| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I am sad because the case has done enormous damage to the school by setting people against one another. We are now well into the fourth month, and the case needs to be resolved urgently. However, all I know is that the
independent investigation continues and that when and if the case is heard, the individual will have to provide evidence in his defence. Sadly, he is much on the defensive and unable to prove his innocence because so many of the cards are stacked against him.
The second case is that of a head of care at a special school—not a teacher, and, in many respects, unable to have some of the protections that teachers enjoy. The person has been in education all their life and at the school for 27 years. The case resulted from the suspension of a head teacher, and the local authority, Gloucestershire, called in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to carry out an investigation. I question that decision because the original charge was to do with someone else—the head and his management style—yet the NSPCC was called in and conducted an inquiry. I have written to the local authority because I would like to see the evidence that the NSPCC came up with. I have been forbidden to see it. Even more important, the individual in question has not been able to see it, even though it is the basis of the charges against him. After he and the head were suspended, both the deputy head and, eventually, three other members of staff were suspended, so at one point six members of staff were suspended. All that will have had an impact on the school.
It is very sad, because that individual was dismissed and lost his job. He subsequently got a job at another school with the same authority, but the head of that school was effectively told to get rid of him. Since then, that individual has been reported to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which will take him away from any contact with children if the complaint is upheld. That is wrong. His only recourse now is an employment tribunal. He is preparing for that now, so I will be careful not to say anything that might in any way preclude his ability to prove his innocence.
I have three worries about how the system operates and about how people have to try to prove their innocence, which is vital. The first point that I would ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to look into is the process of investigation. Whoever conducts an investigation, if one is held, whatever is found should be available to both parties. I am convinced that the defendant, as it were, does not have the same access to that evidence. That is not acceptable. We would not have the prosecution not disclosing evidence to the defence in a court of law.
My second point is: who oversees the investigation? We seem to have a flurry of governors being created—some because of the contamination, and so on. [ Interruption. ] I am now being given the nod by the Whip, so I will finish quickly. I want to know what power the local authority has to increase or change the governing body, because that can change the basis on which someone’s inquiry is held. I know that we have an inquiry and an appeal, and subsequently someone may choose to go to an employment tribunal.
My third point is about proportionality. In both the cases I have raised, neither individual had a blemish on his record. They had not been called in for a verbal warning, let alone a written warning, but both went straight on to suspension, on the basis that they would subsequently be dismissed. That shows a lack of proportionality. It also shows poor management, in that if those people were so guilty, why were they not hauled before somebody previously?
Those are grave issues. I will raise them in much more detail before the Children, Schools and Families Committee,
which I congratulate on trying to address them. For too long the issue has, unfortunately, been swept under the carpet. Other heads have been suspended for other reasons. Sadly, such events are not unusual. Something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.
4.22 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He spoke with great passion about a constituency case. Many of us have had similar cases to deal with.
I want to raise four things, but almost in single sentences. First, let me highlight to the Deputy Leader of the House the ongoing crisis facing local newspapers. In my area, the Manchester Evening News—or the Guardian Media Group, which is the umbrella company—is closing the offices of all its weekly newspapers, with 150 people being made redundant, some 78 of whom are journalists. That is very serious. How will people learn about what is happening in their local courts or, for that matter, what is going on with their local authority, local sports clubs or local charities? There will be a deficit of democracy and information. The Government should pay heed to that.
Secondly, I want to highlight the plight of savers. The issue was raised by someone who came to me and said, “I’ve got £100,000 invested with a bank in a high interest savings account and I’m getting a 0.1 per cent. return on that money. I asked the bank how much it would loan that money out for, either to a secure private individual by way of a loan or to a business, and it said 9 per cent. plus.” That bank is therefore making a substantial profit on any secure loan that it makes. The Government must take into account the position of those who have been responsible and saved—I refer in particular to the elderly and the retired, who rely on investments from their savings to provide a decent quality of life—rather than just bailing out the banks, which continue to pay substantial salaries and, yes, sadly, even bonuses.
I should also like to highlight the plight facing the Cheshire youth choir. At the weekend, I was privileged to hear it twice: once as part of a concert put on by the Macclesfield male voice choir, with which it shared the concert, and again on Sunday, when I attended the magnificent thanksgiving service in Chester cathedral to mark the 120 years of Cheshire county council. At midnight on my birthday, which was on Tuesday, the council ceased to exist, as did the six borough and district councils in Cheshire.
The Cheshire youth choir made a fantastic contribution to that service, under the inspired leadership and direction of Dr. Shirley Court. It is truly inspirational, it is magnificent, it is fabulous! I cannot find sufficient words to describe my admiration for that choir, and it is successful because of Dr. Shirley Court. Under the restructuring of local government in Cheshire, there is no guarantee that resources will continue to be made available to the choir beyond July. Will the Government tell the new authorities—Cheshire East and Cheshire West—that the choir must continue as a choir for the whole of Cheshire under the leadership of someone who is respected internationally, nationally and locally. She is unique, and if Cheshire loses her, I can only say that those who are responsible are fools.
Finally, I want to refer to the point that I raised with the Leader of the House earlier today on the Government’s proposal that Members’ contributions to their parliamentary pension should increase from 10 per cent to 11.9 per cent. That increase would be backdated to 1 April. I said that the problem with the fund is not that it has to pay out too much money to Members—there is inevitably going to be a longevity element involved—but that the Treasury has taken a contributions holiday for 14 years. The Treasury is the employer of Members of Parliament in respect of their pension contributions, but it has not been a responsible employer. Will the Deputy Leader of the House acknowledge that the Treasury has not paid its full contribution, and that that is the real problem? If Members were asked to pay another £60 a month, when their modest 2.33 per cent. increase would give them only an extra £68 a month from 1 April, it would place many of them under increased pressure. It would also be unfair, particularly when this is not their problem but a problem caused by the Treasury not meeting its commitment.
I hope that everyone has a happy Easter.
4.28 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to discover that things can go badly wrong if they do not do so. The G20 summit is taking place today, and we are going to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a few minutes’ time. One issue that I can encapsulate quickly today—although it needs to be developed—is the question of democracy. I believe that we are now being presented with the question of what Parliament is for, not only by the events of the G20 and the international context but also domestically. We must also discuss what we should do to reform our parliamentary system, given all the press engagement in these matters at the moment. The whole question of values is being inverted and overturned, in regard to what people expect of us, not merely as Members of Parliament but as people. Moral values have been abandoned to a great extent.
To return to my point about learning lessons from history, it is important to remember those who created our modern democracy in the 19th century. I am studying that subject closely at the moment, because we have to learn lessons from the way in which they created this democracy and remember them when we apply them in our own time. Our democracy is dwindling away and, in my belief, the House of Commons is becoming increasingly less important in the public mind and less relevant when the needs of the people we serve are growing ever greater.
We also have to consider issues connected with local newspapers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) mentioned a few moments ago. It was the relief, introduced by John Bright and others, on the tax on knowledge that created local newspapers. I think that today’s protesters depend on freedom of speech, but I think the question of whether that can be exercised with responsibility is another issue.
Questions relating to the BBC and the manner in which it exercises its charter are relevant, as are questions about the manner in which Select Committees are appointed and the extent to which they are or should be elected. Taking evidence on oath is another aspect. There are many questions that we need to look at. Where is the power? That is a question that we have to ask ourselves, but I shall leave that to another occasion.
4.31 pm
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): I start by thanking everyone who has participated in today’s debate. I am mindful of the time constraints, as we are due to hear a very important statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 5 o’clock.
We heard a passionate contribution from the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) to start off with. He spoke of the need for vibrant shopping centres, particularly in his constituency, although I am minded to say that it is an issue with which we can all sympathise, particularly in view of the challenges posed for retail outlets given that so many purchases are made on the internet. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Having lived in his constituency, although it was when I was at Brunel university and he was not the MP then, I can confirm that he has an excellent retail outlet in the form of Randalls—a store that I would certainly recommend to anyone visiting Uxbridge.
Returning to the speech of the hon. Member for Telford, I fully appreciate his frustration with the numerous reviews he spoke of in respect of local health services. As he said, there has been a lot of talk, but little achievement. This is not an unfamiliar story: he gets it at his local level; and the rest of the country gets it at the national level, where there are reviews after reviews after reviews. Basically, it means kicking things into the long grass, which is where they often stay—with a further review or yet another one undertaken “as is necessary”. The sad thing about it is that it costs millions of pounds, and we, the taxpayers, have to pay for all these reviews, when the money could be much better spent on front-line medical services, transport and so forth.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) addressed in his excellent speech the issue of restoring confidence in the banking system. He spoke about the need to improve the flow of liquidity, the need for individuals, as well as small and medium-sized enterprises and corporations generally, to have more funds. Yesterday, I spoke to a businessman who told me about two instances where the banks—and these are tax- funded banks—are not only being difficult about providing lending to companies and individuals, but are actively seeking to take a shareholding in successful companies.
When I asked about normal banking agreements, the reply was that these banks would prefer to take a share of successful organisations because their income would be far greater. I have to say that the individuals concerned were very frightened by the prospect. They are worried that if they say no to the banks, their banking facilities will effectively be terminated. I very much hope that the powers-that-be will look into that, as it is not for banks to put unnecessary pressure on customers in respect of their existing agreements.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) made a detailed speech about development proposals in his area. He speaks of such matters with some authority, being a past leader of the council. He raised a number of serious issues, some of which related to transport and projected employment numbers.
I have to say, on the basis of personal experience, that whenever a developer comes along and promises a huge number of jobs, I ask to see the details. On one occasion, I found that the number of professionals being employed to carry out the development had been included in the
list of people for whom jobs would be created. The impression conveyed to the constituents, with the aim of selling the project, is that x jobs will be created, but x includes the construction workers, professionals and so on who will not be around in the long term. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to obtain the satisfactory answers that he seeks.
Having heard a speech from a knight of the realm, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), followed by one from another knight of the realm, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), I suspected that a trend was developing, but I was reassured that the common man had a voice in the Chamber when we then heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson). I hope that, by making that observation, I have not damaged any prospects of ennoblement that he may have.
Mr. Rob Wilson: Where’s my knighthood?
Mr. Vara: As I say, I hope that I have not damaged my hon. Friend’s prospects.
My hon. Friend made a diligent and conscientious speech, as he always does when trying to serve his constituents to the best of his ability. He demonstrated the great depth of his knowledge of education matters when he spoke about the Learning and Skills Council. I am sure that the House was concerned to learn of the appalling conduct of Reading borough council. Of equal concern is the fact that my hon. Friend is having difficulty in engaging in a conversation with Vodafone, which I gather from what he has said is the way forward.
Chris Bryant: Give them a call.
Mr. Vara: I believe that my hon. Friend has tried that, and has not received a reply. I wish him well in his attempts to make progress on the important issue that he raised. He also raised the crucial issue—especially crucial in the present economic climate—of irresponsible lending. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House took account of his comments, particularly those concerning his constituent Trevor Howard, and that the message will be passed on to the relevant people.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a thoughtful and powerful speech about the Iraq war. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate all our brave men and women who are serving in overseas theatres, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in other posts that may receive less publicity. Having visited some of our troops in Afghanistan last November, I can verify that they are among the finest young men and women we have in this country. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other important issues, and I hope that the answers to his questions will be forthcoming.
I am pleased to say that the long-awaited inquiry for which Conservative Members have been calling for such a long time will now finally happen, although I think it regrettable that it is to be held in private. I hope that many of the questions asked in the House today, as well others asked by many other eminent people, will receive satisfactory answers from that inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the need for the House itself to receive legal advice. I do not know whether he was present during business questions this morning, when the Leader of the House said that the Attorney-General’s advice on the issue of privilege with
respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would be placed in the Library. Although that is not what was meant by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, it strikes me as an advance in the right area for legal advice to be available for all Members to view, rather than just the privileged few on the governing side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), a veteran of these Adjournment debates, made a typically varied speech. I think that we all agree with his concerns about childhood obesity, and I also hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on his suggestions as to how to convert cooking oil into carbon-neutral electricity. My hon. Friend also raised the important matter of allergies, and I entirely agree that that is an increasing issue for the national health service and primary care trusts. I echo his sentiment that treatment for allergies is patchy. Given that it is a serious issue and that it is taking lives, I very much hope that the powers-that-be will look into it. May I also join him in congratulating Southend council? I hope the people he mentioned will take note, as will the other colleagues who help run the council.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) made a very fulsome speech, although I have to say that there were conflicting instructions from those on his Front Bench: on the one hand, it appeared that the Deputy Leader of the House was being critical at one point, but I shall give him some support by saying that I think he was acknowledging the point that was being made, rather than groaning with discomfort. I just say that in the interests of cross-party support.
The hon. Member for Falkirk raised the matter of a constituent of his and the need for the Treasury to look at the qualifications for child benefit in some circumstances, and all the Members who were present will very much look forward to hearing the outcome of that, because he gave a detailed explanation of the difficulty his constituent was experiencing. He also spoke of the difficulty in getting information from some civil servants in Scotland. I, for one, certainly have much sympathy with his point about the difficulty in getting information from civil servants, Ministers and the like, given that Opposition Members regularly find that we are up against a stone wall in that regard and that very little, if any, information is forthcoming from the Government.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) also raised that issue. There were conflicting comments from those on her Front Bench on that. Her Whip, the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), expressed disapproval of her, and not, I suspect, simply because she was going on a bit, but because he would have preferred her not to criticise the Government on that particular issue.
Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. John Spellar): No, it was because she was going on a bit.
Mr. Vara: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but I am minded to say that after a drink or two he might confide in honesty, and say that he was also concerned that one of his own troops was having a go at the Government.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |