| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. We shall be examining in the discussions that will continue in future the extent to which we may be able to improve the trade and investment flow between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, so the matters to which my hon. Friend points, among others, will certainly be the subject of discussion within the Government.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : Did the summit leaders express concern at the world banking order and the decision of the Bank of England, supported by the Prime Minister at his meeting with the governor on 28 June, to close the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? The Prime Minister says that it was a successful summit. Does he agree that the headlines in the newspapers were a deep embarrassment to him during the summit? Does he agree also that to help the reputation--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is wide of the statement. Questions must be directed to the statement.
Mr. Vaz : Does the Prime Minister agree that the matter can best be sorted out by a public inquiry?
The Prime Minister : That question has no conceivable relevance to the summit.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : There is no doubt that the G7 meeting will provide the framework for a safer and better world, especially because of the way in which the Soviet Union's leadership has been involved. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it would be folly for the west to pour money into the Soviet Union while it is spending so much of its gross domestic produce on defence? Is it not right that the Soviet Union has launched six Typhoon class submarines within the past six months and that it has hidden, although we have spotted them by means of our satellites, quite a lot of the machinery, weapons and equipment that it says that it has destroyed? Is it not right that the President of the Soviet Union has yet to control his military conservative colleagues in a way that will lead the west to feel secure under his leadership?
Column 676
The Prime Minister : We discussed particularly the prospects for defence conversion, which I think bears directly upon the pertinent points that my hon. Friend makes. I think that he is correct to say that now is not the time for large-scale financial assistance.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : Did the Prime Minister caution the Soviet leader against too mad a dash to an untrammelled market economy without any planning or controls? Did he warn him that that could lead a country to lose one third of its manufacturing industry in 10 years? Did he explain that it could lead to financial scandals such as the BCCI? Did he ask Mr. Gorbachev's advice on how Moscow, unlike London, has been able to avoid having a cardboard city?
The Prime Minister : President Gorbachev is very keen to move towards a market economy, but then these days the Soviet Union leadership is to the right of the Labour party.
Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great statesmanship that he displayed. Does he agree that a real test of whether the worthy declarations of G7 will be translated into solid achievements will be the international trade discussions? Does he agree also that it is essential that many of us--even those who represent agricultural constituencies--will have to face some difficult decisions if we are to get a tougher package of proposals on guaranteed price and compensation payment reductions to break the stalemate on the Uruguay round and bring about an essential revival of talks on the GATT?
The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We ought not to overlook, however, some of the difficulties there will be in reaching agreements on services and intellectual property and on other matters. There are a number of areas in which there are difficult decisions to be taken, both for this country and elsewhere. I believe that it is an accurate judgment to say that agricultural movement is the cornerstone of a successful GATT outcome.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : How can any British Prime Minister credibly go to Brazil to talk about the conservation of forests without doing something to save what remains of our own ancient Caledonian forest, and in particular rescuing Mar Lodge? In the light of the pleas of UNICEF-- I gave notice--
Mr. Speaker : Order. We have heard a lot about Mar Lodge.
The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for giving notice that he would raise the issue of Mar Lodge and the estate. It was typically generous of the hon. Gentleman to do so, and I am most grateful to him. We have made it clear that we shall look to the conservation agencies in Scotland to work with the future owner of the estate, whoever he turns out to be, to ensure that the special qualities of the estate are preserved and enhanced for the benefit of this generation and future generations.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the support given to his initiative to set up a United Nations arms sales register ?
Column 677
Has not the time come for the United Nations secretariat, to maintain the momentum of the initiative, to establish more effective verification procedures ?The Prime Minister : Yes, I share my hon. Friend's view on that. As to the depth of support, we have complete support from the European Community, which was obtained previously. Indeed, the European Community will join us in tabling a motion at the United Nations General Assembly later this year. I now know that that motion will have the support of all members of Group of Seven.
Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : I welcome the moves to strengthen the United Nations. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any discussion about how the United Nations could work towards a solution for the Shia population in southern Iraq, which, as I said yesterday, is out of sight of the cameras and in respect of which the United Nations seems to be doing nothing ? Was there any suggestion of an initiative of the sort that we organised for the Kurds ?
The Prime Minister : That matter was not discussed at the G7 summit. The hon. Lady points accurately to the purpose behind one of the changes that we are suggesting to the United Nations, which is that the United Nations in future should look towards identifying problems and damping them down, rather than being an organisation that responds to problems after they have arisen and have achieved an international dimension. It is precisely to meet an attempt to prevent the sort of problem to which the hon. Lady referred that we are seeking the reforms that I have outlined within the United Nations.
Sir Peter Emery : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his outstanding leadership, and ask him to accept the thanks of many hon. Members for the way that he brought President Gorbachev on to the Terrace of this place in a way that had never been done before, and introduced him to many hon. Members. I hope that that example will be taken up and followed in future.
Will my right hon. Friend stress the need for our industries, and western industries generally, to go outside Moscow into the regions, where, with the break-up of centralisation, there is much to be done on the technological side to deal with the vast problem of transportation across the whole of the USSR ? Very few people understand the difficulties that now exist.
The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right in his remarks about the Soviet Union, and entirely correct to point out that many business and other opportunities will be found far outside Moscow and the other main cities that will none the less be well worth examining. I am grateful to him for welcoming the fact that President Gorbachev was able to meet a number of hon. Members on the Terrace last evening. I thought it would be appropriate for President Gorbachev to do that. I was particularly pleased that I was able to introduce him to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I thought that it was nice for President Gorbachev to meet one of the few socialists in Britain who has not let his membership lapse.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : In between discussing sending the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Russia to save its small businesses--while small businesses in Britain are
Column 678
going down the pan--and discussing the budget deficits of other countries--while our public sector borrowing requirement in the first three months of this year reached £6.9 billion--did the Prime Minister have a word with George Bush about drug- dealing banks? Did he discuss--I would find it unbelievable if he did not-- the BCCI and the need for a public inquiry to expose the Government's squalid cover-up of their involvement in the bank and the fact that they have been passing letters to one another-- [Interruption.]The Prime Minister : If there is a top, we can rely on the hon. Member for Bolsover to go well over it. It is odd of the hon. Gentleman to raise the question of borrowing, when his party has £35 billion-worth of pledges that will raise borrowing to massive heights.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I heard one hon. Member say "penalty". I intend, exceptionally, to extend questions by five minutes, but then we must move on.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : With the world moving towards freer markets and more open economies, how much respect would the British leader have received if he had gone to the summit with policies for increasing interference in the British economy, renationalisation, lax monetary arrangements, and letting public spending rip, and with policies that were so contradictory that, while asking for reform of the common agricultural policy, he was not asking for reform of the multi-fibre arrangement, despite the enormous damage that that does to developing countries?
The Prime Minister : None, Sir.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Despite all the lavish praise that the Prime Minister has received from his supporters, including the Tory press, is he aware that, when we return to our constituencies later today--where there are Tory as well as Labour supporters--we will be asked when the recession and the misery will end? If the Prime Minister is as confident of his position as apparently he was last night--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Those points have nothing to do with the statement.
Mr. Winnick : They are as relevant as the points of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).
The Prime Minister : With your agreement, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I have already told the House many times--that I am confident that, in the second half of this year, the economy will begin to take off again. There is clear evidence from around the world that the world is coming out of recession. The United States of America is coming out of recession, the slowdown in France has begun to stop, Germany is still helping to pull the European Community out of recession, and Japan is still booming. There are far too many signs for anyone to doubt that, in the second half of this year, there will be a great improvement and we will be moving out of recession.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that more significant than the congratulations that he has received from his supporters in the House are the
Column 679
plaudits that he has received from his fellow world leaders and the world's press? Do they not fully justify the 25-point lead that he has over the small and mean-minded Leader of the Opposition in the opinion polls?Is my right hon. Friend aware that, quite apart from the economic ramifications of the splendid conference, the most important single long- term benefit has been the boost that it has given to the strengthening of the United Nations, with its powers to prevent wars, to stop wars and to deal with the misery that follows wars and national disasters?
The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is important that the United Nations retains the enhanced authority that it rightly earned during the Gulf conflict. Our proposals, together with those suggested by others, which have been enshrined in the G7 declarations, will go a long way towards ensuring that the United Nations becomes a much more potent force for good than it has sometimes been in the past.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On the question of preventive measures by the United Nations, to which the Prime Minister alluded, was there any discussion of the implementation of United Nations resolution 688 on the repression in Iraq? In view of the clear breaches of that resolution on Wednesday in Arbil when four people were killed, and the use of tanks against the civilian population in Salumaniya, was it the general view of the leaders at the summit that some action should be taken either by the rapid deployment force in southern Turkey or by American marine deployments in the eastern Mediterranean?
The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, those are matters for the United Nations. We made it clear in our discussions during the past few days that we stand by United Nations resolutions 687 and 688. They are very important, not only in the aspect to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but in view of the information that has lately come into our hands that Iraq still retains the capability to produce nuclear weapons--
Mr. Dalyell : Is the right hon. Gentleman sure of that?
The Prime Minister : Yes, we are sure of that, and it is a matter of great importance. We have made it clear to Iraq, as have our partners, that Iraq must remove those capabilities or we will take action to remove them.
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : I wish to add greater accent to the question asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell) about the help being given to developing nations in eastern and central Europe. Many still worry about the level of aid in both know-how assistance and funding. I hope that the G7 summit will lead to increases, where those are necessary.
The Prime Minister : I am not sure that I can add to my earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but it was acknowledged at the G7 summit that, in our concern about the Soviet Union, there must be no question of overlooking the imminent and urgent concerns of other central and eastern European
Column 680
nations. That was the view of the G7 summit and, by our actions within the European Community, it is clear that it is also the view of the European Community.Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call all hon. Members, but I give an undertaking that, on the next occasion that the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box to make a statement, even though it may be on another subject, I shall give some precedence to those hon. Members.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : What possible point of order could arise from that?
Mr. Madden : When colleagues sought to raise the matter of BCCI, Mr. Speaker, you rightly said that it was a little wide of the statement. Have you had any indications from the Prime Minister that he intends to make a statement about BCCI on Monday? It is clear that the longer that the Government and the Prime Minister maintain silence on that very serious matter, the more suspicion will mount that the Government's failure to act was dictated by political expediency rather than by any other matter.
Mr. Speaker : I have not had any such indication, but I do not underestimate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that it will have been heard.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a genuine point of order, which also follows upon an earlier point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We are aware that the Secretary of State for Employment received a letter stating that BCCI had lost $600 million of loans and $150 million across the exchanges, and that there had been a charge that the bank was corrupt and another charge of nepotism, and that a doubt was cast upon the bank's auditors. The Secretary of State simply passed that letter on to the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who at the time--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Those are matters that could rightly be exposed, if there is any substance to them, in the debate to be held on Monday.
Mr. Speaker : Order. These are matters not for me, but for the Government. They are matters for Monday, not today.
Mr. Bell : With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a position we face time and again in the House. This legislature is here to hold the Executive to account--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member is taking debating time from his own colleagues, which is not fair. There will be other opportunities to raise that matter. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Bell : Has the Secretary of State for Employment, who received the letter and sent it on to the Department of Trade and Industry, made a request to make a statement
Column 681
at 2.30 pm? Earlier this week, the Leader of the House said that Opposition requests for statements would be taken on account--Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not heard that there is to be a statement at 2.30 pm, but it is an important matter and I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks were heard by those on the Government Front Bench.
Column 682
Schools
12.10 pm
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker : May I point out to Back Benchers who hope to be called that although I did not earlier limit speeches to 10 minutes, and cannot do so now under the Standing Order, perhaps they will bear such a limit in mind, so that all of them may be called.
Mr. Fatchett : It is a strange experience to have a 70-minute break, but I reassure right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House that I am almost two thirds or three quarters through my speech.
Mr. Pawsey : Is that meant to be reassuring?
Mr. Fatchett : Yes, because it means that I shall not take much more time.
It may be helpful if I summarise my earlier points. I said that any deterioration in education standards over the past 12 years is the Government's responsibility and I criticised them for their failure to provide nursery education and to give our young people the start in life that they would enjoy in other European countries. I criticised the Government also for their managerial incompetence and inconsistency and for their politicisation of education. I criticised them for failing to invest in our education system.
As we reached the enforced half time, I spoke of the double standards of Conservative Members in imposing their ideology on the maintained sector, but sending their children to private schools. I turn to another area of criticism. I sought information about the funding level of city technology colleges, but still await some parliamentary answers. The Government have not denied that there is a massive differential between the funding of CTCs and adjoining schools. For example, the Nottingham CTC grant represents 71 per cent. more than the normal funding level for Nottinghamshire's local education authority ; for Kingshurst CTC in Solihull, the figure is 24 per cent. more ; for Middlesbrough, 60 per cent. more than other schools in Cleveland ; Gateshead, 270 per cent. more ; and Bradford, 250 per cent. more. We know also that the Harris CTC is funded on the basis that it has 1,100 students, when it really has fewer than 800. The Minister excuses such differentials on two grounds. He argues that CTCs are new schools and therefore should benefit from start-up money. That is not the case with the maintained sector. In an earlier intervention, I asked the Minister to name one maintained school that would benefit in that way under local management, but he was unable to do so. The Government's argument applies only to CTCs, not to other schools.
The Minister's second argument, which was equally erroneous, was that CTCs are funded more expensively because of their emphasis on technology. That shows the Government's double standards, because if it is right that CTC students should have access to the best in technology and they should--the same facilities should be made available to all children.
When the Government speak about choice, they mean choice for a few. They have no view on how to raise standards across the whole education system. For 12 years,
Column 683
they have been more interested in ideological experimentation and in the education of the few than about the majority of children. Overall standards must be improved in each and every school throughout the country and we do not accept that some market mechanism will make that possible. Under the market system, some schools will improve, but others will deteriorate and no overall increase in standards will result.The Government's obsession with the right to choose for a few means that the entitlement of all parents to high-quality education for their children is ignored. The Conservative party is the party of partial choice for a small group of parents. The Labour party is the party of rights and entitlement for all parents, because we believe in improving standards across the system.
It is clear from this and previous debates that only one party is serious about raising standards for all children and that is the Labour party. The public trust Labour because only our party has policies for improving standards and has articulated them. The public know that under a Labour Government, there will be an expansion of the good start in early education through higher investment in nursery education. They know that Labour will improve education performance school by school, local authority by local authority, through its powerful, independent, much-acclaimed and non- political education standards commission.
Labour has an approach to managing the education system, but the Government have abdicated their responsibilities. Parents recognise that difference and look to Labour to improve overall standards. Parents know also that Labour will open up participation in post-16 education and that it has ambitions for our young people which will put them in line with those in the rest of western Europe. The Minister knocked Labour's ambitious targets, but our counterparts in western Europe would view them only as realistic, everyday and matter of fact. It tells us much about the Minister and the Government's record that the hon. Gentleman saw fit to mock Labour's ambition to match the targets achieved by our European neighbours.
Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that education is the way to build for the future and to provide skills and knowledge to ensure individual achievement and the country's economic success. For the first time in our history, personal satisfaction and economic success through education are converging. The country needs a Government who will seize on that opportunity and build for the future. For Labour, education is not just the big idea in opposition, but will be its big achievement in government. 12.18 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North) : I am mindful of the time and will try to keep to the guidelines issued by Mr. Speaker. Let me congratulate the education team, from the Secretary of State downwards. Over the past 12 years, the Government have tried to get to grips with education problems ; yet, somehow, the education establishment has
Column 684
constantly eluded us. For the first time, we have now brutally taken the whip hand to ensure that what we want to be done will indeed be done.As a headmaster--and, indeed, since ceasing to be one--I have witnessed the decline in educational standards that began in about 1965. That decline cannot be blamed on either teachers or parents ; it was caused by two other factors. The first could be described as the intellectual climate, in which "trendies" insisted on following every fashion, including the discovery method. The second is Labour's obsession--mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)--with the egalitarian comprehensive system. I should add that inspectors in university departments and teacher training colleges were largely responsible for destroying the primary schools. We shall never get education to work properly until those two problems are dealt with.
Teachers in the classrooms did not want the new methods ; they wanted to go on teaching. Parents did not want them, either : they wanted their children to be taught. Never has there been such a betrayal of both parents and teachers as in the past 20 years. The first thing that should be taught in infant and junior schools is discipline. Unless children are trained to sit down and work, nothing will be achieved. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) may laugh--
Mr. Fraser rose --
Sir Rhodes Boyson : No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If he wishes to indulge in a little laughter session, that is his privilege, but I do not intend to join in.
Mr. Fraser : I have to agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
Sir Rhodes Boyson : That worries me rather.
The discovery method is the worst form of teaching that we have ever seen. When it is introduced in primary schools, standards fall. Teachers are paid to teach--to plug children into arithmetic and English and to equip them with a body of knowledge. Children do not acquire such knowledge by accident. Schools are, in a sense, artificial institutions : children will not go to school because they want to. They would prefer to play outside. Nowadays, some schoolrooms are really indoor football pitches.
All these developments have undermined the confidence of teachers. They have now been told that they must not actually teach ; they must simply place around the room such items as Euclid's theorems, Faraday's electromagnetic laws and the use of the subjunctive and the children will discover them of their own accord.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Rhodes Boyson : No, I will not--much as I respect my hon. Friend, who once taught at a school where I was headmaster. I wish to allow others time to speak.
The continuance of civilisation depends on men and women standing on the shoulders of those who have lived before. The "discovery method", however, rejects that principle, relying on induction and, in many instances, destroying what had been achieved in infant and junior schools. At the same time, there was a move to the "look and say" method and "real books" and away from phonics, which is the method by which most children learn
Column 685
to read. Ten per cent. of teachers can teach by any method if they are left alone ; 10 per cent. cannot and must be got rid of. The remaining 80 per cent. need a method and that is where phonics came in.In the early 1960s, when I was a headmaster in Lancashire, I supported early experiments in comprehensive schools. I do not believe that an entire system should be turned around until it has been tried. Before long, however, I found that the Labour party and certain other organisations were trying to achieve salvation by means of faith rather than works. The Labour party got shot of its previous policy--as it often does : it has recently been forced to support the free market because of its shortage of policies. Looking round for a replacement policy, it became wedded to the concept of the egalitarian comprehensive school and destroyed 400 good technical schools. It destroyed hundreds of grammar schools and thousands of secondary moderns. I know : I taught for 10 years in secondary moderns and also did some remedial work. It will be a long time before the situation is remedied, even with the help of the city technology colleges.
What have we done over the past 12 years? We seem to be getting to grips with the problems better than we were before ; again, I offer my congratulations to the present ministerial team. I approve of the tests for children aged seven, 11 and 14. I also believe that diagnostic tests should be applied automatically and that any teacher who does not apply them should be out of a job. The new tests should establish whether schools are doing their job and, if they are not, their staff should be replaced. Children's chances, especially in the inner cities, are made or broken by what they are taught at school. I know that from my experience of teaching in inner cities and downtown textile areas.
As soon as we presented our proposals, the educational establishment set up committees on which ordinary teachers were hardly mentioned or seen. They built a massive structure, at great expense. Once again, the left wing damaged what had been achieved. I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science talk of returning to pencil-and-paper tests which can easily be applied within the curriculum without distorting it.
The Government have also done a good deal to enhance parental choice. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the assisted places scheme, which has benefited 50,000 children. The Labour party would destroy that, too : Labour has learnt nothing from what has already happened. The introduction of the CTCs and grant-maintained status has also increased parental choice. I want a system in which all parents can choose from a variety of schools and can even choose among mini-schools within schools.
We must do two more things. First, we must openly return to some system of selection at the ages of 11, 12, or 14. We will never return to the grammar schools as they were, just as the Roman Church was never the same after the reformation and the counter-reformation. One can never go back, but every other country with which we compete has some form of selection, according to interest and ability, at those ages.
We have been hearing about the G7 summit. Woe betide us if the Russians and eastern Europeans, with their excellent education system, ever go to a genuine free
Column 686
market economy. If we do not get our education right, they will overtake us. On the whole, education is better in Russia and eastern Europe than it is here, despite the improvements that we are trying to make. I recently met the headmaster of a school in Russia which recruits its 200 pupils from a recruitment field of 7 million. I am not advocating that ; I am merely mentioning it. It is a physics and mathematics school. The Russians did not get to outer space by accident. They were able to do it because they have a sound educational system. It is a good thing for us, in competitive terms, that they had a bad economic system. That is why they did not do even better.Russia has a whole series of specialist schools, including trade schools. Thirty five per cent. of children in Russia go to trade schools where, from the age of 14, they are trained for trades, and can study 1,150 crafts. Germany has three types of school. Sweden and the Netherlands have different types of school, as does Japan. Only the Labour and Liberal parties--I regularly pray for their salvation--have swallowed the concept of the egalitarian comprehensive school and teaching in mixed-ability schools, which is the most uneconomic teaching system ever discovered by man. It is like going back to hand-loom weaving. Previously, we brought children with the same interests and abilities together under skilled teachers. The Government must accept different forms of selection so that each child is taken to the limit of his ability.
We must raise the status of teachers. The discovery method degraded and denigrated teachers. They were almost unnecessary--just chairmen or people wandering round. They must be teachers again and must be paid as such and the professional factor must apply. I therefore welcome what is being done about teachers' salaries.
It is particularly important that primary and infant school teachers are well trained. I would not go so far in respect of secondary teachers. One can put teachers into a secondary school and give them a year's induction and one knows almost immediately whether they will make teachers or not. But the skills required for junior and infant school teaching require careful training.
I believe that the 1,265-hour contract should be torn up. Just when industry was buying out the rule book so that people finished the job, we gave the teachers a rule book. There are trendies in the Department, as there are in every educational establishment. I hope that there are fewer of them now. They may be very nice people. No doubt there is nothing wrong with them--they do not beat their wives or eat their grandmothers--but they have been partly brainwashed. When I was at the Department, they tried to get the proposal through and, if I did nothing else, I stopped it then. Teachers should be professional workers who finish the job. If that means working until 7 pm or 8 pm, I would expect no less of my teachers or myself. But if the examinations are over and teachers want two days off in the summer, they should be able to take that time off. There is no need to add everything up and say, "Where are you on this?" That represents the proletarianisation of the whole profession. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Ministers are to keep A-levels, which are an important benchmark. We want to build up a similar assessment at age 18 on the technical, vocational and trade side, and one which is accorded equal respect. They have such tests in other countries and we should follow their example. We are moving towards that, but for goodness sake let us keep A-levels in the meantime.
| Next Section
| Home Page |