| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Yeo: Why are the Labour Government so opposed to spending as much as we propose on schools? Do they want fewer teachers, fewer classroom assistants, less capital spending on schools or lower salaries for teachers? Is that the reason why the Secretary of State will not participate in the NUT annual conference on Easter Sunday?
Mr. Clarke: I shall be doing better things on Easter Sunday. I must confess that I have not yet decided what better things I shall be doing, but I am sure that they will be better than attending the NUT conference. I greatly admire the hon. Gentleman's courage in spending his Easter in that way.
There has been a to and fro on the serious questions about passporting. On 22 February, the shadow Chancellor stated that the money could be used for "cheap private schools" and that parents could top it up. On 6 March, the Conservative party website confirmed his statement on passporting. On 7 March, it said that the statement on 6 March was an error and that parents could not make up the difference. On 8 March, it stated that parents could use the money to move their child to another state school. On 9 March, the shadow Chancellor once again said that parents could top up for "cheap private schools". On 10 March, there was a victory for the hon. Member for South Suffolk: "Yeo knocks back Letwin" by saying that no parent would be allowed to top up the value of the passport. On 11 March, the shadow Chancellor ruled out using the passport at a fee-paying school and on 16 March, the hon. Member for South Suffolk said that parents could spend the passport in fee-paying schools. Passporting is all over the shop.
I have listened to the hon. Members for South Suffolk and for Westmorland and Lonsdale today, but I wonder what the policy will be tomorrow and what the shadow Chancellor will say tomorrow. Perhaps I can help. I shall ask one or two questions about passporting that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale must
face up to directly. [Interruption.] I prepared the questions earlier because it is important for the country to try to understand the Conservative party's policies, and a bit of preparation might have served Conservative Members better in this process.I am sure that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale can answer these questions. It is obvious that schools in London and the south-east cost more than those elsewhere. Will the voucher be less valuable in Manchester than in London and the south-east? I look forward to the answer. Will the parents of children with special educational needs or learning difficulties, who can be more expensive to educate, be entitled to a higher value voucher to account for those circumstances? Will parents of children for whom English is a second language be entitled to a higher value voucher? As was asked in an earlier intervention, will the voucher be treated as taxable income so that better-off families can be taxed on its value? Could independent schools refuse to accept a voucher as payment? If any child can take their money to any school, does that mean that admissions policies for schools would be abolished? Will there be open enrolment, however the scheme operates? If every child in an area wants to go to one particular school, how will it house the additional pupils? Will the most popular schools have to use portakabins? Perhaps the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will clarify his party's position.
Mr. Collins: To put the matter in context, the Secretary of State went through a long list of discussions, and what I said earlier is the definitive, agreed position. If he really wants to get into a debate about consistency, education policy is not the right area to choose because the Government campaigned on a manifesto pledge not to introduce top-up fees, but they are legislating to do the opposite of what they promised.
I replied to the earlier intervention about children with special educational needs, which is an example that makes our point, not the Secretary of State's. Children who have a statement of special educational needs—the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and needy children in our society—already effectively have a statement with a value that entitles them to resources. In other words, if it is good enough for the most vulnerable children and it works for them, let us extend the same philosophical approach to all parents and all schools. Why are he and his colleagues afraid of giving parents choice?
Mr. Clarke: A staggering intervention. If the hon. Gentleman had had a chance to read our White Paper on special education, which we published two or three weeks ago, he would have seen a detailed analysis of the many children who have special educational needs and learning difficulties, only a relatively small proportion of whom have statements. They are, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, usually those who have the most serious learning difficulties, although not always. The implication of what he says is that all those children with a wide range of special educational needs should have a statement with money attached to it that follows them. That is an amazing development of policy and would go
against everything that Members on both sides of the House are trying to achieve, in a bipartisan way, on special educational needs.
Chris Grayling: Given the fact that the Secretary of State is a member of a Government who will introduce a system of patient choice in health care that will allow patients to carry a block of money around the health service with them to use at a location of their choice, why is he opposed to extending the same principles to the education system?
Mr. Clarke: We are not at all opposed to the principle that parents should choose their schools—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] No, the overwhelming majority of parents get their first choice school now, and that is right. However, an important principle behind what we do—and I would hope that the Conservatives were ready to commit to it—is the provision of excellent extended schools, with children's centres, in every community and neighbourhood in Britain. That is the way forward.
We have had some partisan exchanges, but I wish to make it clear that through the settlement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday, the Government will make a profound, long-term commitment to developing education from the cradle to the grave. That is what we are about—for children, for schools, for skills, for further education, for higher education—in the deep belief that that is the way towards economic strength for our country. We have major differences with the Conservatives, but the biggest difference is the complete lack of clarity with which they address the issue except on one point—they will not make the commitment to investment that this Government will make. That will be the choice facing the electorate at the general election. I am certain that at the general election we will be in a position to gain the support of the people of this country for the long-term investment that we all so strongly need.
2.12 pm
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): It has been a fascinating debate so far. We have had a speech from the Conservative spokesman in which he was determined to prove that the Labour Government's policies were now identical to Conservative policies, followed by a speech from the Secretary of State in which he was determined to prove that those policies were rubbish. That leads to an interesting logical conclusion about the Government's policies and their view of them, but I shall move on.
I apologise sincerely on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is sorry not to be here this afternoon. He would have liked to make the points that I shall make in due course, but those who attended Education and Skills questions will have realised that his voice has again almost disappeared. He sounds like a ghost, and I have had to act as his nursemaid and send him back to Harrogate to try to recover as quickly as he can.
This year's Budget statement as it affects education is unusual in that it has received a cautious but supportive response from almost all education commentators, with the exception of Conservative Front Benchers who, I
assume, are deeply worried about how much additional cash they will have to find to give all students in private schools a £5,500 voucher. Indeed, I wonder how they intend to find the £2 billion extra to fund their free tuition policy in higher education—
Mr. McCabe : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for interrupting him, but I wish to clarify a point with you. I noticed that when hon. Members rose to catch your eye, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also rose. My understanding is that he is the shadow higher education spokesman, as he certainly was when he and I took part in a debate the other evening. Is it in order for the Conservatives to use the shadow higher education spokesman in that way in this debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is eligible to speak in this debate, if he catches my eye.
Mr. Sheerman : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the years that I have been in the House, I have never seen a performance like it by the Opposition. They have so few Members in the Chamber that they subject the House to the absurdity of people running, as if they were in a Feydeau farce, from Front to Back Benches. Conservative Front Benchers receive a large amount of Short money to pay for their private office. Is Short money now going to Back Benchers? If so, I would like some. [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |