| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.19 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and not just about home affairs, education and employment. Few hon. Members were as wide-ranging in their speeches as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who somehow managed to speak mainly on the national health service, although he concentrated on the importance of local choice--a theme which of course ties in well with education issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also ranged widely. Among his many thoughtful points, I noted particularly his comment about the problem in our abuse-conscious society of ensuring sufficient male teachers in primary schools, about which we should all be concerned.
Several speakers concentrated on home affairs issues, but I wonder whether the Home Secretary expected so many to express concern about his proposal to restrict trial
by jury. The speeches made by the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)--whose constituency I hope I pronounced correctly--demonstrate that this has been an important debate, showing the House at its best, in cross-party defence of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) described as "a fundamental human right". The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) described those defending the right to trial by jury as "the forces of conservatism" but tonight's evidence suggests that, on this issue, several of her hon. Friends will line up with the forces of conservatism.
I shall refer to those right hon. and hon. Members who spoke about education matters as I discuss in more detail the Government's proposals on education. First, I have to say that the Queen's Speech does nothing to set our schools free from the bureaucracy with which the Government are burdening them, nor anything to improve standards in our schools. Indeed, the sixth forms of many schools will be threatened by the Government's measures in respect of post-16 education. The Government's proposals will threaten standards rather than raise them. The Queen's Speech does nothing to make up for the Government's failure to deliver on their pledges on class sizes, funding, bureaucracy, grammar schools, grant- maintained schools and school budgets. Coming from a Government who claim that education is their No. 1 priority, the Queen's Speech is sadly lacking in measures to tackle the practical problems faced by our schools.
The Government's programme contains two specific education measures, the first of which is the Bill relating to children with special educational needs. The Opposition will support measures that genuinely improve the quality of education for such children, but to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) I have to say that what Ministers have told us so far about the Government's proposals is less about improving standards than about the processes of statementing for children with special educational needs.
We shall examine carefully any measures that press for inclusion, to ensure that they allow each child to be provided with the education that is right for him or her. We shall oppose measures designed to achieve an artificial reduction in the number of statements, regardless of the needs of the children involved; and measures that introduce artificial targets for inclusion, without considering the needs of children. For some children, inclusion is right and works well, but for others, education in a special school is right. We do not want that option to be taken away because the Government are intent on pursuing an artificial target to grab the headlines.
I regard with great concern the pressure to close special schools that is building up in many local education authorities, including Essex, Lambeth and Gloucester. I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who knows well the problems faced in Gloucestershire. I understand that he made a thoughtful speech in which he expressed concern that the Government will pursue the issue of children's special educational needs more in terms of targets than in terms of what is right for the children.
When the Government first launched their White Paper on the subject, parents of children with special educational needs expressed concern that there might be an attempt to reduce legal rights. We shall watch that issue closely, because the Government's comments so far express a continued commitment to reducing the number of statements.
The Government's second education measure relates to post-16 education. Training and enterprise councils are to be abolished and a national Learning and Skills Council is to be set up, along with some 50 local learning and skills councils. Yet again, the Government's response to an issue is to overcentralise and to increase bureaucracy. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, the Labour Government's instincts are centralising, paternalist and sometimes authoritarian. My right hon. and learned Friend's views are shared by none other than the Labour-controlled Local Government Association, which said of the Government's post-16 proposals:
I could quote from many more statements from outside the House made by people with first-hand knowledge and understanding of training needs and the post-16 sector who are concerned about the Government's approach. I refer to a statement from a London training and enterprise council, which said that its consultation exercise with businesses
The former permanent secretary at the then Department of Employment went on to say:
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, there is a real concern that the proposals on learning and skills councils provide for a representation at local level that will make it difficult for them to relate to local employers and suit local business needs.
In the post-16 proposals there is the threat to school sixth forms. It is a threat that the Secretary of State has tried to hide behind a claimed guarantee of school sixth form funding. The guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is written. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government intend to protect the funding of school sixth forms in real terms so long as they maintain numbers. It has been made clear to head teachers and to councillors that that means that if a school sixth form drops one student, its funding will no longer be guaranteed. That is some guarantee. It is yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another.
We shall continue to examine the Government's proposals when they are published in detail on the basis of the four questions which we outlined when the Secretary of State published his White Paper. First, do the proposals involve the minimum of centralisation and the maximum of local discretion? Secondly, do they minimise bureaucracy and ensure that maximum funding goes to student education and training? Thirdly, do they ensure diversity of provision, flexibility and real choice for students? Fourthly, will they preserve the best and improve the rest? We shall also look to see whether the proposals give business a sufficient level of involvement in decision taking, and whether they will ensure that local skills gaps and training needs are addressed. Sadly, on the evidence so far, the answer to each of those questions is no, no, no, no, no and no.
We share the concern of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about the importance of ensuring that education and training balance the need for theoretical and practical knowledge. Like him, I am anxious to ensure that the more practical skills are valued equally alongside an academic education.
I have dealt with measures that were in the Queen's Speech, but the Gracious Speech also made passing reference to class sizes and performance-related pay for teachers. On class sizes, in the debate that followed the Gracious Speech, we heard the Prime Minister say in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague):
"The Government's model runs the risk of over-centralisation. The proposed structure introduces new and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy between taxpayers and individual institutions."
The proposed decision-making process would include Ministers, a new national quango, Government regional offices, regional development agencies, sub-regional learning and skills councils, lifelong learning partnerships, local authorities, schools and colleges. Funding will pass through this complex system in various ways through grants and bids. That adds up to a system that will serve only to compound the current lack of coherence in the post-16 education sector.
"showed that they are sceptical of the Civil Service's ability to achieve wholesale reform through a new national bureaucracy."
It said that the local learning and skills council boards
"should have a business and employer majority overall with at least 50 per cent. from the private sector, and that unless their role is beefed up significantly there will be little incentive for active business leaders to become involved."
The former permanent secretary at the then Department of Employment, Sir Geoffrey Holland, said:
"Companies are relegated to a minority role in the proposed learning and skills councils. The decentralised delivery model is to be abolished, giving way to central control that despite the rhetoric cannot take account of local circumstances. Further education faces a period of turbulence, with many people and organisations jockeying for position."
Mr. Blunkett:
Absolute crap.
"The approach should be much less heavy-handed."
I do not feel it appropriate to repeat the exact comment that the Secretary of State made from a sedentary position. However, when the former permanent secretary's comments about the Government proposals are described in such terms by the right hon. Gentleman, it suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen to the
comments of those who know the implications of his policies. In his usual manner, the right hon. Gentleman is chuntering and making offside comments without listening. Perhaps if he listened he would learn from what others have said.
"Our international competitors will be amazed to see us rearranging the deck chairs yet again, losing valuable time and momentum in the process."
"For the first time in 10 years, in all our schools, the pupil-teacher ratio is on the way down."--[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 28.]
It is interesting that the Prime Minister did not want to talk about class sizes--although perhaps not surprising: every time the right hon. Gentleman speaks about class sizes, he gets it wrong, so he has moved the goalposts. Sadly for the Prime Minister, even after he had moved the goalposts, he did not manage to get the ball between the posts and into the net. He was all over the place.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |