| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that, if the Minister mentions another hon. Member--in this instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)--he should give way to her, so that she can reply to what he has said?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to understand that that is not a point of order. It is entirely a matter of convention. It is for the Minister to determine whether to give way.
Mr. Clarke: It is very striking--
Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. It is very striking--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the House must come to order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether he gives way. We cannot have a chorus of disapproval and counter- disapproval across the Chamber; we want to hear the end of the debate in an orderly manner.
Mr. Clarke: I shall say what I was trying to say. It is striking that Opposition Back Benchers should wish to debate funding in Worcestershire, rather than their motion. It is in connection with that motion that I wish to respond to Opposition Members' assertions.
Mr. Clarke: I have made it clear that I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady.
I want to focus on the issues that the Opposition have raised--issues to which the Government wish to respond. I have begun by saying that it is common ground that we need to seek to reduce the amount of paper in schools. That is why we set up a working group, produced guidance and established demonstration projects to reduce it further. That is why we have initiated tighter action to reduce the number of documents that are sent out, and have produced guidance on changes in the law.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke:
Yes, I will. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I think that the Opposition have made their point.
Mr. Willis:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
I would have liked to raise this issue during the debate. It relates specifically to what the Minister just said about reducing the amount of paper. One of the proposals that the Government have trumpeted is the proposal to put all schools on the internet: indeed, that was a manifesto promise. At present, only one in five primary schools is on the internet. When will the Government ensure that their election promise--which has now been delivered to BT and the cable companies in terms of their franchises--is delivered to our schools, so that they can reduce the amount of bureaucracy?
Mr. Clarke:
The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing that in the House, and he has been right to do so. We have set the pledge for 2002, but we hope to fulfil it earlier. We have established a website with all the data, and schools can obtain data directly from the internet. We have launched a series of initiatives to reduce the amount of paper, and we shall proceed with that action.
What I really want to deal with, however, is the charge of opportunism that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. These are the issues, and this is what our communications are about. First, there is inspection of the Ofsted system; secondly, there is the national curriculum; thirdly, there are the performance tables and data collection; fourthly, there is in-service teacher training; fifthly, there is reform of the teaching profession and teacher training; sixthly, there are local management of schools and their funding; and seventhly, there are special educational needs. On all those issues, the Conservative Government produced legislation, and imposed burdens on schools. In every case, we are reducing those burdens and making progress.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
If the Minister's Government are as busy reducing burdens as he claims, can he explain why the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, Mr. Nigel de Gruchy, has described the Government's proposals for reform of the teaching profession as entirely inappropriate, woefully unmanageable and monstrously bureaucratic?
Mr. Clarke:
Again, I am struck by the increasingly intimate relationship between the ultra-right among the Opposition and the teaching trade unions. Consultation is taking place, and we shall of course listen to every view that is expressed.
On Ofsted inspections, we are lightening the burden where the Tories increased it. On the national curriculum, the Tories went through the Dearing fiasco, while we are reducing the burden. We do not know what the Tories will do, although we heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that they would scrap the literacy hour. We gather from the Leader of the Opposition that they will scrap the national curriculum altogether. On performance tables, we are reducing the burden.
Mr. Paterson:
Earlier, the Minister for School Standards showed infernal arrogance and breathtaking contempt for one of Shropshire's most distinguished
I continue down the list. On in-service training, it was the Tory Government who brought in Baker days in 1987, although I note that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) now wants to get rid of them. We are reducing the burden.
On the teaching profession overall, it was the Conservative Government who set up the Teacher Training Agency in 1994 and who developed the national curriculum for initial teacher training. It was the Conservative Government who brought performance- related pay into the public sector. It is we who seek to raise the esteem of the profession, to reduce the burden and to raise standards.
On fair funding, it is we who are putting more resources into schools. On special education, the Conservative Government legislated in 1993 and produced a code of practice. It is we who are targeting the real issues.
The issues are straightforward. The so-called burdens that the Opposition claim--[Interruption.] It is interesting that those Conservative Members on the Front Bench do not want to listen. That is a characteristic of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Northern Ireland spokesman. It shows what disqualifies him from his shadow role--he has no listening quality whatever.
We are reducing the burdens. We will continue to reduce them. The reason why we will continue--
Mr. Clarke:
I will not give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sorry tointerrupt the Minister. The hon. Member for Guildford(Mr. St. Aubyn) must seek loudly to make an intervention. If he is refused, he must sit down.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke:
No, I will not give way. I will finish what I have to say.
Miss Kirkbride:
Will the Minister give way?
Our drive was, is and will continue to be to raise standards for children in our schools. We will do what we have to do to achieve that. We will carry through our policy of lightening the burden to allow teachers to teach and to work more effectively.
By the opportunist step of tabling the motion, the Conservative party has turned its back on the target of raising school standards. It is focused on the wrong target. It has truly become the party of reaction and no change.
The times call for change. Our children are growing up in a world of rapid social and economic change. Schools have to equip children to master that change. Schools and teachers are there to help children. We are there to help schools and teachers to do that.
I am sorry that the Tories are sticking their head in the sand and turning their back on the process. The true burden on schools over 18 years was the Conservative Government. The electorate removed that burden in May 1997. The burden of the Tory Government having been removed, the present Government are determined on a course of reducing burdens still further and raising standards for all still further. I believe and hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their opportunistic stance and decide that they will commit themselves to what we are doing. I hope and believe--
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:--
"local Education Authorities are now employing more staff to deal with the demands of Government legislation which means less teachers in the class room to teach children"?
Mr. Clarke:
The reverse is true. I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said. She summed up the position clearly. That is the position as it stands.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |