What arrangements he has made to bring forward spending on school buildings to 2009-10.

A total of £939 million in school capital funding allocations to schools and to 121 local authorities is being brought forward from 2010-11 to 2009-10 to be spent on school buildings, information and communications technology and other capital items, and to get contracts for local small businesses. It is very disappointing that 27 local authorities chose not to take up that offer, which could have meant a further £183 million in contracts for small businesses in those areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and encourage him to do more of the same. Last week, I visited Scawby primary in my constituency with some local council officers to look at temporary and mobile classrooms that have been there for 30 to 40 years and are literally falling to bits. The council is trying to put together a strategy to replace them, not just at that school but across all its schools, but it finds that the money that is being brought forward can be allocated only to schemes and projects that have been previously approved. If my local council officers are successful in having a replacement strategy, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a delegation to see how we can secure some capital funding to get rid of these dreadful classrooms once and for all?

The money was partly for individual schools and partly for local authorities, and they need to have a meeting with my hon. Friend to see whether there is more that we can do about that issue. However, there would have been school money going through to deal with it. I am also pleased to say that his area was not one of the 27 areas that did not bring forward capital money—although that is quite surprising, because the vast majority had Conservative councils.

Will the Secretary of State encourage his officials, and education authorities, to concentrate on remodelling and refurbishment ahead of demolition and rebuild in order that more projects that can be undertaken, with value for money?

I will always encourage them to do so. Building Schools for the Future is a great opportunity for school improvement, but it is also an opportunity to ensure that we reconfigure and are more efficient. I know that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the process that is being followed by his local council—a Conservative council, I believe. I am sure that he will raise those issues with local councillors, and he will do so with my full support for greater efficiency.

The funds spent on new schools can provide futuristic buildings such as Woodland primary school in Heywood, which replaces three local primary schools and a special feature of which is extended community provision with a management structure to suit the local community. Will the Secretary of State encourage other primary schools to support their local communities?

I will do so, and in fact we announced last week more than 100 different projects totalling £200 million, in order to invest in the co-location of services on school sites, which often include health services and wider support for parents. That vision of the 21st century school, with services coming together, is a vital part of our vision for the future of schools. We want to ensure that every parent and every child gets the help that they need, so that children can then learn when they get to school.

What assurance can the Secretary of State give to projects such as Thetford college, in my constituency, that they will not be jeopardised because millions of pounds are being spent on consultants?

If I heard the question right, the hon. Gentleman asked whether spending on consultants will jeopardise investment. It is vital to ensure that we get the financing right and that the configuration works, which is why there is a charge for consultants as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should keep that to a minimum to ensure that the money goes directly into schools, but the greater jeopardy comes from the £4.5 billion of cuts that his party's Front Benchers propose, which would mean that a number of schools in his constituency would not be rebuilt or refurbished. That is the real threat to his constituents.