House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jan 1992

Column 1037

my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South talked about--the Assessment of Performance Unit--was disbanded by the Government. We are not able to make comparisons of reading performance and numeracy performance over the years. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has rightly said on many occasions that it is important that we should be able over a period to make an assessment of standards in the education system. The hon. Gentleman asked earlier for a broader perspective. Indeed, he talked about an international perspective so that we could compare British children with children in France, Germany, Holland and other European Community countries.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : As my hon. Friend knows, my constituency is divided into urban and rural areas. Many small schools in the rural areas have been closed irrespective of their standards. In some instances, the children who attended these schools had a better educational start than some children in urban areas as a result of better teacher-pupil ratios. On the basis of standards, many small schools in rural areas would have remained open. They have been closed because of the Government's financial problems in the education system.

Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend has made an interesting and important intervention.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I am happy to say that, when Lancashire county council tried to close five rural schools in my constituency--they were all of a very high standard--my hon. Friend the Minister did not permit the closures to take place and we still have the schools. The same thing happened in the north end of my constituency. Closure was not permitted, we still have the schools and they have excellent standards.

Mr. Fatchett : I shall pay the hon. Lady a compliment. If I were the chair of the education committee, I would not even dream of closing a school in her constituency. The risk involved would be too great.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made an important intervention on the quality of small rural schools. Sometimes their standards can be affected in terms of ability to deliver the national curriculum. I do not know whether this goes wide of the new clause, but it has been brought to my attention that the Under-Secretary of State--we have heard him defend the Roman Catholic community in Darlington--is keen to close small rural schools. That might well bring him into conflict with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It would be a case of the irremovable object meeting the untestable force. It would be an interesting phenomenon.

I was saying that there is a need for some overall assessment and some management of the education system. When the Government disbanded the assessment of performance unit they left their responsibility behind. They said that they had no real reason to maintain assessment figures and no reason to maintain any system of measurement. That is an abdication of their responsibilities. Parents have a right to know what is happening and whether, under this Government's stewardship, standards of education have improved during the last 12 or 13 years.

Mr. Flannery : Does my hon. Friend agree that education standards cannot possibly be maintained

Column 1038

without sufficient money and expertise? Reference has already been made to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2 which says :

"It shall be the duty of the registered inspector to ensure that-- (

(a) at least one member of the inspection team is a person-- (

(i) without personal experience in the management of any school or the provision of education in any school (otherwise than as a governor or in any other voluntary capacity)".

It is bizarre to believe that somebody who knows nothing at all--it almost says that here--about something can become an inspector. I wonder what lawyers and doctors would think about that. Educationists are disgusted about it and wonder who, in God's name, thought it up.

Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend makes two important points. He rightly pointed out that in the context of declining and tight resources it is difficult to achieve high education standards. During the last few years, great pressure has been put on many local authority budgets. My hon. Friend knows, from his experience in Sheffield, that this Government's education policies have caused devastating damage.

My hon. Friend was also right to point out, as we must continue to point out, that if standards have declined, they have declined under the stewardship not of a Labour Government, but of a Conservative Government who have invested little in the state education system. My hon. Friend also raised another important point : in what other context would it be a statutory condition that a person without any suitable qualifications should apply for a particular job? My hon. Friend said that this seemed a little bizarre to him. He referred to what would happen if lawyers and doctors were able to set themselves up as part of a team without any relevant expertise. One might then see advertisements containing words such as "Doctors wanted for a general practice ; expertise not required."

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to ask my hon. Friends to think of any other circumstances in which a person would go to an interview for a job and make it clear that he had no expertise. I can provide an example. Throughout the last 12 years, we have had Ministers with responsibility for education who have no expertise in education. That is a very bad model to work from, particularly for schools.

Mr. McFall : According to paragraph 3(2) of schedule 2, only the registered inspector will have to be validated by the Department of Education and Science. The registered inspector's team will include somebody with the minimum training as outlined in schedule 2 and no or very little expertise in education, but within the inspector's team he will be regarded as an expert. That person's comments will be included in the report and will then be put into the public domain. That could mislead parents, even though the Government say that they do not want that to happen.

Mr. Flannery : More than one person could have no training and expertise in education.

Mr. Fatchett : I intend to deal with that matter, but the framework for my speech is tight and detailed. My hon. Friend would be disappointed if I dealt with these points out of sequence.

Column 1039

Mr. George Howarth : My hon. Friend is looking for examples. One example might be the Prime Minister, who is not sure whether he is qualified to do anything. He cannot remember what qualifications he has. Perhaps my hon. Friend would agree that it sounds very much like an Arthur Daley system of certification that we are contemplating.

Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend makes a distinctive and separate point.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : Hon. Members have referred to schedule 2(3), which says :

"at least one member of the inspection team is a person-- (i) without personal experience".

There is nothing to say that several members of the team may not be people without personal experience. When someone is setting out in a new business, one problem is pricing a job. That might lead to skimping and to the employment of a number of people without personal experience because they would come cheaper. That is one danger inherent in the provision.

Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend was not in the House for the earlier debate on new clause 2, when I talked about a trial and error inspection team. My hon. Friend's notion is close to a trial and error inspection team. Presumably the Government intend to get the price right and will not worry about the quality. In a sense, those remarks were a preamble to the more detailed points which I want to make.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South made strong detailed arguments about four or five central points, including the cost of training inspectors. He wondered how that cost will be met. If you have read schedule 2, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you have, because you like to keep yourself fully informed of the affairs of the House, you will have seen that in the various paragraphs there is no reference to cost. Particularly in paragraph 4(3) there is no reference to how the system is to be paid for. There is a reference to

"recovering the whole, or part, of the cost"

but it does not give the source of the recovery or the nature of the courses which will be provided.

My hon. Friend made the important point that the training of registered inspectors may be expensive. Will that cost be met by the team of registered inspectors, by the new business to which my hon. Friend referred or out of the DES programme? Will the full cost, or only part of it, be met? We need answers to those important questions, because they may affect the quality of the training.

Given that the system is designed to be cheap, coming from a cheap Government, the training that is deemed to be attractive may be cheap for the inspection firm. In setting up the firm, one may look at the possibility of finding cheap initial training. If so, the quality of the training may not be substantial.

We need to know more about the cost of training. We also need to know more about the quality guidelines for the initial training. We have heard that the training of the registered inspector, and the team may not be subject to quality guidelines. The inspection may satisfy the chief inspector but there is no indication about the quality of the inspection and the guidelines to be met.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has much experience of teacher training. He has great experience with the Council for the Accreditation of

Column 1040

Teacher Education, which has set out important and specific guidelines on what is necessary for initial teacher training. Such a model could be used effectively to satisfy the provisions of the Bill. That is essentially what we recommend in the new clause and amendments. We need guidelines to ensure that standards and quality are maintained.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South also talked effectively about the breadth of the inspection team. You may know, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend has a genuine interest and ability in the classics, and that he has a fluency in Greek which is rarely shown in the House.

Mr. O'Hara : My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to satisfy the Minister, who challenged me in Committee

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be able to assist the House. We have a lengthy amendment paper on which we have not made much progress. Since 7 pm, no Conservative Back Bencher has taken part in the debates, although there have, of course, been the usual ministerial replies to debates. It has become clear that the House is unlikely to be able to complete the business at a reasonable hour tonight.

I have been discussing through the usual channels and with my opposite numbers our progress so far, and I have been seeking ways in which, if the Opposition take up less time in debate, we may be able to shorten matters. It is a long time since I have had the experience of feeling myself trying to force an agreement on an opposite number who seems not to be disposed to reach an agreement as the evening goes on. For that reason, the Government decided not to move the business of the House motion at 10 pm. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement on how we shall now proceed.

Mr. Straw : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed a Government who have no stomach for a fight. The Bill, which was introduced by the Secretary of State to privatise the schools inspectorate and to dismember HM inspectorate, has no support outside the House and precious little support inside the House. The Secretary of State was right to say that no Conservative Member spoke in support of the Bill after 7 pm. However, there was not even a Conservative Back Bencher sitting in silent support of the measure after 7 pm.

Of a total of 75 amendments and new clauses selected for debate today, 31 have been tabled by the Government. It is the Government's unwillingness to debate the measure through tonight which has forced them to withdraw the business at this stage.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Government, who usually use the protection of a guillotine but who have not done so on this occasion, are disinclined to debate the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition. They are frightened that we shall expose their policies for what they are. The privatisation of the inspectors has gone wrong and people outside the House do not agree with the Government. The Government are frightened of being exposed and that is why they did not move the business motion at 10 pm. Several Hon. Members rose--

Column 1041

Mr. Speaker : Order. These are not really points of order for me.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that a Select Committee is considering the hours that the House sits? The Government are pre- empting the Select Committee with their enthusiasm for not moving the business of the House motion when there has not been reasonable discussion on Report.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, from your long service in the House that it was fairly common for Report stages to take a considerable time. I understand the lack of morale among Government supporters and their reluctance to stay after 10 o'clock to debate these matters, but when we have serious issues concerning the future of our schoolchildren to consider, it is surely reasonable to expect the Government to be prepared to provide adequate time and not to pre-empt decisions about the hours of the House with precipitate guillotine motions.

Mr. Speaker : These are not matters for me.

Column 1042

Business of the House

10.5 pm

Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : With permission I should like to make a shortbusiness statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows :

Timetable motion on the Education (Schools) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill. I will announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the business originally set down for tomorrow.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : Is the Leader of the House aware that that is a statement of which he ought to be ashamed? As I said earlier, the Government have no stomach for a fight. If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case--if an election is called in the middle of March, there is no way in which this measure can become law?

Will he also explain what will happen to the Welsh revenue support grant order which was due to be debated tomorrow?

Mr. MacGregor : We were willing to accommodate the Opposition in any way today on the Bill. They never asked in any of our discussions for more than one day. Well into today's debate, there was, for the first time, an indication that the Opposition were not prepared to see the Bill through in one day. They never approached Ministers until well into the debate, and we had been quite unable to understand the purpose of their concern. It is now absolutely clear. I cannot comment on the progress of the Bill when it reaches another place. What I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that he has now revealed that his concern is entirely about election timing and the position of the Opposition on election timing.

It is important to make it clear to the House that I have been under pressure from all sides of the House to accommodate a large number of debates. I am under great pressure to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House want that Bill to be passed. I am trying to secure it in this Parliament.

After every business statement, I am asked to fit in more debates. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of Members on both sides of the House, including their desire to debate the Friendly Societies Bill, and it was on that basis that we agreed to spend one day on this Bill. When it was clear that there was no agreement on that, we had to take the steps that we have taken to protect the rest of the programme.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : Will the Leader of the House explain to us why important groups of amendments that are still to be discussed have to be put back to tomorrow? Several of my hon. Friends wished to speak. Several of us were concerned about important aspects of the Bill. Not one speech has been ruled out of

Column 1043

order by the Chair, and we have not been pulled up for being out of order. The whole issue was still to be debated, and we were most concerned about it. Moreover, will the Leader of the House explain what is to be done when local authorities all over the country are waiting to hear what is to happen with the revenue support grant-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to converse among themselves? It is difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. George Howarth : I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Leader of the House explain how those of us from Merseyside who have had correspondence with the Merseyside fire authority about the rate support grant assessment--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the House a question, as Members do with an ordinary business statement.

Mr. Howarth : How can the local authorities which are most concerned about the revenue support grant settlement and how it will affect services- - [Interruption.] When will they know when the grant settlement-- [Interruption.] When can local authorities sort that out? It is disgraceful that the Government are running away from-- [Interruption.]

Mr. MacGregor : I could hear only a small part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if I heard him aright, I will make clear the position on the revenue support grant settlements in my business statment tomorrow.

With regard to the question about the time to be given to the Education (Schools) Bill, we had originally agreed absolutely that one day would be sufficient to see the Bill through. If we can agree the timetable motion early tomorrow afternoon, we will have two full days to debate the Bill instead of one.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : There is no point of order. These are business questions.

Mr. Hayes : If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right in saying that he offered the Opposition more than one day to debate the Education (Schools) Bill and they refused that, it is clear that the Opposition were simply filibustering tonight for political ends. The Opposition have only one person to blame, and that is the shadow Leader of the House.

Mr. MacGregor : The Opposition did not ask for more than one day. We are now giving the Bill two days.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say again to hon. Members below the Gangway that it would be helpful if they would carry on their conversations in the Lobby?

Mr. Boateng : Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid the long-awaited

Column 1044

Friendly Societies Bill when he has already put off the publication of that Bill on several occasions? When will he publish that Bill and stop using it as an excuse to curtail debate about this disastrous measure--the Education (Schools) Bill?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask for the publication of the Friendly Societies Bill and also claim that I am not trying to find time for it. There is a great deal of legislation ahead of us, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to fit in many debates. I am trying to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill because I am well aware of the desire on both sides of the House in respect of it. I am hoping to find time for it, and that is precisely why I thought that we had reached agreement to deal with the Education (Schools) Bill in one day. If we can find time, I hope to be able to publish the Friendly Societies Bill before long.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : With regard to the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been forced to make his statement because of the systematic abuse of the procedures of the House by the Labour party and continuous filibustering to prevent proper debate on very important legislation?

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, if we can move quickly back to the Bill tomorrow afternoon, we will have two days to debate it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : The Leader of the House will be aware that the debate will continue tomorrow at very short notice and that that will make it difficult for some hon. Members who had intended to do so to take part in the debate. Why must the right hon. Gentleman rush ahead with the Bill tomorrow when other business had been arranged? Why did he not arrange for it to be debated at the beginning of next week when it would have been easier for hon. Members, who have a genuine interest in the Bill, to see it through?

Mr. MacGregor : I am sorry that this is the case, but it was forced upon me. It is important that we proceed with the Bill and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to rearrange his affairs so that we can proceed with it and so that he can participate in the debate.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : My right hon. Friend, in support of his decision, should know that, every time that I have walked into the Chamber on a regular 10-minute basis throughout the evening, there have been only two rather bored Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and one person speaking. Will my right hon. Friend put tomorrow's business back to 14 February, as that would be a jolly good time to discuss tomorrow's business?

Mr. MacGregor : I am not quite sure whether I follow my hon. Friend. I hope to be doing other things on 14 February.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Leader of the House confirm that the 10 o'clock motion was not moved because the Government feared that they would not be able to sustain the business as they did not have 100 Conservative Members in the House? [Interruption.]

Column 1045

Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the arrangements that he will make for debating the important revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? He will be aware that local authorities have been notified of that debate. They have budgeted accordingly, and it may cause them great difficulty because they are now faced with the problem that they will have no certainty until those orders are passed.

In his statement tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the reason is the confusion and incompetence of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the rest of the Government in organising the business? Will he also confirm--

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is an ordinary business statement. I think that the hon. Member has asked two questions.

Mr. Cryer : May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker : No. I think that that is enough.

Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to the number of Conservative Members and the closure, it is quite clear that he cannot count, just as the Opposition generally cannot count on their tax and expenditure plans.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point about the revenue support grant orders, I understand the importance of clarifying the position on that, and I shall do so tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Questions must be related to the business announced by the Leader of the House. I shall allow questions to continue until 10.25 pm, when we shall move on to the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : Is it not evidence of the extreme cynicism with which the Opposition have been dealing with an important education measure that, in Committee, they should not have any problem with the timetable, yet this afternoon should spend no less than three hours debating the first new clause and then not even vote on it?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has a point. As I have said, we are now giving two days for the Bill to be considered on Report and on Third Reading.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Will the Leader of the House confirm that, throughout the 12 years of the Conservative Administration, there has been concern about standards in education? Will he confirm also that previous Secretaries of State, including himself, have not considered it necessary to introduce such a Bill? Will he confirm also that--

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is the third question. Let us have the answer to the first two questions first.

Mr. Spearing : I am coming to the question for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Will not the business for tomorrow, which changes the goalposts for the assessment of standards and upsets an inspectorate of 130 years' standing, cause extreme cynicism not only among the teaching profession but among most parents in this country?

Column 1046

Mr. MacGregor : I confirm that throughout the period of this Government we have been concerned about standards in education and we have constantly been improving them. I confirm also that I wholly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward the Bill. Had I still been at the Department, I would have done so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's third point arises.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unless there is more self-discipline on both sides of the House between now and the general election, we shall do no credit to ourselves? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend offered two days for the business but that in the end it was agreed that there should be one day? Now the Government have agreed to provide two days. What on earth do the Opposition have to grumble about? They must be interested only in pure filibustering to frustrate legislation. Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the end the House will be the loser?

Mr. MacGregor : I can confirm two things. First, we now propose to provide two days for the remainder of the Report stage and Third Reading to enable the Bill to be discussed thoroughly, as happened in Committee. Secondly, we are getting on with the business of the normal legislative programme and endeavouring to do as much as possible in a parliamentary Session that will inevitably be shorter than usual. It is to do that in an orderly fashion that we are taking this action tonight.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : While welcoming the provision of two days for the remaining stages of the Bill, may I ask the Leader to ensure that, in the consultations about the timetable motion, discussions will be held with all parties in the House? Four or five clauses in the Bill which relate to the Welsh Office were dealt with very inadequately in Committee as a result of the make-up of the Committee. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss those clauses on the Floor of the House tomorrow?

Next Section

Home Page