| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I welcome the chance to present to the House the Government's proposals for education legislation in the forthcoming Session. The proposals are consistent with the themes of all our education reforms of the past 16 years-- competitiveness, standards, choice, diversity and encouraging aspirations.
I feel that I must comment on the extraordinary contribution from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He presented an analysis that was steadfast in its ignorance of the facts. This year, the league tables show an overall improvement in all schools' performance, and the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that 39 per cent. of schools have managed to reduce the number of pupils leaving school with no GCSEs--an important task for all.
The hon. Gentleman managed to ignore the fact of inward investment--90,000 jobs provided over the last year because of our flexible labour market and our well-trained work force. He managed to ignore the continued rise in standards in education and training. I had hoped to be able to say something complimentary about the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, but I am afraid that he blew that in the last few minutes of his speech: he lurched from ships to Captain Pugwash to other things which, fortunately, there was too much noise for the rest of us to hear.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated yet again that the Labour party continues to set its face against diversity, choice and aspiration. It believes in choice, of course, but only for some occupants of the Labour Front Bench.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford):
Given that parents make choices for their children and that it is not always the fault of the children which schools the parents choose, is the Secretary of State aware that, out of 24 members of the shadow Cabinet, 18 were educated in grammar schools, in the private sector or in independent schools? Does she agree that the Labour party wishes to deny that choice to today's children?
Mrs. Shephard:
I am delighted that their parents were able to exercise the choice that the Labour party wants to remove from other people.
The hon. Member for Brightside should realise that, at this stage, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out in the context of consultation on the future of voluntary-aided schools. Unlike the Opposition, we are consulting the Churches. I believe that the Opposition did not do so before producing their so-called White Paper in the summer.
We believe in considering seriously how best to extend the benefits of self-government in schools to all children, and we are doing that now. Sadly, in his whole speech, the hon. Gentleman did not answer one question, and he seemed to admit that he has not the merest clue about how to set about providing nursery education. I will help him--that seemed to be the invitation he offered to me-- and I am happy to sit down with him any time to explain how a successful nursery vouchers scheme will work.
For the hon. Gentleman's information, much the largest part of the £20 million that he mentioned is for inspection, not administration. We believe in quality, even if the Labour party does not.
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South):
In view of the statements that the Secretary of State has just made about nursery vouchers and the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Back Benchers, will she advise us how many additional nursery places in Staffordshire the voucher system will create--in particular in Stoke-on-Trent?
Mrs. Shephard:
The hon. Gentleman should have given me notice of that question, because I do not know how many places exist at the moment. In due course, however, parents in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire will have the right for their four-year-olds to have three terms of good-quality nursery education.
What did we hear from the hon. Member for Brightside? It was not a very good speech, I am afraid. Socialism still clings to him despite the best efforts of his leader to have him hide the fact. As The Sunday Times said, the jury is still out. After today's showing, I fear that that must be so.
Recently, of course, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have announced some new initiatives. I believe that they announced some new initiatives on youth training measures. It seems that there is a split in the shadow Cabinet on the matter--nevertheless, an attempt was made. We have heard something from the Labour party about associate teachers and something about an aim for nursery education--no proposals, just an aim, but never mind. We have heard about tough inspection and technology on every school's curriculum. The only problem is that the Government have done them all. Of course the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would not have noticed. Why? Where were they at the time? They were in the No Lobby, voting against excellence, standards, choice and diversity.
It takes some cheek for Labour Members, in their house magazine the Daily Mirror, to wring their hands about the tiny percentage of failing schools and poor examination results. The Labour party would not even know about those things were it not for the Government's reforms, all of which the Labour party opposed. All the measures to raise standards and promote excellence were opposed by Labour.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood):
In relation to what the Government have done, will the Secretary of State confirm what I took to be a whiff of retreat in her earlier remarks on the opt-out of voluntary-aided schools? Will she confirm that in fact the Government are retreating on the fast-track route and, if so, why? Will she also tell us why she thought about that in the first place when parents are under-represented now in voluntary-aided schools? Instead of decreasing their representation, why should she consider depriving them of their right even to vote on the future of their schools?
Mrs. Shephard:
How the Labour party has converted to parental choice; how the Labour party hated it when we introduced grant-maintained schools; and how it loves parental choice now. Is it not wonderful to see so many people converted to our cause?
As for the consultation on voluntary-aided schools, we have suggested seven options for those interested in them and the 4,000 relevant bodies to consider. The consultation is not complete; until it is, nothing is ruled in and nothing ruled out.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston):
On the question of who has been converted to what, will the Secretary of State explain why Cheshire county council refused to adopt the nursery voucher pilot scheme? Is that not odd for a Conservative-controlled authority? Perhaps the truth is that Cheshire county council was right and the scheme was daft from the outset.
Mrs. Shephard:
I think that Cheshire county council will come to regret its decision, whichever party controls it. It is depriving parents of four-year-olds in Cheshire of nursery education--the scheme could have been in place by April next year.
I was referring to the attitude of Labour Members. When we discussed the national curriculum, testing and inspection, where were they? In the No Lobby. When we discussed grant-maintained schools, technology colleges and improvements to teacher training, where were they?
In the No Lobby. When we discussed the guarantee of training for young people and training programmes for the unemployed, where were they? In the No Lobby.
Where are many of the schools that are failing our children and denying them a decent education? They are in Labour-controlled authorities where years of socialist claptrap have allowed slipshod teaching to deny children the right to a decent education. They are in Hackney, where even a pupil-teacher ratio of 1:8 could not improve Hackney Downs school. They are in Lambeth, where secondary schools are so bad that Ofsted has to inspect every one. They are in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Bradford, the local authorities whose schools have more unauthorised absences than any others in England. They are in Islington, which has just come absolutely bottom in the table of GCSE results--the worst results of any local education authority anywhere in England.
Talking of conversions, no wonder the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is using Conservative policies to send his own child outside that rotten borough. Yet he and it would deny parents without his level of income the right to send their children to schools of their choice. What a shame. That is Labour in office. That is its ambition. Although, of course, we heard nothing about Labour's plans from the hon. Member for Brightside, what Labour wants to do for Britain, it has done for Islington.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
Is it not a fact that the Government pledged money for teachers which was not forthcoming? On the assumption that it will be forthcoming next year to pay teachers the increase which is their proper due, will the right hon. Lady assure me that, despite the arcane matters of revenue support grants, area cost adjustments, and so on, she has cleared the way for that money to be paid after adjudication, and that there will be no undue rocks or difficulties in the legislative process?
Mrs. Shephard:
The hon. Gentleman--it is surprising from him--has forgotten the existence of the independent review body that looks at teachers' salaries. As for the overall financial settlement, he will have to possess his soul in patience until next week like the rest of us.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |