I have no current plans to do so.
Last Sunday, on the BBC politics programme, the Prime Minister gave an excellent summary of the myriad benefits delivered by our Government’s domestic policies since 1997, but I was alarmed by his assertion that all English secondary schools should soon become academies or trust schools. If he comes to North-West Leicestershire before late June, will he meet the governors of Ibstock community college to tell us why an excellent, accessible, genuinely comprehensive school should pursue this policy path and risk distancing ourselves from the local community or being taken over for a knock-down price by the richest local bidder?
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about our record on education. It is true, for example, that when we came to power there were only just over 80 secondary schools in the whole country with 70 per cent. of pupils getting five good GCSEs; the figure is now more than 600. The reason why I believe that in future most secondary schools, or all secondary schools, will become trust or academy schools—it is a choice, of course—is that they benefit from these partnerships. In doing so, academy and trust schools remain with a fully comprehensive intake. Indeed, academy schools have a higher percentage of pupils taking free school meals than the average secondary school. We have increased results dramatically since 1997 partly because of the ability to have partnerships with outside bodies. Specialist schools were the first step in that. At the time, people said that they would spell the end of the comprehensive system; they did not. Of course, my hon. Friend has four excellent specialist schools in his own constituency.
When it comes to who should be the next Prime Minister, the Environment Secretary has now ruled himself out, so will the Prime Minister now explicitly endorse the Chancellor?
I am afraid that once again I have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman and others, because I will make my statement at the time I decide to stand down. However, I would say that after yesterday’s debate, and the absolute and comprehensive drubbing that the Chancellor gave the Tory Front Bench, he should be rather more worried about the leadership potential on his side of the House.
If the Prime Minister thinks the Chancellor did such a good job, why did not he turn up and vote for him? Was he too busy? I am not asking the Prime Minister to say anything new. Before the coup last year, he said:
“I’m absolutely happy that Gordon will be my successor.”
Why cannot he repeat those words now?
For the very reasons that I have just given. What the right hon. Gentleman, and the Conservative party, will have learned from yesterday’s debate is that when it comes to serious policy on the economy, on health, on education and on law and order, we have the serious answers to the serious questions, and he is not at the races.
The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister will not endorse the Chancellor. We know why we do not want the Chancellor—he has complicated the tax system and virtually bankrupted the pensions system, he is impossible to work with and he never says sorry. That is why we do not want him—what does the Prime Minister think is wrong with him?
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is right with the Chancellor. The right hon. Gentleman has some experience of the economy, has he not? He had something to do with the British economy once, back in 1992, did he not? He was the special adviser to the Chancellor of the time—we remember Black Wednesday.
The Chancellor has delivered the strongest economic growth that this country has ever seen, interest rates that are half what they were under the previous Conservative Government, the highest employment, the lowest unemployment for years and rising living standards. What has the right hon. Gentleman delivered for the British economy? A bit part on Black Wednesday.
More!
The council tax in Scotland raises just over £2 billion. Increasing income tax by 3p in the pound would raise £1 billion. That would leave a shortfall of more than £1 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that introducing such a scheme would lead to massive cuts in public services or tax hikes in unforeseen areas?
The policy, which we will not adopt, of replacing the council tax in Scotland with a rise of 3p in the pound in the basic rate of income tax means that—apart from the shortfall in the money, which would leave public services short of several hundred million pounds—a two-earner couple in a household, or, even worse, a three-earner household, would be hit heavily by a local income tax. That is why it is such a bad idea and why I believe that people will reject that policy on 3 May.