| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Canavan : I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen knows much, if anything, about Scottish education. Scottish colleges of education and many other educational bodies could provide material suitable for diagnostic testing and continuous assessment--material that has far more credibility in the teaching profession in Scotland than has the scheme that it being imposed by a Minister who, I understand, has no education experience whatsoever.
It is almost incredible that the Minister has managed to find nearly £1 million to administer and advertise the scheme when he cannot find a penny for extra learning support. Indeed, it is arguable that, as a result of this scheme, less learning support will be available to many pupils. The simple reason is that much teaching time will be taken up by administration of the tests, and less will be devoted to actual teaching. It is sheer arrogance to ignore the professional opinion of teachers and the wishes of parents. As has been said, foisting this scheme on local education authority schools while fee-paying schools are given some freedom of choice is an example of double standards.
I want to devote my remaining remarks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described as a hidden agenda. I suspect that there is more to the system of national testing than meets the eye. My remarks will be based not on political prejudice but on my experience as a teacher in both primary and secondary schools in Scotland--experience that goes back to the 1960s, before the introduction of comprehensive education in many areas. At that time, in Scottish education, there was almost an obsession with formal testing, including IQ tests, VRQ tests and the qualifying examination, which in some areas was called the control examination. This obsession was such that some people involved in education thought that, on the basis of the evidence of one test, they could virtually predict a child's future when that child was 11 years old. Of course, the post-test division of children into different categories, different groups, different classes, sometimes different schools, and certainly vastly differing education environments providing very different opportunities helped to ensure fulfilment and reinforcement of what the test was designed to predict. The result was that many pupils--in some schools, the majority of pupils--were written off as failures. Many teachers of that era, including myself, can think of former pupils who, despite having been written off at the age of 11 or 12, managed to beat the system and went on to a successful career at college or university.
Many of us raised questions at that time. The most basic was that, if those who managed to beat the system were the exception, how many more were lost in an education system that was unnecessarily divisive, unfair
Column 128
and talent-wasting, because at that time there was no equality of educational opportunity? If the House accepts the regulations, I fear that the Government will be encouraged to use or abuse the tests to turn the clock back and thereby to deprive countless young people of the educational opportunity which is their birthright. I therefore ask the House to reject the regulations.10.56 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : There seems to be general agreement that the test material which has been prepared by teachers is good. There is also some agreement that for some time there has been a problem with pupils leaving school who are not as well educated as they should be, because they are unable to apply the three Rs effectively at work. That holds them back at a critical stage in their life, and some people never recover from that impediment.
There is also some agreement about the fact that many of the pupils who fall into that category are not backward or dim. The system has failed them. We must ask ourselves whether, if the system is failing quality individuals who have not been able to emerge as they should have done, we should look carefully at the system. The tests have been accepted as being of quality, so the argument seems to be about their application. It is interesting that the Labour party south of the border seems to agree with national testing, but that the Labour party north of the border does not.
I happen to agree with my hon. Friend the Minister-- [Hon. Members : -- "Oh."] I will now explain why. I have written to him on behalf of parents in my constituency who were very unhappy about the way in which the matter was explained to them in the schools. They said that it was biased--
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. I am talking about schools in my constituency-- [Hon. Members :-- "Which?"] I will name them if necessary.
Mr. McAllion : The hon. Gentleman will know that 205 meetings have been addressed across Tayside by education officials, not by councillors. The only councillors who have turned up at the meetings have been Tory councillors who have praised the education officials for their unbiased, knowledgeable and professional approach at the meetings. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the slur against education officials in Tayside?
Mr. Walker : My comments referred to the letters that I have received from my constituents about the way in which officials have presented the case in schools. They said that they were biased. I am explaining to the House--and I thought that the debate was about this--the views of parents. Parents in my constituency who have said categorically and clearly that they wish their children to be tested are now asking my hon. Friend the Minister what he will do about the education authority.
I now come to the councillors and the Labour administration. I have not mentioned them until now ; only the hon. Member for Dundee, East has done so. I will do so now. What about the Labour administration? Mr. Tom Clarke rose--
Column 129
Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman is not from north Tayside. What about Merv Rolf, who stated categorically that he would not implement the law? That is effectively what he said and was another example of councillors failing to honour the legal obligations placed on them by Parliament. At what point do councillors supersede the views of Parliament?The Labour party says that it believes in parental choice, but it cannot have only the Educational Institute of Scotland version of choice, which is Hobson's choice--do it our way or not at all. That is not acceptable to parents in my constituency. Many schools in my constituency, particularly primary schools, are very good. I should be happy for the system to show clearly that our good teachers are doing an effective job. The problem is the teachers and others in schools who know that they would not measure up under a testing system that would show clearly where they are failing.
I vividly remember the debates on school boards. It is humbug and hypocrisy for Opposition Members to say that they believe in school boards, because they did not when the legislation was proposed. When the EIS makes a pay claim, it will say that testing will require more money to do the job that we thought it had been doing. Diagnostic testing has considerable educational value, but it cannot give parents information based on national criteria. It is interesting that the Opposition, in their attempts to support the EIS, are calling for the support of parents. Parents in my constituency believe in choice and support school boards--I am pleased to say that school boards are functioning well in my constituency--and I want them to be given their right of choice, as they have demanded.
11.2 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : It is a bit rich for the Minister and the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to lecture the Opposition about parental choice. The Minister has consistently argued that he wants to increase parental involvement and to take parents' views into account.
The Minister has failed to persuade the majority of parents that the national test is a desirable or acceptable addition to the education system. In the circumstances, he should at least withdraw it until he has had an opportunity to obtain their support. He should not be imposing it against their will.
The Minister did not answer my question nor explain how he intends to determine the parental view, how he intends to consult parents and whether he will accept that parents are entitled to differ from him. He should respond to their wishes rather than spend their money on promoting a particularly inappropriate advertising campaign to change their minds.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and many other hon. Members have said that the material that has been produced for testing, and the guidance assessment, is valuable. I have not met a teacher or anybody involved in education who has stated a different view. The Minister must know that the objection is not that that useful additional information is being imposed but that, in the context of a five-to-14 programme, we are suddenly imposing a primary 4 and a primary 7 test--sudden death testing.
Column 130
The Minister has said a number of times that testing is not a matter of passing or failing. He then said that he might find money for remedial education for those who do not come up to the mark. This is a test that a child cannot pass, but can fail. That understandably gives parents considerable cause for anxiety. The test is not genuinely to seek out how to improve the performance of an individual teacher, nor is it centred on the interests of the child. The Minister must recognise that parents want to know how their child is performing generally. That cannot be achieved by insisting that the child sits a test over a six-week period in primary 4 and that the teacher must decide several months in advance at what level to submit each child. The teacher cannot later rescind that or change that decision, unless he orders several different tests. If the child does not perform to that level, he cannot be resubmitted at a later date either at a lower or higher level. That is what most people would understand as a genuine addition to curriculum and assessment. The Minister's proposals cut right across the whole five-to-14 programme.Will the Minister now acknowledge that, by expressing their extreme anger and taking positive action, parents have in practical terms effectively defeated the pilot scheme? In reality, the overwhelming majority of children in Scottish schools have not been submitted for this national test. Can the Minister tell the House how many children have been tested, or at least report how many have been tested, at the end of the period? I understand that, in nearly all regions, parents are being told that they do not have to submit their children to this test if they do not wish to do so.
The hon. Member for Garscadden mentioned the Secretary of State's absence, but the Minister did not say why that was. Perhaps a reason why he is not here is that he would be embarrassed to have to confront the results of a referendum conducted in Dumfries and Galloway, which is his constituency. Parents had to answer either yes or no to the simple question whether they were in favour of national testing. The response was overwhelming with almost 90 per cent. of the parents of all children responding. The response was 66 per cent. no, 34 per cent. yes. If that is not a sufficiently clear, decisive majority against the Government's national test in the Secretary of State's own constituency, I do not know what needs to be done to prove to him that parents do not wish the test to be imposed. I agree with the Minister to some extent on one matter. It would be appropriate for teachers who have not co-operated with the test to suspend action because parents are doing the job for them. Parents have won the argument and the point has been made. I make a direct appeal to teachers to accept that they have won. In those circumstances, the Minister should agree not to press any further action against them.
Great anger has been aroused and many parents have asked teachers not to impose the test. Most local authorities have found ways to co-operate with parents and ensure that the test is not imposed against their wishes, in part because this is a grey area of the law. Those parents who want the national test should be entitled to submit their children to it, but where at least two thirds do not the Minister has wholly failed to convince us of the justification of his proposals.
It is not good enough for the Minister to suggest that he is interested in the views of parents, but only when they
Column 131
support his particular prejudice. Where they have overwhelmingly, clearly and unequivocally stated that they do not want the national tests provided by him, he should do the honourable thing and accept that he must abandon the pilot scheme. He should sit down with parents and teachers at the Scottish Office Education Department and discuss how the material and progress made can be properly built into the curriculum, with the full support of teachers and parents, to meet the real interests of children.11.9 pm
Mr. Mike Watson (Glasgow, Central) : The classic mistake made by the Minister in his doomed attempt to turn the clock back in Scottish education was that of bad timing. We do not need this debate tonight as we should have had it in November when the regulations were introduced.
The timing is also wrong in that, three quarters of the way through the testing period, the regulations are meaningless because three quarters of pupils have not been tested. We no longer need the regulations because long before they are due to come into play in March next year, they will have been swept out of existence, along with the Government who introduced them.
Scottish parents must be commended on their determination to stand firm in the face of Scottish Office attempts to impose an irrelevant and unwanted system of testing that will serve no useful purpose. I also pay tribute to the spontaneity of the action of the many parent groups that sprang up when the testing regulations were introduced. Those groups were in direct contrast to the £250,000 that the Scottish Office spent on the advertising campaign to launch those regulations. A further £750,000 was spent on administering the tests. Such expenditure is shameful and the Minister should have found additional resources for learning support. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about improving standards and assisting pupils with learning difficulties, the well-established system of learning support is the means by which to achieve that.
Regional councils have been forced to cut educational budgets, and in some regions teachers are facing compulsory redundancy. It is a scandal that £1 million has been wasted on the futile national testing exercise. It is a classic example of a wasted opportunity. It would not be so bad if it were only the Government's popularity that had suffered as a result of the testing, but our young people's education has been the loser.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has already outlined the extent of the opposition throughout Scotland to the testing. I am pleased to say that a number of representatives of the parents' coalition are in the Gallery to hear the debate. Sooner or later, the Minister will be obliged to heed the views of parents and teachers. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council has articulated the views of parents and teachers, and the teaching unions, particularly the Educational Institute of Scotland, have opposed the scheme. Why does the Minister continue to ignore the views of such groups? Surely he cannot deny that parents and teachers represent their constituencies.
Time is restricted and I simply want to say that teachers, parents and the Opposition do not oppose
Column 132
diagnostic testing. However, we all oppose the ill-conceived, ill-prepared and ill-explained national testing scheme. It will not survive, nor will the Minister or the Government who introduced it. Several Hon. Members rose--Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that other hon. Members will follow the hon. Gentleman's example.
11.12 pm
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : It is the greatest of pities that, whenever we discuss one of the most important aspects of life in Scotland, it always becomes a political football. Why we cannot discuss education without making it so important politically is beyond my comprehension. That has always been so, even 20 years ago when, for better or worse, I was Minister responsible for education. Then we had problems because of a lack of accommodation, shortage of teachers and facilities. Now, the education system in Scotland is in infinitely better shape. We have adequate teachers and the pupil-teacher ratio is much lower than ever before. It is a pity that we do not appreciate those favourable circumstances.
When I was Minister, the Opposition opposed raising the school leaving age to 16. In the past, they opposed the TVEI--the technical and vocational education initiative--and the school boards. They have been opposed to almost every progressive thought of the Scottish Education Department. If the system of testing had been called continuous assessment, I dare say that the Opposition would not have raised their head.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce : It is not continuous assessment.
Sir Hector Monro : Yes it is, in effect. That is what teaching is all about. Bearing in mind that the testing scheme was approved by the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum, and that the tests were developed by teachers, I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition have such a rooted objection to them.
So far, no one has mentioned the fact that this is a pilot scheme. As such, it should be given a fair run and conducted as flexibly as possible in March and April of this year to see how it goes and to learn lessons from it. In that way, it can be improved and we can determine whether to proceed with it. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Opposition, including the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists, are not prepared to try some progressive ideas in Scotland, and to find out whether they work. If the scheme does not work, we can think again.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about Dumfries and Galloway. One can make anything out of statistics. He said that 6,854 children's parents said no and that 3,529 said yes. It appears, however, that about 2,000 children's parents--I cannot get firm figures on this from the authorities--said nothing at all. So only marginally more than 50 per cent. voted against. The other 48 or 49 per cent. of children have every right to be tested, if they want to be. It is wrong to spend so much time trying to prove that the vast majority do not want testing when that majority is, after all, pretty marginal.
What will happen to local authorities that do not carry out their legal obligations? In Dumfries and Galloway, the education authority has voted by 10 to seven to give parents the right to opt out. What, therefore, is the council's legal position? Does the matter have to be put to
Column 133
the full council? What happens if the decision is upheld by the full council, even though the council is setting out to break the law of the land? Will the law be upheld for parents who want their children tested? Presumably, about 4,000 parents in Dumfries and Galloway want their children tested, and they are entitled to know where they stand.Many of us are deeply anxious about illiteracy and the fact that we are short of statistics about it. Do all our children have a fair chance of being educated to a standard of literacy and numeracy that will enable them to go into further education? If we do not know the statistics, it is difficult to know how important the tests are in showing up levels of literacy--
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Get on with it.
Sir Hector Monro : There is no point in the hon. Lady champing at the bit : she is not going to get into the debate anyway. We shall not make much progress in raising standards of education in Scotland--the whole objective of the testing system--if there is bickering between the Government and authorities. We should all concentrate on one aspect alone-- raising the quality of education throughout our primary and secondary schools.
11.19 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Although there is a great deal that I wish to debate, of necessity I must curtail my speech. It is a tragedy that a matter of great importance to the Scottish education system has been compressed into such a short debate. That surely spells out more strongly than ever the case for a Scottish Parliament in which we could address such issues, or at least a Scottish Select Committee in which we could debate Scottish education.
The Minister's speech in Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, reported in columns 1373-74 of the Official Report of the First Standing Scottish Committee, now rings extremely hollow because he said that he hoped that he would be able to implement national testing with support from all quarters and that he would be able to introduce it without resorting to legislation. It is clear from all the opinion polls in Scotland that there is widespread condemnation of aspects of the suggested testing. That condemnation was voiced by teachers and parents and by no less a figure than Ian Morris, the former chief inspector of primary schools, who said in The Times Educational Supplement that the grounds were "educationally unsound" because
"the scheme of national testing currently advocated is reductionist and a product of structuralism."
Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
I wish to pose three brief questions to the Minister. He spoke about the possibility of action being taken against teachers who would not implement the tests. Will he spell out exactly what kind of action he has in mind? Secondly, what is the amount of the additional funding for learning support? In answer to my previous questions, he said that when working paper No. 4 on assessment had completed its consultation process he would be able to advise us on the amount of additional funding to be provided for learning support and diagnostic testing. Finally, when will the booklet on reporting from the review and development group emerge? That is a critical part of the jigsaw that the Minister is trying to complete.
Column 134
The debate has not given us enough time to address the education aspects of this legislation. Scottish teachers and parents will be sad about the fact that we could not devote more time to this matter.11.23 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : It has taken nearly six months to have this debate. That is regrettable, but one of the great advantages of the delay is that it has given us the opportunity to debate the issue on the basis of fact rather than theory. The fact is that where parents have had a choice they have overwhelmingly rejected the tests and the thinking behind them. I commend those ordinary parents from across the political spectrum and from all parts of Scotland who have spontaneously organised to say that they do not want the tests.
We have seen the consequences of pushing the law beyond a reasonable consensus. In 1988 the Government's consultation paper on testing produced 1,000 responses. Lothian Parent Action Group found that 3 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposals and the Church of Scotland education committee found that 2 per cent. were in favour. Nevertheless, the Government went ahead.
On this issue as on others, the Labour party greatly stresses the importance of obeying the law, and it has never deviated from the argument that there is a duty on the local authorities to test. There is no doubt about that.
Everything that parents and local authorities have done has been with legal advice, which has been that it was within parents' power to withdraw their children from the tests. The Government have not produced anything against that. The legal advice given by Lothian, Strathclyde and local authorities generally shows that parents have the power to withdraw their children.
The tragic factor in this issue is that there is so much consensus and agreement that would improve standards in Scottish primary schools and improve the quality of information available to parents. We support the five-to-14 programme.
There is agreement that there needs to be continuous assessment and the setting of high standards. There is agreement that much better quality information needs to go to homes, and that the assessment of an achievement programme is an important element.
However, everyone has seen through the Minister of State on the subject of choice. He has promulgated the importance of parental choice up and down the country, but on the important issue--where we agree that parents should have a choice in law over the tests--will the Minister unambiguously give choice to the parents who have withdrawn their children?
All over the country, there has been massive rejection of the tests. In the city of Glasgow nearly 80 per cent. of parents have withdrawn their children, saying that they are against the tests. The other 20 per cent. are not for the tests but include those who have said nothing.
The Minister claims support from parents on the basis of an NVA survey, but the man in charge of the research, John McBeth, said that primary national testing does not have majority parental support. Parents are keen on tests that have information for diagnostic purposes, but not ones that label their children for the rest of their school lives.
Column 135
A week last Sunday, the MORI poll in The Sunday Times --the "Chester Street Bugle", the Tory party house magazine-- showed that 80 per cent. of parents in Scotland believe that there should be a choice allowing their children not to do the tests. If the Minister had any sense, he would abandon the tests that have already been abandoned by the parents. There is no question but that the Labour party will abandon the tests. Will the Minister see sense and abandon them?Mr. Michael Forsyth rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Leave withheld.
11.27 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : I am 47 years old, but I can remember the day when the house master read out results to the school classroom and three or four young girls broke their hearts because they did not get the marks needed for further education. That is the fate to which the Minister is consigning our children.
In my constituency, most of the primary schools have clearly rejected the Government's proposals. In one of the primary schools, the votes for testing were 40, against testing were 86, so 67 per cent. of the school's parents were totally opposed to the testing. In another school, nearly 70 per cent. of the parents were opposed to the national testing.
This issue is similar to the poll tax. The Government do not listen to the men and women in the country, who vote to bring in trash such as the Government. A Government who do not listen to the ordinary men and women are not fit to govern this country. National testing should be stopped now.
11.29 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : We have not heard the Opposition's spokesmen explain why they oppose testing. We did not hear from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milnagavie (Mr. Worthington), who has teaching experience, how the Opposition would monitor assessment. I heard something similar to the arguments advanced by the Opposition's spokesmen before the William Tyndale primary school disaster in inner London, when everyone said that continuous assessment worked. It was not until two thirds of the children had been withdrawn from the school that the education authority introduced any changes. The education authority in London used to welcome every Scottish teacher because Scottish teachers had the reputation of being interested in achievement. That was when we had a Labour-controlled education authority. No doubt, it was similar to the ones that we have heard about, which will test--
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Order [22 March] :--
The House divided : Ayes 187, Noes 251.
Column 136
Division No. 110] [11.30 pmAYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Bidwell, Sydney
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Buckley, George J.
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Cousins, Jim
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Doran, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fearn, Ronald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Haynes, Frank
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Kennedy, Charles
Kirkwood, Archy
Lambie, David
Lamond, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John
McCartney, Ian
Macdonald, Calum A.
McFall, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
McKelvey, William
McLeish, Henry
Maclennan, Robert
McMaster, Gordon
McNamara, Kevin
McWilliam, John
Madden, Max
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Martlew, Eric
Maxton, John
Meacher, Michael
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Morgan, Rhodri
Morley, Elliot
Mowlam, Marjorie
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Paul
Nellist, Dave
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
O'Brien, William
O'Neill, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Parry, Robert
Patchett, Terry
| Next Section
| Home Page |