House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Oct 1990

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we must fit in other matters in the relatively short time before Parliament is prorogued. It is for that purpose that a Government day next week has been devoted to the ERM debate and the Opposition day has been transferred to the next Session. There will be opportunities after the Queen's Speech, not least in the Queen's Speech debate itself, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan) : Is the Leader of the House aware that we still do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, despite Standing Order No. 130, which makes it compulsory? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman view the video of yesterday's Scottish Question

Column 1389

Time? It is a perfect illustration of the anger felt on these Benches and in many places in Scotland because we are denied the instrument of investigation at precisely the moment when we require it. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland met the chairman of British Steel on Tuesday and then, at the Dispatch Box yesterday afternoon, offered no detailed statement on the discussions that he had had with the chairman about the future of the Scottish steel industry?

Is the Leader of the House also aware that the British Steel board and chairman are deliberately out to destroy the Scottish steel industry piecemeal and that we are denied by the House the kind of Select Committee that is the one defensive mechanism that we could deploy against them? If he tells me that it is not the Government's responsibility, will he admit the logic of the position that this House of Commons, with its English majority, is denying Scotland the Select Committee the opportunity to defend ourselves in Lanarkshire against the investment that is going to Teesside?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman spoils such case as he has by his overstatement of the matter. It plainly cannot be sustained that British Steel is deliberately out to destroy anything. Moreover, he should note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday faced, I should judge, about 20 minutes' questioning on the very topic that the hon. Gentleman raises. He was exposed to full and rigorous questioning by the House, and gave a full account of himself.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : I reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that there is a need for a full debate on the Gulf crisis before Prorogation. Surely we owe it to the British people as a whole and to the thousands of British service men in the gulf to keep the matter at the forefront of our deliberations. In view of the press report that the British Government have been privately urging the United States Administration to take an early decision on military action against Iraq, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity this afternoon to affirm that it is still Government policy that mandatory economic sanctions be given a chance to work?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's policy is to secure full implementation of the resolution that was passed by the United Nations Security Council. I have already acknowledged the case for a debating opportunity as soon as it can be found when the House resumes after Prorogation. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of not only hearing a statement from the Foreign Secretary next Wednesday but asking him questions when he faces the House for questions in the ordinary way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Is the Leader of the House at all uncomfortable that those in the other place who have been most angry about the Nature Conservancy Council are those such as Lord Buxton--Conservative peers who know most about it? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood also that there has been a recent staff vote in the Nature Conservancy Council in

Column 1390

which an overwhelming majority of members of staff not only in Peterborough but in Scotland and in Wales have come down against the proposals?

Was not the whole matter misconceived in the first place by wanting to please the Scots, when those of us in Scotland who knew and cared most were passionately against the expensive, costly, wasteful and absurd break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council? In the circumstances, should not there be a statement next week, before we get down to amendments, that the Government have given up the idea, at any rate for this year? There would be no shame in doing so. The time that is saved could be used for a proper statement and a debate on the middle east.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman may have some observations to make during our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill on Monday week.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Did the Leader of the House see The Observer magazine last Sunday, which revealed the increasing number of hon. Members who hold outside financial and commercial interests, with the potential for a conflict of interest where the Chairpersons of key parliamentary Committees hold financial and commercial interests that have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore have any plans to enable the House to decide whether it thinks it right that the hon. Members for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), who are all Chairpersons of parliamentary Committees, should hold extensive financial and commercial interests which have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees? Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to decide whether we think that that is right, because I can tell him that many of us think that it is entirely wrong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That colour supplement made a great deal more than I should have imagined possible out of some relatively modest factual material. The questions that both it and the hon. Gentleman have raised are appropriate for investigation in the first instance not by the House but by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which has been investigating some of them. That is the first place to which any such complaint should be referred.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will the Leader of the House give some sympathetic consideration to the holding of a debate on the present circumstances of the United Kingdom's maritime industries? I refer in the main to shipping, shipbuilding, marine engineering and, of course, to the fishing industry. Many thousands of people employed in those industries genuinely believe that they, their industries and their communities face a bleak future. Hon. Members representing Scotland find the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Question Time a poor substitute for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, especially when it comes to giving tough-minded scrutiny to Government policy on these and other industries. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the need for such a debate in the near future.

Column 1391

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on that topic in the near future, but I know that that question is of interest not only to Scottish Members but to hon. Members representing other parts of the country--not least because my Parliamentary Private Secretary represents a fishing constituency. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : Will the Leader of the House please arrange an early debate on the continuing, alarming and unacceptable increase in the crime rate, which, unfortunately, has been at its worst in the county of Leicestershire? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that hon. Members of all parties, including particularly his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), have been pressing continually for years for proper policing in accordance with the wishes and requests of successive chief constables? It is not enough to declare a vague promise at the Tory party conference that the number of police will be increased. Hon. Members who represent Leicestershire on both sides of the House demand increased resources now before the crime rate gets even worse in our county.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. and learned Gentleman can be relied upon to overstate the case. He talks about vague promises at the Tory party conference. Everyone is concerned about the level of crime, and the fact is that under this Government there has been a massive increase

Mr. Janner : A massive increase in crime.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : There has been a massive increase in resources, including police officers in service, as a direct result of the Government's policies. Our concern has been expressed by actions rather than by words, at which the hon. and learned Gentleman is an expert.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Now that the economy has moved into recession, the unemployment figures have risen several months in succession, and bankruptcies and liquidations have trebled in the past year, why does not the

Column 1392

Leader of the House arrange a debate on bankruptcies and the economy? We could not only discuss the massive unemployment that affects my hon. Friends' constituencies ; we could also invite Tory Members to talk about the demise of Murdoch's empire, in which shares have fallen in value by two thirds this year, and the winding up of the Tory party's little Blue Rosette company with debts of £100,000, which meant that, at the Bournemouth conference, the Prime Minister's face had to be taken off every single mug?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I take note of the characteristically good- natured way in which the hon. Gentleman expresses his interest in the matter. He will surely appreciate that much of what happens to unemployment in the months ahead, as in the years past, depends on the attitude adopted by pay negotiators on both sides of the industry. I hope that he will lend his support to the cause of pay moderation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : Does the Leader of the House recognise that the erosion of farm incomes in the hills and uplands of Scotland is catastrophic? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for a debate while the autumn review is pending, to enable hon. Members to bring their knowledge of the matter to the attention of responsible Ministers before decisions are taken, not only in Brussels but by our domestic Ministries, on the hill livestock compensatory allowance levels?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I dealt with that point some time ago. The matter can be dealt with time and again. Of course there is anxiety on both sides of not only the House, but virtually every democratic assembly in the industrialised world about the state of the farming industry. It is caused by the manifest capacity to produce surpluses, which is not mitigated by the existence of massive protection. It is for that reason that the Government have taken and are taking the lead in the necessary worldwide reform of agricultural protection. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kept the House fully informed of the results of his work and will continue to do so.

Column 1393

Points of Order

4.15 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance? During Prime Minister's Question Time today, the Prime Minister, in a somewhat hysterical outburst, referred clearly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a crypto- communist. Those words were not only clearly overheard, but are in the preliminary draft of the Official Report. Since they were uttered, I have had the opportunity to consult "Erskine May", which on page 381 makes it clear that

"the imputation of false or unavowed motives"

is unparliamentary language. I assume that the rules on unparliamentary language apply even to the Prime Minister. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, can advise me how that totally dishonest and abusive smear of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition-- [Interruption.] There would be very different noises on the other side of the House if the position were reversed. We are not prepared to accept one set of rules for the rabble over there and another set for my hon. Friends. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, how the Prime Minister can be caused to remove those words from the record and how we can have Hansard put straight?

Mr. Speaker : This is not the moment for points of order but since it has been raised I will deal with it. As far as I am aware, the word "communist" has never been considered unparliamentary. In any case, I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of that sentence--

Dr. Cunningham : It is in the record.

Mr. Speaker : It may be in the record, but there was a great deal of noise. I recollect that when the Leader of the Opposition rose he appeared to be laughing heartily. I did not hear the remark, but such matters should be raised immediately in order that they can be dealt with by the Chair.

Dr. Cunningham : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case on "Erskine May" which says on page 381 :

"The imputation of false or unavowed motives"

to a Member is unparliamentary. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to get away with smearing the Leader of the Opposition in this way.

Mr. Speaker : If I had heard the expression, I would have stopped it. I am surprised that the issue was not raised immediately at the time if anyone else heard it. I did not hear the Prime Minister make a personal accusation against the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition in that exchange. I cannot do anything about it now, but I am sure that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and she will make amends.

Dr. Cunningham : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What you are really saying is that on some future occasion we can refer to the Prime Minister as a crypto-fascist and that that will be in order.

Column 1394

Mr. Speaker : I hope that we shall always treat each other with respect. Sadly at Prime Minister's Question Time there is frequently a great deal of noise and it is not possible for us all to hear exactly what is said. I did not hear the expression. If other hon. Members heard it and felt aggrieved about it, I am genuinely surprised that they did not get up to draw it to my attention immediately.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all heard the Leader of the Opposition utter crude and uncouth abuse at the Prime Minister. If the Opposition do not like it being dished out, they should not dish it out in the first place.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just driven back from the by-election at Eastbourne and I heard clearly on the car radio the term "crypto- communist". Therefore, the nation heard it. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago a complaint was made by a Conservative Member about a reference to fascism made by one of my hon. Friends. On that occasion my hon. Friend was required to withdraw that statement. May we simply ask

Mr. Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House instead of driving in his car, he would have had an opportunity to raise the matter with me at the time. The whole House knows that I deprecate the use of such phrases. I required the term "fascist" to be withdrawn on that occasion because I heard it. Today, unfortunately, I was not driving in my car and I did not hear it. Mr. Campbell-Savours rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. Allow me to reflect upon the matter to see what can be done.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are reflecting on the matter you might bear in mind that representations have been made in the past ; for instance, when I called Dr. Death a pompous sod, I had to take an early bath. When I said that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had been lining his pockets because he got an non-executive directorship of British Telecom, I had an early bath. In this quaint little place you have different rules for different people.

Mr. Speaker : I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want another one.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Trimble : Yes, it is. I just wondered, now that we have the cameras in this place, whether it would be appropriate to have action replays. You could then be sure of exactly what was said.

Mr. Speaker : The cameras are a large part of the trouble really.

Column 1395

Seven-Year-Olds (Testing)

4.20 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor) : Following discussions with and advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today decided on the scope of the tests to be used in the first national assessments of all seven-year-olds in 1991. I am arranging for copies of the specification for drawing up the actual tests themselves to be placed in the Library of the House. The national tests will concentrate on what is of key concern to parents--reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills. Because the ability to read is vital to pupils' future development, all seven-year-olds will be tested separately on their ability to read. To help ensure consistency of standards, that test will be based on a range of common texts.

I believe that it is important that at this age the tests concentrate on the basics. That is not only right in itself, but means tests that will be manageable in the classrooms. The tests will take up the equivalent of about a week and a half of classroom time in the first half of the summer term. The message from this summer's pilot tests was that they overloaded the schools. I have decided that next year's tests will be simpler and will concentrate on what really matters. In addition to the external tests, teachers will also carry out their own tests of all seven-year-olds across all aspects of English, maths and science in the national curriculum.

For the first time, we shall have a national system in all schools which will enable parents and teachers to know how their children are progressing in the basics of education. All parents will be able to get clear and objective results and to talk to teachers about their children's progress. For each child, teachers will be able to build upon strengths and tackle weaknesses.

The national curriculum sets clear and demanding national targets for pupils of all ages and abilities in English, mathematics and science. The tests will show how pupils--individually and collectively--are measuring up to those targets. For the first time, we shall have clear, national information about what is happening to standards. The arrangements that I am announcing today for testing seven-year-olds are the key to raising those standards.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon's announcement represents a major and humiliating U-turn-- [Interruption.] I appreciate why Conservative Members do not like that news, but it is true. It represents a major and humiliating U-turn by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet against the whole concept of the national curriculum and testing contained in the Education Reform Act 1988.

Is it because the Secretary of State understands the extent of the Government's embarrassment that, as the Order Paper makes clear, his original intention was to slip out this announcement by way of a written answer and that this oral statement had to be wrung from him?

The Secretary of State must know that the Labour party and virtually everyone else told his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, that the national curriculum was too inflexible and that the complex testing

Column 1396

of seven-year-olds--for which every Conservative Member voted--in English, maths, science, history, geography, technology, music, art and physical education was not only ludicrously impractical but would seriously damage the education of a great many children.

Is not it a sign of the Government's profound arrogance that they refused to listen and instead have subjected teachers and other people's children to three years of experimentation, while of course ensuring that their own children, in private schools, remain immune from the national curriculum and therefore from this chaos? Against that background, is it any wonder that public confidence in the Government's handling of education and in the Secretary of State has never been lower since the last world war?

If, as a junior education Minister said in July, the pilots were too unwieldy, and if, as the Secretary of State has admitted today, they caused an overload to the curriculum, why did Ministers allow them to go ahead, since others told them clearly in advance what the consequences of those pilots would be? How much has this experimentation with other people's children cost the taxpayer? How many million sheets of paper have been wasted? How much has teachers' morale been damaged?

In contrast to the confusion of the Government's position, Labour has always been clear. We have sought tests in basic subjects such as reading, writing, maths and science as an aid to raising standards, to diagnose children's strengths and weaknesses and to help provide information about the performance of schools. We shall judge this afternoon's proposals by those criteria, and for that reason we welcome the separate reading test, which is long overdue. What will be the cost of these proposals for testing? Who will prepare and evaluate the tests? What will be the link between these tests and the national curriculum? What will be the status of the separate teacher tests in relation to the standard assessment tasks? There have been a good many suggestions in the newspapers that the tests announced by the right hon. Gentleman today cannot be in place in all schools by the summer of 1991. Can he guarantee that that will not be the case?

At the beginning of his statement, the Secretary of State said that he had received advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council. Did he accept that advice--and, if not, to what extent did he depart from it? Will he also explain the exact status of the document entitled "Specification for the Development of Standard Assessment Tasks in the Core Subjects"? Is it to be the basis of the proposals for contracts for the new tests? What additional support will schools be given to help children when strengths are noted or weaknesses diagnosed?

The Secretary of State speaks of standards, but he must know that maths standards have fallen and that that has coincided with a decline in the number of properly qualified maths teachers. He must also know that there is evidence that reading standards may have fallen, but the Government abandoned the national monitoring of reading standards in 1988 and cannot say whether they have gone up or down. Furthermore, it is simply untrue for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, for the first time, we shall have clear national information about what is happening to standards, when we were already receiving that information from the Assessment of Performance

Column 1397

Unit, established in 1975--and abolished by the present Government in 1988, with the consequence that the monitoring of reading standards ceased.

Given the continuing confusion and continual changes in regard to the national curriculum, does the Secretary of State agree that he must now publish a comprehensive White Paper on testing in the national curriculum, setting out exactly what the Government expect of schools, pupils and teachers and how these changes are intended to raise standards?

From the retreat that the statement represents, is not it clear that our children and our schools have paid a high price for that near-lethal combination of doctrinaire intransigence and administrative incompetence which is the hallmark of the Government's education policies?

Mr. MacGregor : That is the biggest load of nonsense that I have heard in a long time. I am astonished at the attempts by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to build bricks out of air-- [Hon. Members :-- "Straw!"] No, there was not even any straw there. Let me deal first with the points that the hon. Gentleman made about standards. When he spoke about maths standards falling, he entirely neglected the fact that assessments made between 1982 and 1987 showed that in a number of areas maths standards had actually improved. When he draws our attention to an area in which standards may have dropped, the hon. Gentleman does not mention all the areas in which they may have improved much more than they have dropped. By constantly harping on the aspects that still need to be improved in schools--and, of course, improvements will always be necessary- -the hon. Gentleman destroys the confidence of the many good teachers who are doing so much to raise standards. That is already happening with the national curriculum.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned reading standards, but the evidence in that regard is not clear ; those who presented it described it as prima facie and not certain. We do not know whether reading standards have fallen in some cases, although I am taking steps to check the figures nationally. But, if they have--here I choose my words with care--it is nothing to do with teaching resources ; it is to do with certain teaching methods introduced by socialist educational practices and philosophies. If there was indeed a decline earlier in the decade, it was due to that approach.

The hon. Gentleman is way off beam when he talks about a U-turn. We are introducing the most carefully prepared educational reforms that have been carried out for a long time : that is why the advisory body's pilot projects were undertaken. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said from the outset that the assessment of seven-year-olds would consist of a combination of external tests and teacher assessments. For the past two years we have been undertaking pilot schemes to ensure that we get the balance right. That was the whole point of the pilot project.

During the summer I said that I believed that the pilot schemes undertaken by agencies developing the tests showed that the system was overloaded. I could see that that was the case and I made that clear early on. However, big benefits have been gained from the pilot schemes, apart from our being enabled to reach these decisions. A great

Column 1398

deal of work has gone into developing the tests, which we shall use for seven-year-olds within the national curriculum, and experience has been gained from the pilot tests.

The hon. Member asked about the cost of the scheme. Much of the cost of the schemes intended to be undertaken in schools next summer will be within their normal expenditure. Through specific grants this year I have supported a total expenditure of about £35 million for assessment in the coming year.

The hon. Gentleman's next question was about who will prepare and evaluate tests. The School Examinations and Assessment Council will now go out to tender to agencies to draw up the tests. The evaluation will be done by SEAC.

I am astonished that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not understand the link between the tests and the national curriculum. The curriculum is all about raising standards and extending the range of education. Assessment and tests will be linked with the development of the national curriculum in the particular subjects--English, maths and science--that we shall be testing next summer.

I confirm that we shall be doing national testing in the summer of 1991, for the first time. As the national curriculum develops I expect that we shall learn that some things need to be changed. The hon. Member for Blackburn shows an astonishing ignorance of how these things are done if he expects everything to be absolutely right from day one. We shall continue to develop on the basis of experience. The reason for carrying out the pilot tests was to learn from two years' experience before we tested nationally for the first time. We have concentrated the tests on certain areas, but we have not changed their nature.

The hon. Member asked about the specification that has been drawn up for developing tests, which will go to the agencies. It also contains information for teachers, although a great deal more information and training for teachers will be provided in the early part of next year.

I am simply astonished at the hon. Gentleman's charges this afternoon. We are carrying out precisely what we said we would do at the beginning : raising standards with national testing for all seven-year-olds as a basis. The tests have been based on the most careful evaluation of the pilot tests in the past two years.

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed by parents? Can he confirm that the tests will be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that any shortcomings in a child's education can be identified quickly? Does he agree that if there is a problem with a child's education the quicker that it is identified, the sooner it can be put right, to the benefit of that child's further education?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is one of the main purposes of assessment and testing. Yes, the tests will be rigorous, stimulating, imaginative and they will be external--the child will not see them in the classroom beforehand.

Above all, the tests will enable the teacher to assess the pupil's ability and to identify weaknesses, and they will enable the parents to know what level the child has

Column 1399

reached. It is a more systematic way of ensuring that children have the benefit of such an approach in all schools.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : My colleagues and I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and his decision to abandon the more complex and unworkable proposals envisaged by his predecessor. This scheme is a great improvement. However, will not parents be much more concerned about what the tests show than the fact there are tests? Is not the reality that, in more than 10 years of Tory Government, standards in literacy and numeracy have fallen dramatically in many areas? Is not the key question what will be done about standards and resourcing education so that they rise, which is much more important than what sort of tests we have, although they will be helpful in proving just how badly off and badly educated some of our young people are?

Mr. MacGregor : I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from that which was envisaged by my predecessor. What he so rightly set in train were pilots and work done by specialists to develop the basic concepts of the national curriculum and to carry them through into testing. As a result of what they did during the summer, we have learnt that the way in which they were trying to develop the tests was too cumbersome. What they were doing, for example--this is very much a technical matter--was to ask the teachers in all the classrooms where pilots were undertaken this summer to start the children at level one, and if they passed that, to let them go on to level two, and then, if they passed level two, to go on to level three. The teachers know broadly the level at which children come in. Therefore, it makes much more sense to go straight to the level that the teacher thinks is right and then, if the tests prove that to be wrong, to drop back or to go forward. That is a technical point, but it led to overloading and to too cumbersome tests this summer.

That was my conclusion after studying the results of the pilots undertaken by the educational advisers. I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from what was envisaged by my predecessor. I am sure that he would have come to the same conclusion as I.

The hon. Gentleman must surely acknowledge that standards of literacy and numeracy and many other standards have risen sharply during the past 10 years. That is why many more children are taking GCSE and A-levels and getting better grades, and that is why many more young people are going into higher education.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement most emphatically does not represent a retreat but a very important advance? Is he also aware that there is widespread appreciation of the great thoughtfulness and care with which he has approached the matter? That is crucial if we are to establish higher standards in British education.

Mr. MacGregor : I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He knows a great deal about these matters. I agree with him. I believe that this will strengthen the national curriculum because it concentrates the standard assessment tasks--the external tests--on subjects that really matter and which concern parents. It will enable teachers to carry out assessment in other subjects. I am sure that it

Column 1400

is the right way to proceed. We have learnt from the pilots that were conducted by the education experts that the system was overloaded and cumbersome in the classroom. I believe that we have now got it right. That is the point of pilots and experiments.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : I am sure that the Minister will be aware that teachers will greet his statement with a great sense of relief. Is there, however, any school in England or Wales in which the scheme that is to be adopted has been tested? What is to happen in schools where Welsh is the first language? I notice that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is here today. Are we to have a brief statement from him about that? Many parents in Wales will want to know what is to happen.

Mr. MacGregor : During the summer I talked to large numbers of teachers, including those doing the pilots, and found that there was a warm response to the tests. They felt that the tests had been imaginatively developed. We shall be building on them for the full national testing next summer. The tests already carried out have resulted in a positive benefit, and we shall build on them. The teachers found themselves in difficulties because there were too many tests. Overloading was the real problem. Among other things, it made management of the classroom during the period of the tests very difficult. That is what the teachers, including the National Association of Head Teachers, came to talk to me about.

We have all been evaluating the pilots. I repeat again that that is the point of pilots. During the past year we have tested the tests. On that basis, we can test the pupils next year. During the summer the teachers dealt with this admirably and did everything that they could to make sure that the pilots were worth while. Therefore, I am sure that they will welcome the statement that I have made today. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the Welsh language, the standard assessment task material to assess Welsh in Welsh-medium schools will be available to teachers next year, but the first statutory requirement to assess the language will be in 1992.

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North) : I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I am sure that an overwhelming number of teachers will welcome this simplification. They are worried about the layer after layer. This is, therefore, a sensible proposal.

My right hon. Friend's statement was admirably short. Let us hope that the examinations will also be admirably short. We are talking about a week and a half. The much-maligned 11-plus took one morning. I do not see why the examinations cannot be carried out within a day, or half a day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider cutting the time down even further.

I have considerable sympathy with teachers who feel that if one called a meeting of six classroom infant school teachers and six infant school heads, chosen at random from a list of teachers, and brought them together for a day, they could solve all these difficulties by drawing the tests up themselves, instead of leaving it to the educational establishment which did so much to destroy standards and which is still playing around with all these wrong ideas.

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We are being very thorough over the tests for children aged seven. We are testing a wide range of knowledge, skills, understanding and practical

Column 1401

application. Children will be tested individually. Most of the tests will be written tests. Reading tests have to go far beyond one and a half weeks. They have to be done individually with each child. There will be a thorough and wide range of tests. It will be impossible to carry them out in half a day.

Teachers have been involved in drawing up the tests. The tests that have been carried out up to now were used in some local authorities but not in others. They did not apply to the whole of the national curriculum. It was necessary, therefore, to build on them in order to develop a wider range of tests for the national curriculum. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find that the tests are practical and rigorous. The tests will be external and I am sure that they are the kind of things that he would want us to do.

Next Section

Home Page