---

Mr. Wicks: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures on education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. By the year 2001-02, it will be 4.9 per cent. of GDP. If training is added, it will be 5 per cent.

Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious purported concern about quality in education, why is it that unit funding between 1989 and 1997 fell by a massive 36 per cent?

Mr. Bercow: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. First, I think that he is wrong about the figures. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will spend a lower proportion of GDP on education than the Conservative Government. If he wishes to correspond with me about the detailed movement of the figures in relation to unit costs, I shall be happy to oblige him. I want to focus on the big picture, and he is right to encourage me to do so. I want to focus, for example, on the further betrayal of grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman knows--[Interruption.] I will deal with his point. He must exercise what degree of restraint he is able to muster as I develop my case. I hope that he will be as patient in listening to me as I was--I was extremely patient--in listening to his fascinating animadversions.

I want to focus on--

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: No, not at the moment. I want to make some progress. Members are complaining and want me to talk about other issues. I shall be delighted to do so, but I must have the time to devote to that purpose.

On 7 February 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that a Labour Government posed no threat to grammar schools,

to their continuance or to their ethos, or to their quality.

That statement was followed up by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, in a letter to the electors of Wirral, South in the by-election campaign. He stated:

A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.

Since then, they have put on to the statute book what is a one-way ratchet, allowing for the destruction of grammar schools, but not permitting their creation.

7 Jun 2000 : Column 314

The Government's record is bad, but the really guilty men are sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are in a hopeless position from which to excoriate the Government for their record. Let us turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). What has he said on the future of grammar schools? I remind him, in case he is suffering from a convenient amnesia, that, in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the hon. Gentleman argued that the Government should

legislate to remove--

as he put it--

grammar schools.--[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 376.]

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), his sidekick, who I think is giving the House the pleasure of a winding-up speech tonight, observed on 1 September 1999:

Liberal Democrats nationally are opposed in principle to selection for secondary education.

The hon. Gentleman is cheering enthusiastically at that proposition. In that case, let me say that some clear points flow from his statement. He used the word "nationally". Does he understand that it is important for observers of the debate correctly to interpret Liberal Democrats' use of language? One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what that means. The get-out clause in the hon. Gentleman's observation is, "That is what we are pontificating about at national level, but what local Liberal Democrats say and do is an entirely different matter." Is that what he means?

What does the hon. Gentleman say to his Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)--

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I will in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself. The choice is his. If he behaves himself, I will give way and if he does not, I will not.

The hon. Gentleman should tell me what his attitude is to the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Colchester (Mr. Russell), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Why do I mention those hon. Members? The answer is simple: they have grammar schools in their constituencies. Discovering from those hon. Members whether they support the retention of grammar schools in their areas is more difficult than someone who is not a dentist extracting a tooth from someone's mouth. Those people become Trappist monks in those circumstances. They are not prepared to tell us whether they support the retention or the abolition of those institutions. We all know that the Liberal Democrats specialise in chameleon politics. We all know that they say different things at different times in different places to different people for different purposes, but that is hitting a new low.

At least the Government's position is just about coherent. It is to say, "We will put on to the statute book regulations that allow for the destruction of grammar schools, but Ministers themselves will not soil their hands by getting involved in campaigns. What local Labour Members do is a matter for them." The Liberal

7 Jun 2000 : Column 315

Democrats' position appears to be for the national party directly to contradict what the local party or Member of Parliament might do. That is extraordinary.

What do the Liberal Democrats say about the explosion of red tape in our schools? Do they think that it is objectionable that schools have faced a further 2,468 regulations over the past 12 months? If they do believe that it hampers the efforts of teachers and of governors to advance the cause of educational standards, why is it that that did not merit even a brief mention in the speech by the leader of the Liberal Democrats?

What do the Liberal Democrats believe about the Government's ridiculous politically correct policy of seeking artificially to reduce school exclusions by a fixed target of one third, irrespective of the seriousness of the bad behaviour that might necessitate, in the view of the professionals, the exclusion of pupils from schools? Upon that subject, there is an extraordinary and untypical reticence from the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats aspire to be a party of government. It seems an improbable prospect but, if that is their aspiration, they ought to have something to say about a key policy of real concern to head teachers, teachers and governors.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has unveiled a common-sense Conservative policy to tackle the problem of rank indiscipline in large numbers of schools across the country, and he is receiving support from teachers and parents and, indeed, from teachers unions. I am not averse to receiving support from time to time from teachers trade unions, when we are pioneering sensible policies and they want to join forces with us.

Why did the Liberal Democrats not say a little more about the appalling failure of the Government's policies on the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for young people? What are those policies doing to advance the cause of opportunity in our society? I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, North, is aware that, of those who have gone to interview under the new deal for lone parents scheme promoted by the Government, only 4.5 per cent. have so far secured jobs--that is, 20,590 out of 454,920.

What do the Liberal Democrats think about that? What do they think about the failure of the new deal for young people? Of those who have gone through the scheme so far, 58 per cent. have ended up back on benefits. The scheme is also failing businesses, increasing numbers of which have withdrawn from it, complaining about its bureaucratic burden and administrative complexity.

What do the Liberal Democrats say about the way in which the scheme has failed other unemployed people--those who have been unemployed for long periods, who need help and deserve support, who could benefit from an active programme of public assistance but have been denied such help by the Government?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise for the fact that I had to slip out of the Chamber for a moment. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has been making characteristically pertinent remarks about my contribution. If I had gone through all the topics on which he wanted me to comment, in the detail that he demands, I would have made an even longer speech than his.

Mr. Bercow: I am happy to concede that the right hon. Gentleman must be the judge of his own speech. I said

7 Jun 2000 : Column 316

genuinely at the start that I have always had great respect and affection for him, so I will not quibble with him about that. He is entitled to make his own speech, but I thought that some of the points that I am making about Government policy and the weaknesses in it were worthy of a mention by someone occupying his high office. I accept that it is for the right hon. Gentleman to make a judgment about the points that he wants to develop.

The new deal for young people has failed the taxpayer, costing thousands upon thousands of pounds for every place. It is failing in the training and education option--

Mr. Wicks indicated dissent.

---