| Home Page |
Column 121
House of Commons
Tuesday 27 February 1990
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Clyde Port Authority Bill
London Local Authorities
(No. 2) Bill-- [Lords] Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 1 March.
Oral Answers to Questions
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
Teachers' Pay
1. Mr. Haynes : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress towards setting up new collective bargaining arrangements for teachers.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor) : I held a series of constructive meetings with the teacher unions and employers towards the end of last year. I am considering carefully the points put to me, and will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.
Mr. Haynes : That is not good enough. I want a firm commitment from the Secretary of State on whether the settlement in 1991 for teachers will be reached only by negotiations between the teachers and the employers. I want to know today--not next week or later, but today.
Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes his points very loudly and forcefully to the teaching unions. If he does, he will know that they are divided about the right way forward for the long-term pay machinery. That is one difficulty preventing us from reaching a conclusion on the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aiming--I hope that agreement will be reached on this for next year--to replace the interim advisory committee by a long-term arrangement.
Mr. Pawsey : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not want son of Burnham, or Burnham mark II, or any of that nonsense? Does he agree that we want improvements in pay matched by improvements in professionalism in the teaching service? We need a well-motivated, well-trained teaching force which can impart a love of learning to the nation's children.
Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. On the first point, I think that Burnham now has very few friends. There seems to be general agreement that
Column 122
we do not want to return to that system. Difficulties arise because there are divided views about what should replace it.On the second point, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that my immediate acceptance of the interim advisory committee's report on teachers' pay, with its far-reaching recommendations, will help to provide a better career structure for teachers. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of professionalism among teachers. It is extremely important, and I know that the vast majority of teachers set store by it.
Mr. Simon Hughes : What is the Secretary of State waiting for? Does he realise that the sooner he announces a date for meetings with the unions --given that there has been no meeting since November--the sooner the confidence of the profession will be restored? Many teachers are unhappy, as he well knows, with the 7.3 per cent. or, according to his figures, 8.3 per cent. increase. Teachers are not responding by coming back in shortage areas, and they will do so only when they know that they can put their case, the Secretary of State can put his, and there will be proper discussions and agreement about what they should be paid. What is he waiting for?
Mr. MacGregor : The first thing was to get the April 1990 settlement out of the way. We have still to do that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because I am still consulting teacher unions and employers on the interim advisory committee's recommendations. I have accepted those excellent recommendations, and I hope that they will, too, because I believe that they will make considerable improvements to the structure and the overall position of teachers' pay. The next stage is to continue discussions on long-term machinery, and I hope before too long to be able to embark on the necessary round of meetings on that. But we must get the discussions on next year's settlement out of the way.
Music Teaching
2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the teaching of music in schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : Music is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. This means that it will form part of the curriculum for every pupil aged five to 16 in maintained schools in England and Wales. We hope to make an announcement soon on the machinery to be set up to advise on the national curriculum requirements for music.
Mr. Devlin : Is my hon. Friend aware that in Cleveland substantial fees are now proposed for children taking part in musical activity out of school hours, if the school is not under direct local education authority control? The basis of the scheme is that the amount will be deducted from the budget of all county schools as part of the central funding arrangements under the local management of schools. The parents of children attending private schools, and other schools outside LEA control will have to pay a substantial sum each term, despite the fact that they already pay rates or community charge.
Mrs. Rumbold : I was not aware of it, but I deplore it. Traditionally, children attending independent and LEA
Column 123
schools have been able to take part in extracurricular activities such as playing in local youth orchestras. Asking the parents of independent school pupils to pay exhibits vindictiveness on the part of the local authority, and I hope that community charge payers will take up the matter with their local finance directors.Ms. Walley : Is the Minister aware that music has been designated an official shortage subject? Many schools have no music teacher in post, making it impossible to introduce the national curriculum.
Mrs. Rumbold : We are taking steps to ensure that there are enough music teachers when the national curriculum music requirement comes into full force. We are already looking to schools to deliver the music element of the national curriculum--as they are under an obligation to do--and we trust that when the official requirements come into force in two years' time, there will be enough music teachers to carry out the necessary duties.
Mr. Key : Will my hon. Friend reconsider the question of solo and group singing teaching? Despite her best endeavours, the continuing confusion about charges is very detrimental to music nationally.
Mrs. Rumbold : I shall certainly undertake to do that. When choral singing is part of the school curriculum there is no question of charging for lessons, but when individual tuition is given for purposes unconnected with examinations, schools may charge under the legislation.
Qualified Teachers
4. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to attract qualified teachers back into teaching and if he will make a statement.
Mr. MacGregor : From April 1990 I am making education support grant available to 45 local education authorities to support expenditure of £4 million over two years for recruitment of qualified teacher returners and mature new entrants to teaching. In addition, the work of the teaching as a career unit is to be expanded, and that unit's conferences and published advice to LEAs on returners will be provided in the spring.
Mr. Marshall : I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, despite the fact that I am an Opposition, not a Conservative Member. Does he consider, however, that the comparative failure to attract sufficient teachers back into the profession shows, first, the continuing pressure on teachers caused by the introduction of the national curriculum, and, secondly, the low morale that is endemic in the profession as a result of a continuing lack of resources and comparatively small salaries?
Mr. MacGregor : Considerable numbers of teachers are joining and returning to the profession each year. According to the provisional figures for 1987--the latest figures available to me--the number is approaching 30,000, of whom more than 16,000 are re-entrants. But I agree that this is an important matter. Not least because of the demographic downturn in the number of school leavers, there will clearly be competition from all employers. As a high proportion of qualified teachers--for
Column 124
entirely respectable reasons--are not currently teaching, they will comprise a significant element of the profession in the 1990s. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of ensuring that teachers overcome their fears of the national curriculum. That is one reason why I am making the money available : it is intended to enable teachers who are not teaching at present to keep in touch with developments.Mr. Dunn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the south-east national pay scales and national pay bargaining are a tremendous disincentive to the recruitment and retention of teachers? Does he agree that it is time to move towards a position where schools set the salary levels that they wish to offer, if they are to retain and attract teachers?
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend will have noted the considerable increase in flexibility locally and in schools as a result of the interim advisory committee's recommendations this year, which the committee described as far-reaching. I greatly welcome that increased flexibility, which is one of the many merits of the report. It will go a considerable way towards achieving my hon. Friend's objective.
Ms. Armstrong : The Secretary of State will know that we lose more women from the work force for longer periods than do our European competitors. According to an Equal Opportunities Commission survey last year, the main reason is the lack of adequate quality child care. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that there are sufficient nursery places so that women teachers can confidently return to the classroom?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Lady is right to focus on this important group of people. About 250,000 qualified teachers between the ages of 31 and 44, most of them women, are not teaching for perfectly respectable family reasons. It is important to attract them back into teaching. A range of measures is required : supportive and flexible working conditions, flexible pay, part-time work and job share opportunities, together with the child care provision that the hon. Lady described and the access to in- service training that I described. That is important and I am keen to encourage it. I had a meeting recently with the National Union of Teachers at which we discussed its good pamphlet on the subject. I agree with the vast majority of the pamphlet's contents.
Village Schools
5. Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding small village schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth) : My right hon. Friend regularly receivesrepresentations about rural primary schools which are the subject of reorganisation proposals.
Mr. Bellingham : Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are pleased with his positive attitude towards small schools? Will he turn his attention to Syderstone primary school in my constituency which is being considered for closure by a Norfolk county council sub- committee, although we hope that it will change its
Column 125
mind? Although only 19 children are on the school roll at the moment, there are 47 children of primary school age in the village. Evidently, there are special reasons for the fall in numbers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward is for the school to be given a reprieve to enable it to build up its numbers?Mr. Howarth : If proposals are published to close Syderstone primary school, the case could come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision, so my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment. I have, however, noted my hon. Friend's active concern about the school--as, I am sure, have his constituents. I assure him that any points that he puts to us on behalf of his constituents will be considered carefully. On the more general issue, we recognise that small schools can provide excellent education. We also recognise that rural schools play an important part in the life of the local community. They are some of the factors that my right hon. Friend takes into account when he makes judgments on these cases.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : If all that is true, why do the Government insist on placing on counties such as Cumbria the responsibility to close rural schools by cutting their budgets? In the county where I live, people pay taxes for education and they want those schools to be retained. They cannot understand a Government who say, "Keep them", while also saying, "We intend to take your money away so that you will have to close them."
Mr. Howarth : Underoccupied schools carry high unit costs. That is a consideration which local education authorities should properly take into account. They should also take into account the quality of the education provided by the schools and the wishes and needs of the local community. It is for local education authorities to initiate proposals.
Miss Emma Nicholson : Does my hon. Friend accept that although I welcome his support for small primary schools in villages, the cut in planned expenditure from Government central funding for Devon will inevitably harm the capital expenditure proposals for Horrabridge county primary school, where the children have to cross two main roads from one set of temporary classrooms to another, which is wholly unacceptable?
Mr. Howarth : The annual capital guidelines that we issue to local education authorities on the capital expenditure that they may undertake on schools are based on well-understood criteria and priorities. If Devon's capital guideline does not in all respects match my hon. Friend's desires, that is because the bids put forward by her county did not closely match our priorities. It is entirely for the authority to make its own determination on whether to spend money on an individual county school.
Sport
6. Miss Hoey : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about the provision of sport in schools.
Mrs. Rumbold : Sport in school is an important part of physical education, which is now a foundation subject in
Column 126
the national curriculum. I welcome also the wide provision of sporting opportunities for young people outside the school day.Miss Hoey : Is the Minister alarmed at the way in which sport in schools is being affected by the severe shortage of physical education teachers, which is as much as 22 per cent. in some areas? Does she agree that the Government have downgraded physical education by not yet setting up a formal working party to look into the physical education curriculum?
Mrs. Rumbold : It was only a short time ago that we had a considerable surplus of physical education teachers in Britain. I agree with the hon. Lady that at the earliest possible moment we should set up a working group to look into the provision of physical education in schools under the national curriculum. The issue raised by the hon. Lady will also be considered.
Sir John Stokes : Although the battle of Waterloo may not have been won on the playing fields of Eton, does my hon. Friend agree that sport plays an important part in encouraging leadership among young people? Will she have a word with the public schools and ask them to help the state sector in improving sporting facilities?
Mrs. Rumbold : I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I agree that physical education and sport are a very important part of school life. As it will be part of the national curriculum, where necessary we shall be able to improve the standard of sport in the maintained sector. I am glad that England is doing rather well in rugby union and cricket.
Mr. Fatchett : Although the Minister may take some immediate comfort from what is happening in Jamaica, will she confirm that in the vast majority of schools in Britain there are serious risks to the continued provision of school sport and physical education? Will she also confirm that the local management of schools, the privatisation of leisure facilities and the general squeeze on budgets caused by the poll tax put school sport even more at risk? Although there may be optimism today, in 10 years' time, unless there is a change in Government policy, fewer people will be playing sport at international level.
Mrs. Rumbold : I remind the hon. Gentleman that physical education is part of the national curriculum. It is highlighted precisely because of our concern about the decline in sporting facilities and physical education over the past 10 years and considerably beyond that, because of the attitude of some teachers towards competitive sports. We consider competitive sports to be an important part of education, but sadly teachers in charge of physical education did not always agree. I am convinced that the introduction of physical education as part of the national curriculum will dispel the nonsense about competitive sports and that youngsters will be encouraged to play sport as part of their total school curriculum.
Sir Anthony Grant : Is my hon. Friend aware that the half-baked attitude of some teachers who oppose any competitive sport is the greatest possible impediment, and that it is of considerable concern to Cambridgeshire county cricket association?
Mrs. Rumbold : My hon. Friend is right. The rubbish and nonsense that have been spoken about the dangers of
Column 127
competitive sport for small children in particular have undermined the provision of physical education and sport in schools. Young children enjoy competitive sport. We should encourage that, not discourage it.Student Loans
7. Mr. Kennedy : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on progress towards introducing top-up student loans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson) : Having had an easy passage in this House, the Education (Student Loans) Bill is having its Second Reading in another place today. Rapid progress is being made on preparatory work. Subject to Parliament's approval, we are well on course for providing extra resources for students this autumn.
Mr. Kennedy : I congratulate the Minister on finding a fantasist to draft that reply. Given the utterly disastrous meeting on 19 February of the leaders of the main education institutions, who made clear their implacable hostility to the proposals, and the absurd fact that the Government Chief Whip in another place is today imposing a three-line whip and saying that this is an issue of confidence, will the Minister at least display even-handedness? He accepted, with some magnanimity, the decision of the high streets banks to withdraw. If the independent education institutions hold their line not to co-operate, will he adopt an even- handed attitude and not force them when he was unable to force the banks?
Mr. Jackson : The Government are considering whether they need the co-operation of the higher education institutions in providing this money for their students. When we have made up our minds, we shall decide whether to table an amendment to the Bill, as they have invited us to do.
Mr. Brazier : Does my hon. Friend agree that such loans are a feature of the education systems in America, Japan and many European countries, including several Socialist countries? Does he further agree that those who have the advantage of a university education should make some repayment to the state?
Mr. Jackson : A striking feature of the debate on student loans was that all the major contributors, including the vice-chancellors, to whom the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred, favour the principle of a graduate contribution. That is real progress. The only dissenting voice is the Opposition, but it appears that even they have dissenters on that point in their ranks in the other place.
Mr. Win Griffiths : Does the Minister have any idea how the student loans scheme will work? If he has, why did he not tell us during debates on the Bill? If he does not, why, after more than two years, has this not been solved?
Mr. Jackson : We have a very good idea how the student loans scheme will work. It will work very well.
Mr. Harry Greenway : Will my hon. Friend spare a thought for my student constituents, many of whose grants have not been paid by Labour- controlled Ealing council for last term, let alone this term? That council, like the Labour party, opposes student loans. Students are
Column 128
forced to take out loans at high interest rates to pay for their board and lodging. Is not it time that the hypocrisy of the Labour party and Ealing council ended and that they looked after students properly?Mr. Jackson : I commiserate with my hon. Friend's student constituents. I have been in correspondence with Ealing council about the matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the availability of student loans will provide a resource for students which will make them more independent of the local authority grant system and of their parents.
Mr. Andrew Smith : Are not the procedures that the Secretary of State announced yesterday further confirmation of the vast and sinister big brother bureauracy that the Government are imposing to run the scheme? Specifically, can the Minister assure the House today that the Student Loans Company will not have access to individuals' tax records and that he will reimburse institutions for the additional administrative costs incurred with the loans scheme and with the access funds?
Mr. Jackson : The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, goes over the top. There is nothing unusual about the arrangements that we are making for student loans. The loan is simply a form of customer credit and is common in other cases. There is no question of access to tax records. Indeed, that is one of our arguments against the proposal for a graduate tax which is favoured by the
vice-chancellors. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on the fact that many people will have borrowed substantial sums from the taxpayer to finance their higher education and will have derived benefit from that. They will be under an obligation to repay that money to the taxpayer and it is perfectly reasonable that best commercial practice should be followed by the Student Loans Company in pursuing defaulters.
Undergraduate Course Applications
8. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the trend in the number of applications for full-time undergraduate courses at universities and polytechnics since the Government announced their plans for introducing a student top-up loan scheme.
Mr. MacGregor : Applications for 1990 admission to full-time undergraduate courses received by the Universities Central Council on Admissions and the Polytechnics Central Admissions System by mid-December were at least 6 per cent. higher than comparable figures for the record 1989 entry. Full-time admissions to universities and to the polytechnics and colleges funding sector in 1989 are estimated to be 10 per cent. higher than in 1988.
Mr. Mitchell : In view of the widespread welcome that the Government's plans for expanding the higher sector of education have received and the fact that they must also be paid for, is it not perfectly fair, right and proper that students themselves should make some modest contribution to the expense of implementing those plans?
Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It should also be borne in mind that many of the taxpayers who will be helping to fund students during their period at
Column 129
university or polytechnic will, throughout their working lives, be earning a good deal less than the students will earn when they get into work. That is an additional reason why it is reasonable, as in so many other countries, to ask students to make a small contribution through the loans system. That has widespread support from parents and taxpayers throughout the country.Mr. Harry Barnes : Applications for admission may be influenced by the student loan leaflet which the Department of Education published before the Report stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill in this House. As the Bill is currently in the other place and amendments may be agreed to there, will the leaflet be pulped or is it assumed that the Bill will be forced through by a three-line Whip in this House?
Mr. MacGregor : The leaflet was produced in response to a considerable demand for information for potential students who might wish to go to universities or polytechnics next year. There was also a demand from Opposition Members for that information to be published. The leaflet makes it clear that the details contained therein are subject to the final outcome of the progress of the Bill in Parliament. Clearly, if there were changes, we should want to amend the leaflet. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right to provide that information for students who may be considering going to university or polytechnic in the autumn. Although there has been a good deal of publicity about the student loans scheme and few students can be unaware that it is likely to be in existence next year, the demand for places has increased, as it did last year when the scheme was in prospect. That is a clear sign that the loan scheme is not a hindrance to access to higher education.
Surplus School Accommodation
9. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have surplus school accommodation.
Mr. Alan Howarth : Information about the number of surplus places in individual local education authorities is not held centrally.
Mrs. Hicks : Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority for resources going into education should be to educate pupils through books, equipment and teachers' salaries, and not to prop up empty desks and classrooms? Does he agree that it is a most awful waste of taxpayers' and community chargepayers' money if local authorities fail to exercise their responsibility to close those schools which have to be closed and to eliminate waste? In Wolverhampton alone, there are 11,000 surplus places and community chargepayers will be paying to keep them open.
Mr. Howarth : My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make those points. I very much hope that authorities in Wolverhampton and elsewhere will recognise that failure to grasp the nettle of surplus places means that children are consigned to inferior education in inadequate schools, that money is wasted rather than being spent positively on other valuable educational projects in the area, and that community charge payers are asked to bear a cost to no good purpose.
Column 130
Mr. Alfred Morris : How many local education authorities have accommodation which, owing to lack of capital expenditure even for essential repairs, they cannot use? Is it not a shocking response to the crying need in Manchester that next year we shall receive barely one tenth of the amount needed even to repair old and poor school buildings in some of the most deprived parts of the city?
Mr. Howarth : I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government capital spending on schools was cut by 50 per cent. after the International Monetary Fund took charge of our economy in 1976. Since then, capital expenditure per pupil in our schools has risen by 10 per cent. and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured an increase in the money available for capital expenditure from £352 million under the capital allocation system last year to £485 million under the capital guidelines system this year. We shall, of course, look as sympathetically as we can at the needs of Manchester. As I said in response to an earlier question, however, the guidelines that we have issued to individual authorities are based on well-understood and well-established criteria. If the bids from Manchester did not match those criteria this year, it was a matter of regret to us that we were not able to give more help. I hope very much that next year Manchester will make bids more closely related to the priorities that we have indicated. Then, of course, we shall look as sympathetically as we can at Manchester's needs.
Mr. Patrick Thompson : Regarding school accommodation, will my hon. Friend do all that he can to continue to support parental choice and the open entry policy provided for in the Education Reform Act 1988? Will he do all that he can to support good schools which have room for more pupils against local authorities which for bureaucratic reasons restrict entry to those schools?
Mr. Howarth : I agree very much with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of satisfaction that the system of more open enrolment will start to operate from next September and parents will have a greatly enhanced right to determine the schools to which their children go. That factor, combined with the pupil-based element of formula funding of local management of schools, will mean that parental choice is the principal determinant of the financial resources that go into schools.
Mr. Straw : As the learned judge pointed out last Friday when he declared unlawful the Secretary of State's decision in the case of Beechen Cliff school in Bath, the Government, by their policy of allowing schools to opt out, are wilfully sabotaging the ability of local education authorities rationally to reorganise their schools provision in the light of surplus places. Will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State now abandon this most cynical and amoral abuse of power, by which local education authorities are encouraged--indeed, forced--by the Government to name schools for closure or reorganisation but as soon as local authorities name them the Secretary of State allows the schools to opt out?
Mr. Howarth : The Bath judgment is about the procedure used in determining this particular grant-maintained application in relation to other reorganisation proposals put forward by the authority. It does not affect the overall policy of making available to schools the option of grant-maintained status. The availability of the
Column 131
grant-maintained option is certainly no bar to authorities' bringing forward sensible reorganisation schemes. Authorities have always been required to take proper account of the views of local people. Ballots on grant-maintained status are one way in which such views may be expressed. We have always made it clear that grant- maintained status cannot be a refuge for unviable schools. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has turned down 11 applications.National Curriculum
10. Mr. Stevens : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to introduce flexibility into the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds.
Mrs. Rumbold : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently described the flexibility that will be available to schools in planning the curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds. He has asked the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to consider further a number of aspects.
Mr. Stevens : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I accept that the disadvantages of specialising too early will be combated by the national curriculum, but does my hon. Friend agree that if pupils in these two educationally important years are to be given the best opportunity, provision should be made for options in addition to the national curriculum?
Mrs. Rumbold : Yes, indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly the course outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech to the Society of Education Officers--the availability of a different combination of subjects which it is open to young people to take at the same time as studying the national curriculum foundation and core subjects. My right hon. Friend made it clear that core subjects are expected to be followed and that national curriculum foundation subjects will also be followed, but that in some cases the foundation subjects may be combined with other subjects for study in those two crucial years.
Mr. Leighton : In seeking that flexibility, will the Minister bear in mind the situation in the London borough of Newham, where the standard spending assessment has been set for next year at £98 million, whereas for expenditure even to stand still we need £105.7 million? That adds up to a cut of £7 million. If that axe fell on teachers alone, we should have only 411 teachers left. I know that most members of the Cabinet have their children educated privately, but what effect does the Minister think that these cuts will have in the deprived London borough of Newham?
Mrs. Rumbold : In the first place, the Government give grant to local authorities to underpin education expenditure. In the current year we expect there to be some £15 billion of expenditure--a 9.6 per cent. increase in the total amount of expenditure for education services. It is for the local authority to decide how to spend the Government support. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the national curriculum is an entitlement for all children in our schools, and I trust that all local authorities will bear that in mind in assessing their priorities.
Column 132
Sir Ian Lloyd : Can my hon. Friend conceive of any curriculum flexibility which could possibly compensate for the ill-preparedness for life of those little dears on whose posteriors the High Court ruled yesterday not even a wooden spoon may fall without incurring the wrath of the judicial system?
Mrs. Rumbold : My hon. Friend expresses a point of view. There are ways, as there always have been ways, for teachers to maintain sensible discipline in class. It is imperative for children to have a disciplined environment in which to learn, and if teachers can exert discipline by other methods it is most important that they should do so.
Veterinary Education
11. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Page report.
12. Mr. Madel : To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which university veterinary schools the Page inquiry into veterinary education visited during its inquiry ; how many days were spent at each veterinary school taking evidence ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. MacGregor : I welcome the report of the committee chaired by Dr. Page on the demand for veterinary manpower, and the possible consequences for veterinary education. The committee took only oral and written evidence. The Government have already accepted the report's recommendations to remove limits on admissions to veterinary schools and to discontinue associated manpower reviews. The Universities Funding Council has now rejected the Riley report's recommendations affecting the Glasgow and Cambridge veterinary schools.
Mr. Worthington : It is good news that the Glasgow veterinary school has been saved, but will the Secretary of State condemn the recommendation in the Page report that takes all limits off the expansion of veterinary places and urges colleges wishing to do so to impose a levy on all students to finance expansion? If that proposal were accepted, the implications for higher education and for the principle of free access to higher education would be terrible. Will the Minister reject that recommendation?
Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman at least welcomes the decision not to go ahead with the merging of the Glasgow and Edinburgh veterinary schools. I believe that that decision was absolutely right and I think that the decision to set up the Page inquiry--a decision taken by me- -had a good deal to do with it. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it will, of course, be for individual institutions to decide whether to implement the recommendation to expand above the 400 limit, taking into account student demand, the Universities Funding Council's new mechanism for funding student places and their own circumstances.
Mr. Madel : After a thorough inquiry, the Riley committee said that the level of staffing in United Kingdom veterinary schools should increase, yet the Page committee said that there could be a 10 per cent. cut in the unit of resource without any noticeable effect on the quality of veterinary education. Does the Minister agree that the recommendation of the Page committee on the unit of resource is not acceptable?
Column 133
Mr. MacGregor : The Page committee went into the matter with great thoroughness and realism. It is for the Universities Funding Council and the institutions to decide what to do. The Page committee was right in the view that it reached on the demand for veterinary graduates. It is for the institutions to respond to that point and the Page report was a useful insight into it.
| Next Section
| Home Page |