| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wrote to you yesterday enclosing a piece of House of Commons notepaper that had been transformed into a Labour party recruiting document. I registered my interest as I felt that I could make valuable use of such documentation in my own constituency. I refrained from doing so, because it is my understanding that it would be a breach of regulations and, as a supporter of law and order, I would not wish to deviate from the straight and narrow.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman refers to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who has apologised to me for his misuse of the House emblem and agreed to reimburse the House authorities for all the costs that have been incurred.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am so relieved that you have managed to recognise an elder Member. The Secretary of State for Health a little earlier used the word Presbyterian in a tone that suggested disapprobation. Would the House and would he recognise that the most principled and the most independent-minded Members of this place are Presbyterians like myself, and proud of it?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order, but as I seldom recognise the aging Member, I was prepared to listen to him today.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the ten-minute Bill that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is about to present. As she was the council leader who presided over and covered up the most appalling abuse in homes in Islington, will you rule as to whether she has a declarable interest in introducing the debate?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has no declarable interest. The House should exercise the tolerance that I expect of it and listen to the hon. Lady. I have no idea what the hon. Lady has to say, so I think that we should hear her out.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, tomorrow we shall have Trade and Industry questions, and I have Question 2. In consequence, a letter was sent to me, probably inadvertently, by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), whom I have informed that I intended to raise the matter. The hon. Gentleman's brief letter says:
- "I should be most grateful if you could spare the time to attend a brief discussion with DTI Ministers at 2.15 pm on Wednesday, 17 July. Your contribution to DTI Question Time at 2.30 pm is much appreciated, and this will be an opportunity to ensure that the resultant exchanges are, as far as possible, beneficial to all concerned.
The meeting will be held in the Large Ministerial Conference Room.
I look forward to seeing you there".
Madam Speaker: Of course it is in order for Ministers and Members to meet on any issue. But I am sure that Opposition Members wish that they were sufficiently fortunate for more such letters to come their way.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could the issue behind the ten-minute Bill that we are about to deal with be held to be sub judice? It has been reported in the press that Mr. Demetrious Panton, who was abused as a resident of an Islington council home, is suing the council and will summons its former leader, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), to give evidence. Is it not then wrong for the hon. Lady to introduce a ten-minute Bill dealing with the banning of paedophiles? [Hon. Members: "Did the hon. Gentleman give notice?"] Yes, I did.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have these arguments across the Floor of the House. I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has already given notice.
Mr. Marshall indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman assures me that that is the case. [Hon. Members: "When?"] Order. Probably at 2.30 or perhaps 3.30. I know the way in which things happen in the House; I have been here too long not to understand all that. I can assure the hon. Member for Hendon, South that had the matter been sub judice, it would not have appeared on the Order Paper today.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the great benefits of your becoming Speaker was that you stamped on a procedure used by certain Members before that time--talking among themselves to drown out an hon. Member who was speaking. It is one of our great privileges to be heard when we speak on behalf of our constituents in this place. During last night's debate on assisted places, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was not actually heckled--that might have been fairer--Conservative Members talked among themselves to drown out a speech that they dared not listen to. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule with a firm rod those who would stop Members speaking or being heard in the House?
Madam Speaker: I was not, of course, in the Chair throughout the whole of yesterday's proceedings, but I am sure that my deputy dealt with the matter correctly. I have always said that in this House, Members of Parliament do not have to listen to what others say, but by jove, the Member who is speaking must be heard. There is an important distinction between the two. If hon. Members do not want to listen, they must close their ears and keep quiet, or leave the Chamber. Whoever has the Floor will be heard.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point arises from the Prime Minister's final reply during Prime Minister's questions, and from the Government amendment that we shall soon debate to the Opposition motion on the sale of
married quarters. The Prime Minister said that the service chiefs support that sale. I should like guidance from you, Madam Speaker, on what protection can be given to the chiefs of staff against such liberal interpretation of what they have said. As a Member of the Defence Select Committee, I know that the chiefs of staff have said that
- "the benefits . . . outweigh the risks"--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if he disagrees with what the Prime Minister or anyone else says, he has an opportunity in the forthcoming debate to get up and say so and to correct what he believes to be wrong. That is the way in which we proceed here--by making corrections and comments across the Floor of the House, and not by seeking to make political points through the Chair.
Protection and Education of Children
3.39 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of short-notice and temporary teachers.
If legislation is not introduced, we shall all be guilty of failing to ensure, first, that our children are properly protected in school and, secondly, that they are being taught to the highest educational standards. A survey by the Department for Education and Employment found that one in 25 teachers in school is a supply teacher. But from the child's point of view, when heads and others who do not normally teach are discounted, it is likely that one in 15 or one in 20 classes is taught by a supply teacher--more than two classes every week for every child. We are talking about 7 per cent. of a school's budget.
Since we delegated responsibilities to schools, most head teachers come to school at 7.30 in the morning. They will not make 50 telephone calls to teachers whom they know to find a supply teacher, but will instead make one call to a private supply teacher agency. The Department's survey found that 70 per cent. of supply teachers in inner London and 42 per cent. in outer London were recruited through private supply agencies.
The agencies are here to stay. Some provide a first-class service--others do not. All work in an unregulated market where rogue operators are able to prosper. [Interruption.] Like all parents, I want to feel certain that my child is safe and is being well taught. At present, no parent can be certain. [Interruption.]
The agencies register as employment agencies, and have enjoyed substantial deregulation as part of the Government's obsessive dogma. Anybody can set up as a supply teacher agency in their front room without being vetted. I have come across Classic Services Ltd. in Porth, South Glamorgan. It was a temping agency for crane operators, but it got wind of the fact that supply teaching was a lucrative business and decided to branch out. That certainly gives a new meaning to lifting standards.
I have three serious concerns about the legal framework. First, agencies are not compelled by law to carry out essential checks on criminal records, health, qualifications and first-hand references and on whether the applicant is on the Department's list 99 of persons barred from teaching. In Manchester, the Select temping agency sent its director into a school to drum up business. The headmaster recognised the director as someone who was on the Department's list 99 of banned teachers. The director was an ex-headmaster who had been banned from teaching after being convicted of theft.
A French teacher was turned down by a reputable agency, Timeplan, because her reference said that she was
"very needy . . . somewhat unstable"
and concluded:
"I am therefore unable to recommend her".
She was then taken on by People agency, which now calls itself Recruit, which took her on without checking her and placed her in a school in Southwark. There she behaved
inappropriately with boys, seduced two of them and falsely accused them of raping her. Although the truth came out, it was after the lives of the two lads and their families had been ruined.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |