions when the hon. Gentleman pops up and has a go at his Tory former friends on Essex county council, as he always does. On his point about playing fields, I am grateful to him for his congratulations. We have certainly made every effort to protect them. In the few cases over the past 12 years in which they have been sold off, it has normally been because the school has closed and the whole grounds were surplus to requirements. I am certainly keeping a careful eye on Essex county council, thanks to the hon. Gentlemans efforts and those of one or two others in this House.
Ed Balls: As my hon. Friend knows, we have an expert group which is looking at what we can do to improve the system of assessment. My hon. Friend also knows my clear view that objective assessment at key stage 2 must continue. That view is widely supported by the clear majority of parents. The key thing is to make sure that the accountability system improves so that we can reward schools that achieve progress for every child. That is what our report card will do, and we will publish details of that in the coming weeks.
Let me begin by paying tribute to the 70,000 staff working in the services. Last Monday, the Minister responsible for prisons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), issued a written ministerial statement about the serious disturbance that occurred at Ashwell prison, Rutland on Easter Saturday. Prison Service staff acted with exemplary skill and professionalism in dealing with the riot. I thank them sincerely, as I do officers of Leicestershire constabulary and other emergency services who so ably assisted. Prison Service and police investigations are now under way.
Investing in prison and probation services has been a key priority for this Administration. Prison places are up by nearly 25,000, to 85,000, with spending rising by a similar proportion. The probation case load has risen by 52 per cent. since 1997, but spending has increased by 70 per cent. in real terms. This is the first post-war Government to see a sustained reduction in crimedown 39 per cent. since 1997, with the chances of being a victim the lowest for a generation. There was a 23 per cent. fall in adult reoffending between 2000 and 2006.
Understandable concern has been expressed about the numbers of juveniles and women held in custody. There has, over the past year, been a reduction of 8 per cent. in the number of juveniles in jail, while the number of adult women prisoners has fallen by 3 per cent. over the same period. In response to my noble Friend Baroness Corstons recommendations, I have committed £15.5 million over two years to help divert vulnerable women offenders from prison. We also want the Prison Service and the NHS better to deal with offenders with mental health problems. My noble friend Lord Bradleys report on this will be published shortly.
My noble friend Lord Carter of Coles was asked in 2007 to consider how better to manage short and medium-term prison pressures. I published his report alongside an oral statement on 5 December 2007. Since the publication of Lord Carters report we have already provided an additional 3,500 prison places. Lord Carter recommended that net capacity should be brought up to 96,000 by 2014 and that 7,500 of these places should be created by the construction of three 2,500-place prison complexes, described as Titans. In June last year we launched a consultation on those proposals. I am most grateful to all those who responded. The Governments response to the consultation is published today, along with the document Capacity and Competition Policy for Prisons and Probation and an economic impact assessment. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the House Library.
Once a prison is established in an area, almost without exception the local community becomes very supportive of it. A prison is a source of secure, well-paid employment and a focus for much highly creditable volunteering. The research evidence, which shows that prisons have no adverse effect on house prices or crime rates, is then borne out by experience, although proposals for new prisons can at first be controversial.
I did see merit in Lord Carters proposals for 2,500-place prisons, especially as they would have been complexes with four or five distinct and separate regimes, but most of those whom we consulted took a different view, and believed that the advantages were far outweighed by the disadvantages. Not the least of those of that view was Dame Anne Owers, Her Majestys chief inspector of prisons.
I have looked very carefully at everything that has been said and, in the light of the consultation, concluded that the right approach is to deliver the 7,500 places not through Titans but through five prisons holding 1,500 offenders, each divided into smaller units. We already operate successfully a number of prisons at or around that size.
The new prisons will be neither Victorian replicas nor large warehouses. They will be modern, purpose-built institutions for adult male prisoners only. They will be safe, secure and effective in helping prisoners deal with their offending and develop the work, education and life skills that they need to turn their lives around.
I can announce today that we are working to secure sites for the first two 1,500-place prisons at Beam Park West in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, and at Runwell in the borough of Chelmsford in Essex. Both prisons will be privately built and run, and their construction and operation will sustain many hundreds of jobs. Prison capacity planning depends crucially on projections of future demand and judgments about the cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of replacing older places with new capacity. Those and other considerations are kept under constant review, and further decisions about sites and the removal of older provision will be announced in due course. However, in that context, I can tell the House that we will not be pursuing a prison on the Omega site in Warrington.
Work is already in hand to increase capacity by approximately 8,500 places over the next three years. It also remains my intention to withdraw the end-of-custody licence scheme as soon as safely possible. The expansion will include two new public prisons, Isis, adjacent to Belmarsh, and Coltishall, a former RAF base in Norfolk; and two new private prisons, Belmarsh West and Maghull. We are also expanding HMP Littlehey, near Huntingdon, to provide 480 places by early next year, as a quicker, more cost-effective option than buying and converting a prison ship.
At all times, but especially in todays economic climate, we have a duty to ensure that prison and probation services work as efficiently and effectively as possible in the interests of the public. We are seeking to improve the efficiency of public sector prisons through reforms to work force structures for new uniformed staff and by reducing management costs. From today we will consult on the detail of those plans.
Nearly 90 per cent. of prison places are delivered directly by the public sector, but the private sector also plays an important part. The Governments approach to competition was described in last Novembers pre-Budget report and in last Wednesdays Red Book.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|