| Home Page |
Column 951
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Education and Science given you notice that he will this afternoon make an urgent statement about the state of our schools? In a school in my constituency, a three-storey wall has collapsed into a classroom. Because of the danger to the children, the school is now closed. An urgent statement about the state of our schools and about what the Government intend to do about it would be appropriate.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that the Government Whip will have heard the hon. Lady's remarks, but she will have an opportunity tomorrow to put the matter to the Leader of the House at business questions.
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just made a statement about Coats Viyella--a very well known public company--in relation to the Labour party's policy on a minimum wage. I understand that the press report has been commented on by Coats Viyella itself. The company has made it very clear that it wishes to be dissociated from the misreporting and the travesty of its views. I fear that this Minister of the Crown must have been aware of that fact as he continued to spread the inaccuracy. Does not he owe us an apology?
Mr. Speaker : I cannot be held responsible for what is said.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of Scottish questions. With respect, every time that you, Mr. Speaker, call an English Tory when a large number of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament stand in their places to be called during Scottish questions, it fuels my suspicion that you, Mr. Speaker, and some of your English Tory friends are in a--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that at once.
Mr. Foulkes : Some of your English Tory friends--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have no friends.
Mr. Foulkes : I suspect that some English Tory Members--whether or not you, Mr. Speaker, are friendly with them--are in an unholy alliance with the Scottish National party, to help the break-up of the United Kingdom. That suspicion is growing very strongly.
Mr. Speaker : I have heard many extraordinary allegations in this Chamber, but never anything quite as wild as that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. English Members of this United Kingdom Parliament do not complain when Scots come over the border and sit in English seats. Nor do we complain when Scottish Members join in English questions. They should exhibit a little reciprocity.
Mr. Speaker : I think that all Scottish right hon. and hon. Members understand this--we seem to have this at
Column 952
every Scottish Office Question Time. English Members of Parliament are called during questions on subjects that concern the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will read Hansard tomorrow, he will find that there were questions today about Germany, electoral registration, and so on. I do not propose to allow a debate on how I decide which right hon. or hon. Member to call.Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of the exchanges during Scottish questions this afternoon--when the allegation was made by some that lies were told, and others were called traitors--will you, Mr. Speaker, recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he arrange talks between Conservative Members, Scottish Labour Members, and Scottish National party Members before we next have Scottish questions, so that it may be more seemly?
Mr. Speaker : If Scottish questions were more like Ulster questions, it would probably be a happier occasion.
Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that we assume that you, are a friend to all Back Benchers ; we acknowledge that. As a Welsh-born Scottish Member of Parliament who looks after the interests of an English constituency, I acknowledge that you do your best--even though you did not call me during Scottish questions today.
In response to an earlier point of order, you said, Mr. Speaker, that you try to ensure that questions are relevant to the United Kingdom when you call English Members. Every question on the Order Paper for Scottish Question Time is relevant to the whole United Kingdom and the love that every United Kingdom Member of Parliament has for our cousins in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker : I think that I will let this blow out.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) raised his point of order, you, were smiling.
Mr. Foulkes : Smirking, in fact--as usual.
Mr. Home Robertson : You felt, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was making an outrageous point. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct that we see from many English Members during Scottish Office Question Time is helping to bring not only the Government but the House into contempt in Scotland. That matter is of great concern to those of us who want to represent responsibly all the people in Scotland. There is a constitutional crisis, which it is up to hon. Members in all parts of the House to address seriously.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one at a time. I say to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that I do not smirk. What I was trying to say--I hope that the whole House accepts this--was that I have no special friends. I think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was alleging.
Column 953
Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have already spoken about the allegations made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). As an English Member of Parliament, I take great exception to the suggestion that English Members seek to undermine the Union-- [Interruption.]Mr. Speaker : Order. That is what the hon. Member was trying to say in Question time. But he said it then, and it is not a point of order for me now.
Mr. Favell : The point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. English Members have just the same interest in preserving the union between England and Scotland as Scottish Members. Whenever the matter is raised, English Members should have the opportunity to put that point, as should Scottish Members who believe in the Act of Union between our two great countries which has existed for 300 years.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland is on record in Scotland as saying that, after the election, everyone who votes Labour will be counted as a Tory voter. May I have your assurance that you still make a distinction between the unionist Labour party and the unionist Tory party in the House?
Mr. Speaker : I shall not be here after the election, so it will not arise.
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is because of the narrow, intolerant attitude espoused by the Scottish National party that we find ourselves in this position. We have important business to deal with in the House. I rose on four or five questions but was not called. I accept that ; but I take exception to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) ranting and raving but saying nothing about Scottish issues. When people in Scotland see such episodes, they feel that their considerations are not taken care of in Westminster. If one session of Scottish Questions is not enough, I ask you to think again and do something so that the views of Scottish Members of Parliament can be taken into consideration.
Mr. Speaker : I am not prepared to have a debate on how I call hon. Members at Question Time, because it might be painful in subsequent Question Times. May I
Column 954
repeat that Scottish questions-- [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members who were called during the previous Scottish questions on 12 December--as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was--did not stand quite such a good chance of being called today. I try to call all hon. Members from Scotland fairly.Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I will not have a debate about devolution now.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us in the House do not mind the disproportionate amount of time given to Scots, Welsh and Irish questions, but hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Ireland should recognise that many of us come from areas of Britain such as the west midlands which would welcome even once a year a west midlands question time. We are the ones who provide the fuel that they consume. We are tired of the Scots being so sensitive about this being their Parliament. It is our Parliament too, and if we are to have question times for minority groups, why not the west midlands, too?
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not unsatisfactory that, in Scottish Question Time, we no longer have the 10 minutes that were given to the Lord Advocate? In those circumstances, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Question 38, which could explain why the views of the Scottish police, and, I believe, the Lord Advocate, about Lockerbie are materially different from the stated public view of the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Speaker : I have not received such a request, but no doubt the hon. Member will receive an answer to his question in the normal way.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : With friendly respect, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the gentle reprimands that you have issued to Members on both Front Benches during Scottish Question Time about what I can only describe as verbose answers--I think that you described them as "lengthy"? If you were to check tomorrow on the number of column inches in Hansard devoted to answers given by Scottish Office Ministers, you would realise that a number of Scottish Members were prevented from being called today.
Column 955
Pre-wired Plugs
3.44 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer.
On Friday, the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill which will save lives on the roads. Today, I beg leave to introduce a Bill which will save lives in the home and at work, a Bill which will make it necessary for a plug to be attached to an electrical appliance before it is sold to the general public.
I am grateful to the Consumers Association, the National Association of Women's Clubs and other organisations and to the many people who have written to me in support of the Bill. I am especially grateful to LBC Radio, to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for York (Mr. Gregory) and to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for their help. Above all, I am grateful to the BBC's "Watchdog" programme, to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to The Mail on Sunday for campaigning over a long period to ensure that this necessary safety measure is introduced.
The campaign has been necessary for two reasons. First, every year there are approximately 2,000 non-fatal accidents involving plugs which necessitate medical treatment. Sadly, there are also fatal accidents. Earlier this year, Mrs. Julie O'Toole, a 26-year-old mother from Walsall, was electrocuted when a wire came loose in a plug, making her washing machine live. That is just one of the tragedies which might have been avoided if the Bill had been law. Last year, 28 people lost their lives in similar accidents. That is a sad and horrific waste of life, which could so easily be avoided by adopting these proposals.
Research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents shows that every household has at least one potentially lethal plug. A survey of 20,000 homes discovered wrong fuses fitted, live and neutral wires reversed, earth conductors unconnected, terminal screws loose and damaged insulation. A survey of 1,000 homes by the BBC's "Watchdog" programme revealed that as many as seven plugs in each house may be faulty, often because people do not know how to fit them. The Consumers Association's home inspection survey found that one in 23 plugs are dangerous, one in nine had to be replaced because of a fault, and one in four were inadequately wired internally. When those findings are weighed against the minor cost of pre-fitted plugs--the consumer would have to buy a plug in any case--and consideration is given to the savings in time and frustration to the elderly, the infirm, the poorly sighted and the plain clumsy, like me, who find wiring plugs a difficult exercise, the case for the Bill is overwhelming.
The Government sought to improve safety by introducing the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations in 1987, which required all 13 amp plugs supplied in Britain to be approved by an authorised body. That was a major advance. Despite those regulations, a survey by the Consumers Association some time after their introduction showed that 65 of 153 plugs bought were non-approved and should not have been on sale.
Column 956
The regulations do nothing to cover the problem of faulty wiring of a plug by the customer. The Government have sought to ensure that all plugs sold are safe, but that is no help if a plug is wired incorrectly. We need safe wiring of plugs as well as safe plugs. That can be achieved by compelling manufacturers to fit moulded-on plugs to all domestic electrical appliances. That simple method would make it certain that plugs were fitted correctly and safely and were equipped with the correct fuse.I said earlier that The Mail on Sunday campaign was necessary for two reasons : first, because of safety, and, secondly, because the Government were not minded to improve the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South raised this important subject in an Adjournment debate in 1989 to voice his concern about it. He was told by the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs :
"Any proposal of the sort he has made would result in the introduction of new legislative burdens on industry and would fly in the face of one of the Government's prime vehicles for the creation of wealth deregulation."--[ Official Report,
23 February 1989 ; Vol. 147, c. 1273.]
The Minister went on to list the improvements that had already been made and he said that any further legislation would therefore be unnecessary. He reaffirmed that the Government's objective was to stimulate enterprise through individual initiatives to meet the demands of the market by removing unnecessary controls on the trading environment. He conceded that, in exceptional circumstances, one could depart from that stance, for example, because of safety considerations.
Since that Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and many others have sought to convince the Government that safety is paramount. There have been many discussions and meetings with those concerned in the past two years. The Bill is designed to bring this country into line with all the other countries in the western world.
From those discussions it has become clear that the current Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is sympathetic to the need to introduce changes to make electrical appliances safer. He has accepted the arguments put forward, and I welcome that and thank him for the work that he has done. The Minister could short-circuit the system if he sought to introduce proposals to amend the present plugs and sockets regulations. I would encourage him to do so because even if leave is given to introduce the Bill it could fall if an early general election were called. I was encouraged when I read the latest edition of The Mail on Sunday --I do not believe everything that I read in that newspaper, apart from the opinion polls--which said that the Minister might even implement changes to the regulations this week. It reported that the change would mean that, in future, all electrical goods sold in Britain would have to have pre-fitted plugs. I would welcome such a change.
The thought that my Bill may have influenced the Minister is a satisfying one. It might even tempt me to introduce another ten-minute Bill, perhaps to reduce the pension age for men from 65 to 60 in the hope that that met with similar success. However, the measures referred to by The Mail on Sunday have not been revealed by the Minister, so I have decided to introduce my Bill.
Column 957
My hon. Friend the Minister may move to higher office between now and the timing of any announcement. He may well be replaced by a Minister who is less sympathetic to my proposals. Therefore, the House should have the opportunity to enact this important legislation that would save lives and reduce injuries.Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Alton, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Sir Patrick Duffy, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. David Sumberg and Mr. Andrew Welsh.
Pre-Wired Plugs
Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Plugs and Sockets Etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987 to require pre-wired plugs to be fitted to all domestic appliances by the manufacturer : And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
Column 958
Local Authority Finance
3.53 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just been to the Board to collect an answer to a written question to the Department of the Environment. The answer affects tomorrow's debate on the rate support grant.
The question required a simple, but lengthy, calculation exercise relating to figures put before the House on 26 November in relation to the standard spending assessment report. I wanted to know what percentage of the poll tax comes from the business rate and what percentage comes from other avenues. The House should have such information and I should not have been told that the question would be answered shortly. We must have the answer immediately ; that information should be before us. The only reason that the Department of the Environment can have for not answering the question is to deprive the House of that information.
Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the Department concerned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : It was not really a point of order.
Mr. Skinner : My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just been to the Table Office and, at the end of the day, it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to adjudicate in arguments between the Table Office and an hon. Member. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to the laggardly way in which the Government are operating. Only the other day, the Prime Minister was rabbiting on about a citizens charter and answering letters on it, but the Government cannot even give my hon. Friend an answer to his question.
Mr. Speaker : Yes ; but the hon. Gentleman was complaining about the content of an answer.
WAYS AND MEANS
Education (Schools) Bill
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education (Schools) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Chief Inspector of Schools in England or the Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales under the Act.-- [Mr. Kenneth Clark.]
Column 959
Orders of the Day
Education (Schools) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1
Provision of information about complaints procedures
--.(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the appropriate authority for every school in England and Wales to which section 9 applies to make available either generally or to prescribed persons, in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed, such information about arrangements for the consideration and disposal of any complaint which is to the effect that a report of an inspection under section 9(1) or (2) is seriously misleading. (2) In this section "appropriate authority" has the meaning given by section 9.'.-- [Ms. Armstrong.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.57 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong (Durham North-West) : I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to make the Bill slightly more tolerable. We opposed the measure throughout the Committee stage because it will seriously damage standards in schools and the quality of information available to parents, local communities and members of staff. The progress that each school makes is to be monitored through inspections. The new clause relates particularly to the inspection part of the Bill.
We are still confused and uncertain about why the Government suggest that form of inspection for schools. They make no such suggestion for other parts of the public services and certainly not for the private sector. The House has roundly rejected the suggestion that those parts of both the private and the public sector responsible for services used by the public should be responsible for their own inspections, yet that is what we are considering today for schools.
There is a consensus that we need, above all, to tackle the quality of education available to all children, not just a few. That consensus should have led to improving the current inspection arrangements rather than dismantling them and bringing in private inspectors chosen by individual schools. That has been calculated to ensure that there is no national monitoring of standards in schools. No one is confident that that form of inspection will work. I confess that I have not had much time to read today's newspapers, but they contained a letter from more than 20 organisations, including all the parent organisations concerned with education, expressing their very deep concern about the inspection arrangement outlined in the Bill. Because those involved in those organisations, who give hours of their time voluntarily, want the highest standards available and the most impartial but expert inspections to ensure that those standards are maintained, they are outraged by the Government's proposals.
New clause 1 is a modest proposal--some of the more exciting plans are put forward in later new clauses. The new clause largely arises from the experiences of those of us who have been involved in public sector organisations when trying to elicit information and ensure that the
Column 960
people on the receiving end have the opportunity to find out when the information does not stand up. The clause deals specifically with the manner in which complaints can be made, and the fact that there must be clarity on complaints procedures.I know that many parents find it difficult to complain about what is happening in a school, even when they know the procedure for doing so, as they are anxious that they may affect--
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has much more information to give the House. My two youngest children go to Prescot primary school in my constituency.
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : It was named after our hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was it not?
Mr. Howarth : Actually, Prescot is spelt with one "t", which is crossed--I do not know what happened to the "i".
The excellent headmistress of that school, Nora Giubertoni, has found that the other so-called reforms for which she as headmistress is responsible, are difficult to manage. Although the school is still excellent, she spends much time messing about with budgets and tasks that she never envisaged having to undertake when she entered the teaching profession. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) give me an idea of the impact that the extra work will have on Mrs. Giubertoni and the governors who are already hard pressed?
Ms. Armstrong : My hon. Friend has made an important point. There are various sick jokes circulating the teaching profession about the amount of "overload", "innovation fatigue" and other such phrases. The Government have seriously mismanaged change in education, and my hon. Friend has shown yet another example of that.
People are not saying that they are resistant to change, but they want to be part of it, consulted about it and taken along with it. Most of all, teachers want to be able to do the job for which they were trained and for which I had always understood they were paid--teaching children well.
The Government have some ideological problem--to put it politely--with other organisations, particularly what they call the educational establishment. That establishment is a difficult one to name, and sometimes the people involved in it are called "wise men", which somewhat disturbs me, given that most of those involved in primary teaching are women. The educational establishment has been trying to get the Government to think about change in a different way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right : many teachers feel that the additional jobs that they have to do detract from the quality of teaching that the school is able to provide. I have talked to many governors who are concerned about that. They want to be involved in and consulted about inspection, but they do not feel that it is their role to choose their own inspectors.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : My hon. Friend will not yet be aware that a report has been made by Her Majesty's inspectorate on Ackworth middle school in my constituency. The report was critical in some respects of what was happening but it was found by teachers,
Column 961
governors and, above all, by parents to be extremely helpful in setting guidelines for the future of the school. I always found during my extensive teaching experience in secondary schools that the inspectorate was sensible, wise, forward looking and, above all, seeking to raise the standards of each and every pupil in the school that it was inspecting. I took that view even when I disagreed with it. Would it not be a disaster if the Bill in its entirety were to be enacted?Ms. Armstrong : My hon. Friend is right. If the Bill is enacted, it will damage standards within schools. More particularly, it will destroy the credibility of inspection. Indeed, it has already done so. I know that the Secretary of State and the rest of us will be cautious when it comes to dealing with vested interests, but organisations representing parents and others that represent governors have expressed serious concern about the basic premise of the Bill, which is that governors should have overall control in determining who will undertake the inspection of a school. Governors do not want that responsibility. They want the credibility of independent inspection and not because they want to shirk responsibility. They want everyone to know that they are not partisan over inspections. We know that rumours spread quickly within communities, and more quickly in some than in others. That being so, governing bodies feel that it is irresponsible to expect them to select inspectors.
Complaint procedures will overload governing bodies if the terms of the new clause are not included in the Bill, and the new clause is designed to ensure that the procedures are determined by the Secretary of State rather than by governors or complainants. We want to ensure that arrangements for the consideration and disposal of a complaint are clearly set down, understood and available. We had a useful debate in Committee on the importance of establishing a complaints procedure.
Mr. George Howarth : My hon. Friend has not dealt at this stage with the role of head teachers. The governing body of Prescot county primary school will find itself in difficulties. The chairman of the governing body, Councillor Harold Campbell, who is the mayor-elect of Knowsley, will be considerably overburdened on account of his mayoral responsibilities next year and may therefore find that the additional work of chairing the governing body will cause him considerable problems. Can my hon. Friend say how much additional work Mrs. Giubertoni, the headmistress, will have to do? She, too, will be greatly concerned.
Ms. Armstrong : I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me about head teachers. We discussed this issue in Standing Committee when we considered the Bill and returned to it again and again. It will lead to additional work, which may detract from the teaching and overall management of the curriculum, for which the head teacher is responsible.
In addition, the relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is very important. They must work well together. We take no pleasure in the enormous problems that are caused when a head teacher and the chair of the govening body hold completely different views about the direction that the school should take. That has led to tragic effects in Stratford school, which is having a detrimental effect on the children.
| Next Section
| Home Page |