| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
House of Commons Stationery
3.30 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With regard to paragraph (d) of the guidance on the use of House of Commons stationery, if a letter is sent out on House of Commons stationery, which starts with the words:
- "I am replying on behalf of Tony Blair to your letter dated 3 September concerning our invitation to join the Labour party"
Madam Speaker: It is a matter which, in the first instance, should be directed to the Serjeant at Arms, who will question those concerned. If there has been misuse of stationery or postage, those involved will be required to refund the amounts concerned.
Orders of the Day
Debate on the Address
[Fifth Day]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 October],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Question again proposed.
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.--[Sir Norman Fowler.]
Education and Local Government
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.33 pm
Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside): I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
- "but humbly regret that while the Gracious Speech did introduce a number of measures already put forward by Your Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it did not also embrace other ways of raising standards in our schools including lower infant class sizes, better teacher training, stronger national targets for primary and secondary schools leading to improved literacy and essential qualifications for all; and further regret that the Gracious Speech highlighted measures which will increase division, undermine parental choice, subsidise private preparatory schools at the expense of state schools and will make it more difficult for the efficient delivery of education locally."
The Prime Minister's dictum of "Don't mess with Gilly" has become "Save me from Gilly's mess". When the right hand does not know what the far right hand is doing, no wonder it is not clear who is in charge, and no wonder there is no coherence, direction or vision from the Government.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunkett:
I will give way. This is an early start.
Mr. Arnold:
The hon. Gentleman wondered who was in charge. Will he tell us which party is in charge of the local education authorities in Calderdale and Nottinghamshire and has allowed certain schools there to get into such a state?
Mr. Blunkett:
Of course, between 1992 and 1995, the Conservatives were running education in Calderdale. They forced through the amalgamation of the two schools. If they want to start throwing darts this afternoon, I shall throw a few back.
Last week, there was to be no Government Bill on a paedophile register and no Government Bill on stalkers. That was the case on Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, the Government had capitulated and seen sense. [Hon. Members: "What has that to do with education?"] It has everything to do with a Government who do not have the first idea what they are doing, morning, noon or night. Last weekend, there was to be no ban on dangerous knives. Yesterday, there was the possibility of some ban, with a slight equivocation from the Prime Minister this afternoon.
On the "Today" programme this morning came the coup de grace. At 8.10 am, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was opening up the possibility of bringing back corporal punishment. By 11 am, the Prime Minister was on to her and had overruled. There she was, on a train somewhere trying to listen to a mobile telephone, hearing a crackling message saying, "Gilly, you've got it wrong again. Smacking is out"--
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton):
Miss Whiplash.
Mr. Blunkett:
It is not Miss Whiplash, but the Whip has intervened. The cane has been put aside for another era. Thank God for mobile telephones. If she had got off the train not knowing the answer to the question, all her Back Benchers could have continued running around with the media, as they have been, saying how enthusiastic they were about a good beating. Let us face it, the British people would like to give them a good beating if only they had the chance.
What a fiasco! Last Wednesday, the Government announced a Bill in the Queen's Speech. By the following week, they are not sure what is in or out of it, although apparently this afternoon they are.
Mr. David Ashby (North-West Leicestershire):
The hon. Gentleman is talking about fiascos. Does he realise that his suggestion of a contract between parents and teachers has been rejected by every teaching union, including the headmasters? They all think that he is talking nonsense.
Mr. Blunkett:
Ignoring the danger of apoplexy from the hon. Gentleman, let me make it clear that the Labour party is not in the pocket of the teachers' unions. We are not the poodle of any union leader. We do not jump to the television every time Nigel de Gruchy sneezes. That is more than can be said for the Secretary of State and her colleagues.
We have developed a coherent policy. We laid it before our conference a month ago, where it was agreed. The home-school contracts, which I shall deal with in a moment, were put forward back in 1988. There are no Johnny-come-latelies here. We have developed our policy coherently, through consultation.
Interestingly, that brings me to the other element in the new Tory armoury--the re-emergence of Conservative family values. We have all heard about those values over the past four or five years. I am reminded of the Parkinson syndrome, which developed a different view of the sort of responsibilities that Conservative Members so often preach about to others. Was it not amazing to find that, on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Education and
Employment was trying to alter the values forum document before it had even been published? Before we had even seen it and before people could make up their own minds, someone leaned on the Secretary of State at a party, dinner or press meeting, and she decided that the values forum document did not go far enough.
Let us have some cohesion as we try to build a genuine policy for the future of our country. Let us try to realise that economic and social policies have a major impact on the way that people behave towards one another. That is why the past 18 years have made a substantial contribution to the disintegration of Britain's social fabric, and why social cohesion is breaking down in so many of our communities. One cannot preach the sort of values and mouth the sort of platitudes that the Secretary of State mouthed this weekend when one has doubled crime and tripled the number of one-parent families.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
The hon. Gentleman speaks of preaching values. The Leader of the Opposition is against abortion, but votes for it because his constituents are in favour of it. When the education Bill is introduced and those of us who are in favour of discipline table an amendment in favour of corporal punishment, will the Leader of the Opposition vote for it because his constituents favour it, even though he is probably against it?
Mr. Blunkett:
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has lots of experience of family life and its development. [Interruption.] If his activities and speeches are anything to go by, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is shouting about gutters, knows all about them. There will not be an amendment--[Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant to say the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), and I apologise to the hon. Member for Dartford. I was heading in the right direction, but had not quite located the right bit of the county--both hon. Members are to the far right of the Tory party, and develop the same policies.
The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is that there will be no such vote. As the hon. Gentleman does on occasions, hon. Members will take account of the Whip that will be imposed--as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment knows to her cost.
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point):
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am confused because I do not know what his policy is on discipline in schools and the Government's Bill. Will the Opposition support the Government's move to increase discipline in schools, and introduce new sanctions on unruly children? Will the Opposition support those elements of the Bill? What is the hon. Gentleman's policy?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |