---

Mr. Blunkett: I have become used to the Conservative party treating us as the Government and itself as the

21 Nov 1995 : Column 465

Opposition, but I was under the misapprehension that we were debating the Queen's Speech, which was drawn up by the Cabinet, not the shadow Cabinet.

I should be happy to spell out our policies, and I will do so in a few moments, but first I will talk about the Queen's Speech, which I should have thought Conservative Members would have been proud to debate. If the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), the chairman of the all-party Select Committee on Education and a long-standing Conservative, is anything to go by, however, the policies of the present Secretary of State for Education and Employment do not meet his desire, or that of many other Conservative Members, for a change in education policy.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Will the hon. Gentleman explain, as he is moving the amendment tabled by the Official Opposition on the motion on the Queen's Speech, why such a large number of his own Back-Benchers are so dissatisfied that they have tabled an amendment of their own? An amendment has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Why do those Labour Members have to table a separate amendment?

Mr. Blunkett: May I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker? Is the term "prat" unparliamentary? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I would not recommend it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a very wide vocabulary, and he can do rather better than that.

Mr. Blunkett: Let me answer the question in this way. Anyone who could put that question in the way that the hon. Gentleman did has no intention of debating the Queen's Speech, which his right hon. Friends have put together and moved. If a Government can suggest that the main priority for education, training and employment is to open up divisions that have already damaged the education of so many children by returning to grant-maintained status, by emphasising that the Government want to take away parental rights by denying parents in schools throughout the country the opportunity to vote on the status of their school, it is no wonder that Conservative Members are keen to get off the debate.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No: I shall make a little progress, and then I will happily give way.

Grant-maintained status, what might be described as GM, or "Gillian's misery", has no relevance whatever to the needs of children throughout the country. To suggest, as the Government are doing, that they should take away the right of Church schools to be able to determine, through the normal mechanisms, through the decision of parents, their status and their future is a disgrace.

Let me remind Conservative Members what was said on 19 April last year. I shall quote, as I think it is important:

"We have constantly emphasised the centrality of parental choice in our education reforms. It is built in to the legislation governing the arrangements for grant-maintained status and there must be no further legislation this Parliament. Parents decide. Governors and parents may initiate. But it is the body of parents who ultimately must decide."

21 Nov 1995 : Column 466

That was said 18 months ago by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten).

I never thought that I would see the day when the present Secretary of State outstripped her predecessor in right-wing ideology, but here we have a Government who are consulting--well, they use the term "consult"--on the suggestion that 4,000 voluntary aided schools should be forced to become grant-maintained; on whether parents should be denied the right to decide whether they should become grant-maintained or whether rights that they already have should be taken away.

It is no wonder that the Anglican Church has condemned it and that the Catholic Church has described it as discriminatory and divisive, because that is precisely what it is. It discriminates. It divides. It undermines the education service and the partnership we applaud between Churches and local education authorities, among all schools, working together in the interests of their children and their community.

Mr. John Carlisle: What would the hon. Gentleman say to my constituents, who are voting with their feet and are applying to Icknield high school, a grant-maintained school in my constituency, in such enormous numbers that its waiting list keeps rising each year? That school has achieved excellent results as a grant-maintained school in the league tables that were published this morning. Would the hon. Gentleman deny them the right, to which he so proudly commits from the Opposition Benches, to go to that particular school?

Mr. Blunkett: I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must have missed the point. We are not denying anyone rights; it is Conservative Members who propose to deny parents the right to choose, and Churches the right to operate in the system that they already have. As in "Alice in Wonderland", the word "choice" means what the Government say it means. It means "no choice": it means removing rights and diversity.

It is clear from what the Prime Minister said in Birmingham on 12 September that he and his Secretary of State are completely at loggerheads about how to proceed.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: If there were as much activity in the hon. Gentleman's brain as there is in his legs, we should make much more progress.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Blunkett: In a moment. I want to make some progress first.

The Queen's Speech contains a proposal to allow grant-maintained schools to borrow against their assets. Well, only against some of their assets: they cannot borrow against core activities, or--according to the Prime Minister--against the playing fields that he has frequently appealed to them not to sell. Nor can they borrow against their major activity in delivering a service: they cannot borrow against more than 5 per cent. of their total assets.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, not now. I will in a few moments.

21 Nov 1995 : Column 467

The proposal appears to be that the breach in the previous definition of the public sector borrowing requirement is to amount to a grant-maintained school's borrowing against the price of the front gates. That is about the measure of it. Let me make it clear, however, that by changing the rules and presenting their new proposals, the Government open up all sorts of possibilities.

I am not talking about the possibility of dividing the education system, so that some schools are given opportunities that are denied to others, and some are given resources to invest in repair and maintenance--to restore a roof and stop leaks, for instance--while others must put up with the inadequacy of the borrowing permission from the Secretary of State. Instead, all schools could be united, with the possibility of a public-private finance initiative that would enable us to overcome the problem of the £4 billion--at a conservative estimate--repair and maintenance bill facing our schools.

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State, on Second Reading, how the new rules will apply, and how the Treasury's "finger in the dyke" has been pulled out in terms of the definition of the PSBR.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) first.

Mr. Cohen: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to a reduction in class sizes to a maximum of 30 for five to seven-year-olds, but I for one fear that it may not be sufficient. Many schoolchildren may not have the basic skills defined as necessary by my hon. Friend by the time they are seven. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, if he becomes Secretary of State for Education in a Labour Government, he will not close his mind to the possibility of limiting class sizes to 30 higher up the scale as well?

Mr. Blunkett: God forbid that I should have a closed mind on the improvement of standards, and the provision for all children of the opportunities available to those who buy private education for themselves and their children. In last week's report, the chief inspector said, choosing his words carefully, that class size alone--he used the word "alone"--would not determine the quality of education. Who could possibly disagree with that?

However, class size clearly makes an enormous difference to the time that can be allocated to a child with special needs, or with access to particular opportunities; it makes excellence available to each individual in the classroom. We shall do our utmost as part of our commitment to standards and opportunities to offer the many what has previously been available only to the few.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman says that Labour opposes the sale of school playing fields for development. Will he support my strong opposition to Ealing Labour council's strenuous efforts to sell the playing fields of Dormers Wells high school for housing development? Will he support my efforts to stop that council, because my Government are giving me good support?

---