| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.49 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) rose--
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey(Mr. Hughes) has elucidated a serious problem, of which no hon. Member can be unaware because we encounter it in our lives and in those of our children--and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in our advice bureaux, where we encounter the enormous pressure and heartbreak of those who attend.
The hon. Gentleman's idea is a Liberal party one, which sounds better the less one examines it. How could it possibly be an advantage to nationalise the appeal system? What would be achieved by that? How could a national body lay down criteria that would help in his constituency or in mine?
One of the problems about first schools in my constituency is the priority roads scheme. It is difficult for the local authority to solve such problems, and I am not attacking it, but, if Harrow council cannot get the priority roads scheme right in Pinner, how could a national body do it? Getting that right is the solution to the problem of overcrowding in some of the schools in my constituency.
The hon. Member said that he did not mind whether the system was administered locally or nationally, but how could it possibly make rules that would be suitable for the very different areas that hon. Members represent? The hon. Gentleman's motion contains the word "independent". That sounds good, but increased independence for the appeals system can have real meaning only in the context of its effect on an individual over-subscribed school.
There is an independent appeals system, certainly in the borough of Harrow, and no doubt in the borough of Southwark. But the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned related to the inadequacies of the system that is run by Southwark. Southwark should put that right, and not a word he said about changing the framework of the structure would be solve any of those problems. It has to be done much more locally. The Bill is a curious policy move by a party that pays lip service to local autonomy. There is no doubt that the proposed legislation would be costly, bureaucratic and unworkable in practice.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about choice, so let us examine what the Liberal party means by that. Its education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is in his place, wants to remove the right of parents to choose religious grant-aided schools.
Mr. Hughes:
The hon. Gentleman says no in the Chamber, but he says yes outside. As usual, the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.
They want to remove powers from schools and give them to councils, but I would prefer the powers to stay with the schools. They want to remove the right to choose grant-maintained schools, and they are firmly against city technology colleges. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with pride about the CTC in his constituency. Liberal Members must decide whether they are in favour of them or against them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take the same view locally as his party takes nationally.
Liberals want to destroy the choice that is provided to poorer families by the assisted places scheme. They have made a specific pledge to take that away, despite the effect that that would have on the 80 per cent. of recipient families on lower than average incomes.
Perhaps Labour Members support the Bill. We all know about Labour and choice. I have a list running to two pages of Labour spokesmen who know all about choice for their own children but do not seem to know much about choice for anybody else. I support those Labour spokesmen who have done the best for their children and have made choices--whether of public, independent, grant-maintained or grammar schools or schools on the other side of London or in any other conurbation.
I support what they are doing, because they are doing the right thing as parents, and they should be protected from the wrath of members of the real Labour party who
have ganged up on them and said the nastiest things possible. [Interruption.] Oh--they have not? Well I could, of course, if I had time, list the two pages of quotes from Labour Members and, indeed, councils run by the Labour party, against those Members.
My criticism is with the policy. Because Labour Members know all about choice for their own children, understand the value of choice and wish to exercise that right as parents, how can they possibly support policies that would take that choice away from their constituents? How can they do that when they know that it is something they want to exercise for themselves?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside(Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, summed it up when he said:
Perhaps it was also summed up by one of the Labour "luvvies" with whom I had the pleasure of having lunch a few years ago--a prominent supporter of the Labour party, who wanted all the choice, all the public schools, swept away. When I said, "But didn't you send your children to public school?" I was told, "We would have sent our children to school in Switzerland, so it would have been all right for us." That is the reality of Labour Members: choice for themselves but not for other people.
The Labour party, if it chose to support the Bill, would have to explain its record in power, a period when it had a very bad effect on education, supported as it was by the Liberals. When Labour and the Liberals were in power, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion. Spending as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by one percentage point. Spending on universities fell by 12.6 per cent. in real terms. The number of full-time students in higher education fell, and teachers' pay rose by only 6 per cent. in real terms--a fifth of the rise under my party in power.
That is Labour and the Liberals on education: not a candy-floss pretence that they want choice. What they mean is "choice for us, but none for other people." If hon. Members want choice, they will reject the Bill, and vote for the Conservatives to give them choice in education.
I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):--
"I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing, and send their children to another school outside the area."
I know the effect that that has had on parents in west London, where I live, who wish to send their children to the London Oratory school--a linked school. Parents in west London are extremely angry that people from the other side of London have made it a popular school and managed to send their children there, denying the opportunity for local parents to do the same. That is a fact. It is also a fact that local Labour Members of Parliament have not lifted a finger to help those parents.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |