§ 8. Mr. GrocottTo ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about his responsibilities. [9986]
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterNone, other than from Opposition Members.
§ Mr. GrocottIn view of the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome initiative in raising the subject of law and order at the weekend, will he confirm that in 1979, under the last Labour Government, the number of offences was 2,540,000 and that in 1994, after 15 years of Tory government, the figure was 5,040,000? In the Deputy Prime Minister's own language, clearly villains love Tory Governments. As Britain was unarguably a much safer place in the 1970s, will he devote his energy and attention to answering a simple question to which we all need an answer: why has crime rocketed under the Tories?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman should be fully aware that recorded crime shows the largest ever fall in a two-year period. That is in no small measure the result of legislation introduced- by the Government in the teeth of Labour opposition.
§ Mr. JenkinMay I make representations to my right hon. Friend about his responsibilities and suggest that his job will be far easier if he continues making the Opposition angry by pointing out how they have obstructed the Government's law and order policies at every twist and turn?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I did and the result is to send the Opposition into mayhem. They thought that they would get away with repeated one-off 633 opposition until someone added their comments together, to show that they have consistently resisted the Government's policies to deal with rising crime.
§ Mr. WinnickAre not some of my colleagues being rather naive when they criticise the Deputy Prime Minister for his remarks yesterday? Is it not quite clear there is no lie, no innuendo and no smear that the Government will not use to get re-elected? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister see the difference between the Cabinet Minister who resigned on principle over Westland and walked out of a Cabinet meeting and the same Cabinet Minister who today is quite happy in the political sewers using every possible political smear against any proposal?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so upset, but the truth is often inconvenient.
§ Dr. SpinkIn advising the Government on their future policies, will my right hon. Friend encourage them to avoid Labour's greatest hypocrisy—the adoption of the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would destroy jobs and businesses?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cost jobs. Coming out of the mouth of the deputy leader, that seems a pretty accurate description of the position.
§ Mr. MandelsonFollowing the Deputy Prime Minister's descent into the campaign gutter yesterday and the recent reining-in of the Secretary of State for Scotland after his misuse of civil servants and public funds in his campaigning against Labour in Scotland, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking this afternoon that those abuses will not be allowed to continue as the Tories' lies and smears against Labour mount as the election approaches—as inevitably they will?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI know that the leader of the Labour party talks only to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would send the hon. Member for Hartlepool here to eclipse his own deputy leader—a most extraordinary situation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose electioneering techniques have been the subject of great interest on both sides of the House, that nobody has brought more professional skill to the debasement of British public life than the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
§ Mr. LidingtonMay I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early and thorough presentation of Government education policy, to make it clear that, although this Government have always supported the principle of setting and streaming in schools, that is in marked contrast to the policy adopted by Labour Members, who have often denigrated and condemned that approach?
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter because I understand that it is to be the subject of a major speech by the leader of the Labour party tonight, in which he will advocate something called accelerated learning—which, in any other 634 language, is streaming. The leader of the Labour party gave his views, or at least what were his views, in June last year. He said—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I will decide whether the Minister is in order.
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterIt is not just what the Minister has to say, Madam Speaker—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. As far as I am concerned, it is what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box today.
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterThis is what the leader of the Labour party had to say—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. There can be no points of order during questions and the hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterThe House must know that the views of the leader of the Labour party on streaming are of major interest to the House. He said—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The Minister was asked a question and he is attempting to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was out of order."] It is for me to determine whether the question was in or out of order, and it was in order. The Minister will answer it.
§ The Deputy Prime MinisterI am grateful, Madam Speaker. The leader of the Labour party said on 23 June 1995:
Streaming, with its rigid distribution of children into bright, average and backward camps, is a waste of talent.Yet tonight, that is to be the major theme of a major speech. That is not so much a case of accelerated learning as one of accelerated hypocrisy.