House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 May 1995

Mr. Sheerman: If the Minister is going to talk about the proper use of taxpayers' money, will he defend the information he gave to me in a written answer, that his Department is spending millions of pounds on brainwashing parents in favour of grant-maintained status, including producing a free video which is placed on every seat at every vote? That is not about choice, and it should be paid for by Conservative central office.

Mr. Squire: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would share our wish that all ballots should take place in an informed and accurate way. The publicity to which he referred must comply with the proper codes of government conduct, and it is not the equivalent of party propaganda. I certainly bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge of that subject.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the remarkable educational achievements of Southend's four grammar schools, which are unique in offering free education to one quarter of all children from Southend-on-Sea? What steps can he take to protect those schools from Lib- Lab-controlled Essex county council's appalling proposal to abolish free school transport, which will mean that freedom of choice will be available only to the upper-income groups? Would not Keir Hardie, who was a remarkable, truthful socialist, turn in his grave at the thought of that appalling proposal?

Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have considerable knowledge of the achievements of Southend schools to which he rightly refers. I was particularly saddened to read about the proposals of Essex local education authority, which, as my hon. Friend implies, can result only in ensuring that the children who go to those schools in the future are likely to be from better-off families than at present--now, they are drawn simply on the basis of their educational merit.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If state schools are now so superb, is it not time that Conservative Members of Parliament took their children out of the private sector and sent them into the public sector? Furthermore, if these schools are so good, is it not about time that a member of the royal family sent his or her children into the public sector?

Mr. Squire: Well, there was a lot of bile there, was there not, Madam Speaker? First, as a state-educated pupil, I have no reason to apologise for the state of my education then or, more important, the state of education in our maintained schools now. It is improving, but it must improve more. How the hon. Gentleman has the gall to talk about private education, given the nature of the Leader of the Opposition, I simply do not understand.

A-levels

12. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what comparisons she has made between this year's GCE A-level results and those from previous years. [23821]

Column 702

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Since 1980, the proportion of 18-year-olds achieving two or more GCE A-levels has doubled from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news about the increase in GCE A-level passes. Of course, it is due to successful Government education policies. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps he intends to take to maintain the rigorous standards of A -levels and thus public confidence in them?

Mr. Boswell: We are absolutely committed to the maintenance of standards and rigour in A-levels and that is fundamental to the remit that we have given to Sir Ron Dearing's review of the qualifications framework from age 16 to 19. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also invited the Office of Standards in Education to undertake a further inspection of GCE A-levels and to report in 1996. That inspection will deal with such matters as consistency of standards in GCE A-levels over time.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that a proper comparison of A-level successes could be made only if other qualifications on offer to older students were also taken into consideration, including the higher national certificate? Will he take the earliest opportunity to consult his hon. Friend the Minister for Merseyside to find out whether a way can be found to save the theatre wardrobe course in Liverpool--a higher national certificate course of the highest quality, which is a great success and attracts students from throughout the country, but which, unfortunately, is due to close?

Mr. Boswell: I can report to the House that, alongside the success of GCE A-levels, there has been a massive expansion in the range and quality of vocational qualifications. I advise the hon. Lady, however, not to smuggle in a question about a particular course, which I am empowered neither to provide nor to withdraw, although I recognise her concern. I cannot answer at the Box for that suggestion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that grant- maintained schools in the north-west have done especially well in their results and that no grant-maintained school in Lancaster or Cumbria has had to declare any permanent teacher redundant?

Mr. Boswell: I agree with my hon. Friend in every respect, save that her encomiums for grant-maintained schools are

characteristically confined to the north-west, whereas we on the Government Front Bench would apply them to the entire country. They are successful schools with very high standards.

Special Needs

13. Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new plans she has to meet the special educational needs of children. [23822]

Mr. Forth: The Education Act 1993 and the code of practice that came into force last September provide an improved framework for meeting special educational needs. The Department has in place a range of measures to support and monitor the implementation of the code.

Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that one of the advantages of nursery education is that a child's special

Column 703

educational needs can be diagnosed at an early stage? Does he agree that the proposed voucher scheme will mean that children from poorer families will be disadvantaged and their special educational needs will not be diagnosed at such an early stage?

Mr. Forth: No, I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Lady makes. With expanded pre-five provision, there is the potential that many special educational needs could and should be diagnosed much earlier. Whatever delivery mechanism is eventually determined, those advantages could, would, should and will be spread to everybody, regardless of his or her means.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a wide divergence throughout the country in terms of the amount of money spent on special educational needs? Is he aware of the growing support on the Conservative Benches for a national funding formula for education, so that we can have transparency in educational funding throughout the country rather than some of the money being salted away by local education authorities?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend, typically, has hit on an important point. One of the great advantages of the code of practice and the procedures surrounding it is that, for the first time, we can see much more clearly where special needs money is directed, what use is made of it and who is doing what. As we see that increasingly clearly, authorities that shortchange parents and pupils, particularly those with special educational needs, will be identified, flushed out and shamed into doing something significantly better.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23839]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Jenkin: Further to the prior notice that I have given my right hon. Friend on the subject of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will he reassure the House that, contrary to indications in The Sunday Times this week, the Government will bid for a net retrieval of power from the European institutions? Is not our resolve in this matter an increasingly defining issue between the Government and the Opposition? Does he agree that our determination to secure the powers of the nation state contrast utterly with the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing but a soundbite and a submissive smile-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us make some progress.

Mr. Jenkin: I see that the yobs are out in force today, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition's idea of a nation state is Europe.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the broad subject that he intended to raise. I did read the speculative story in The Sunday Times , which is speculating on decisions and matters that

Column 704

are still under discussion, which have not remotely been concluded and will not be concluded for some time. The general approach that the Government will take has been set out on many occasions. We believe that Community action should be used only where it is necessary and valuable and should not include going into what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the nooks and crannies of daily life. At the IGC, I shall block any attempt to extend Community competence into intergovernmental areas such as foreign affairs, defence and home affairs and I shall aim to strengthen subsidiarity, which has already led to a reduction in Commission activity. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the differences between the Conservative party and the Opposition, and they become clearer.

Mr. Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that the new committee on Nolan will look at how, not whether, it implements the Nolan recommendations. Can I take it that that includes the specific recommendation that the amount paid to Members of Parliament under outside consultancies will be included?

The Prime Minister: Let me make it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in the House, without any dissent from him or any other hon. Member, when I set up the committee. I said then: "Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide."--[ Official Report , 25 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 759.]

We have now seen the report. I have said repeatedly that I favour greater transparency and accept the broad principles of the Nolan committee. We need to examine how those principles will work and what their implications will be for Parliament. I hope that that can be done on an all-party basis, which would be in the interests of the House, so that the country can see that the House is seeking to live up to the highest standards which I wish it to have and which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has also said he wishes it to have.

Mr. Blair: I welcome that and I take it that that answer ensures that the new committee will look at how but not whether the recommendations are implemented. Can the Prime Minister therefore say whether it is his understanding that the new committee will report before the long summer recess its recommendations on how the Nolan recommendations are to be implemented?

The Prime Minister: We have set out some detailed proposals on what might be the remit of the committee and they are the subject of current discussion with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Those discussions must continue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the hope that an agreement on that remit is reached. On the speed of reporting to the House, I certainly anticipate that the committee will make rapid progress. I hope that agreement could be reached on publishing at least an interim report before the House rises for the summer recess. The committee itself must determine how rapidly it can discuss the matters in question.

There is no doubt among those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the Nolan committee report that it refers to many matters of great difficulty, on which the Nolan committee believes the House should decide how

Column 705

they are carried forward. This is a matter of great importance to the future of the House and it is vital that it is properly examined and got right.

Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Ministerif he will list his official engagements for Tuesday23 May. [23840]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at 6 o'clock last night, the House rejected a Labour-inspired amendment that would have cost the taxpayer £250 million. Is he also aware that, at 6 o'clock last night, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing an audience of City fat cats-- [Interruption.] --and promised to renounce the high tax and spend policies that have characterised every Labour Government since the war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the fifth time the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong? He was wrong on the Common Market; wrong on defence; wrong on industrial relations reform; and wrong on privatisation. Five wrongs do not make a right leader for the country.

The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the coincidence of timing between the Opposition amendment, designed to spend more public money, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to cut inflation and cut down on public spending. I have to say to the House that I am unsurprised by that contradiction, which is by no means the only contradiction between what the leader of the Labour party says and what the Labour party does. Every time we have dealt with monetary policy to restrain inflation, we have been criticised by the Opposition for putting interest rates up. Every time there has been a dispute of some sort, they wish to spend more money on it. Every time we have tried to restrain expenditure, they have called for more expenditure. There is, to put it kindly, a disconjunction between what they say and what they do.

Q3. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Ministerif he will list his official engagements for Tuesday23 May. [23841]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the latest edition of the "Socialist Economic Bulletin"--[ Laughter ]-- which demonstrates that, since 1979, dividend payments as a proportion of gross domestic product have increased by £22 billion per annum, while manufacturing investment last year was only £12 billion? What can the Government do to ensure that increased dividend payments do not squeeze out productive investment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be less surprised than others to know that I have, in fact, read the "Socialist Economic Bulletin" --not least because he invited me to do so before answering his question this afternoon. [Laughter.] Old Lambeth connections die hard.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman understates the importance of dividends, which, with capital growth, are the reason why people invest in the first place. We have at the moment perhaps the best environment for

Column 706

investment in this country that we have had for very many years. Three years of steady growth with low inflation has given companies the stability to take investment decisions in a secure economic environment. We can see now that investment is increasing, and the Confederation of British Industry forecasts manufacturing investment growth of 8 per cent. in the next year.

Since 1980, United Kingdom investment has grown quite substantially. In the present economic environment, I would expect it to continue to do so.

Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great anxiety about organised crime in this country? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition is shortly to take a Labour roadshow to north Tyneside, and would it not be appropriate if that entertainment included the Labour leader's opinions on the current police investigation into serious allegations of corruption and organised crime in the north Tyneside Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know the enthusiasm with which the Labour party likes to see matters examined and debated publicly, so no doubt the party itself will wish to hold a public inquiry into any allegations against any aspect of the Labour party.

Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Ministerif he will list his official engagements for Tuesday23 May. [23842]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind the sleaze and the conduct of this place, which is a debate that has been going on for some time, if the Prime Minister really wants to demonstrate to the public at large that we are going to get our act together in this place, will he ask the Conservative members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to stop blocking the consideration of evidence and remove the Tory Whip, so that we can proceed in a proper, democratic way?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the powers, influence and independence of Committees such as the Members' Interests Select Committee.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the Whip.

The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman shouts himself into trouble, I should like to say that he also knows that the membership of that Committee is approved by the House before it sits.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous to try to set economic tax rates by taking the international average? Was not the import of the Leader of the Opposition's speech last night simply to try to disguise, in his characteristic way, his intention of increasing income tax rates? I take that because most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a higher rate of tax than this country. Instead of saying it directly, as usual the Leader of the Opposition tried to disguise it behind words.

The Prime Minister: It is clear that there was a certain lack of transparency in what the right hon. Gentleman said

Column 707

last night. There is no doubt that the UK top rate of income tax and national insurance contributions is the lowest of any country in the European Union, and we have every intention of keeping it that way. We also have the lowest main rate of corporation tax among the major industrial countries, and the burden of taxes on business in the UK is lower than in any other G7 country except Canada. That is in spite of the increases in taxation that we have had to undertake in the past few years to deal with the expenses following on the recession.

However, as the right hon. Gentleman is obviously worried about tax levels, I hope that he will demonstrate that, if and when we are able to reduce taxes, by joining us in the Lobby when we do so.

Q5. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Ministerif he will list his official engagements for Tuesday23 May. [23843]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: Would it come as a surprise to the Prime Minister to learn that I am one of his admirers--indeed, I might be his only admirer? In that capacity, does he accept my great anger at the outrageous attack made upon him by Margaret Thatcher who, in her book, likens him to some sort of incompetent train spotter? That is a disgraceful attack and I think that we all feel very strongly about it. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to

Column 708

damn all Mrs. Thatcher's policies that have got him and his Government into the appalling mess in which they now find themselves?

The Prime Minister: The fraternity that exists between former Lambeth councillors perhaps does not entirely extend to the hon. Gentleman. It is less of a surprise to hear that he may be an admirer of mine than a shock and a disappointment.

Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among some Conservative Members at the idea that homosexuals may shortly be admitted to the armed forces? Is it not true that a barrack room or a ship are not just places of work for service personnel but their homes? Should we not take account of the wishes of service personnel in making that decision? I ask for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will uphold the promises that were given to the House before legislation to remove the criminal offence of homosexual activity in the armed forces went through Parliament without a vote. Will he assure the House that, if the present court case overturns the status quo, the matter will be brought to the House so that we have the opportunity to reverse the decision?

The Prime Minister: The House reached a decision some time ago and I do not wish to anticipate the result of the current court case. Clearly, if it produced a different set of circumstances, we would have to examine it.

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that the service chiefs have made their view clear about the matter, and I share that view.

Column 707

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page