House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jul 1994

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Will my right hon. Friend deal with the nonsense of ethnic quotas ? The programme credits and the faces of those reading the news show that ethnic minorities are at least adequately represented. They are welcome, valued and fortunate to be

Column 327

here, but should not they be told that British culture and attitudes should predominate, not least in the British Broadcasting Corporation ?

Mr. Brooke : That is essentially a matter for the management of the BBC, conducted under the law. It is responsible for its programming and employment practices.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : In the right hon. Gentleman's very comprehensive statement, he said that there were obligations on the BBC to observe due impartiality. Does it have a responsibility to promote British culture and identity ? Can he assure us that Northern Ireland may be subjected to less promotion of Irish nationalist culture and identity, as it, too, is part of this nation and the BBC is there to serve the British nation ?

Mr. Brooke : The responsibility of the BBC for the culture, heritage and arts of this country is something to which I alluded in my statement. One of the glories of the BBC is that it has been speaking on behalf of the whole nation for more than 70 years. Every minority can expect to be represented, informed, educated and entertained. As someone who was resident in Northern Ireland for part of his career, I pay tribute to the manner in which BBC Northern Ireland conducts that remit.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, during the BBC's extension, one of the most significant improvements in technology will be digitised broadcasting ? Does he further recognise that, no matter what the BBC does in that area, it will be against the backdrop of a diminishing share ? He should take that into account when considering the possible licensing of Channel 5--a terrestrial channel. Digitised broadcasting and Channel 5 would enhance the considerable advantage that British industry currently enjoys in that technology. It would be good for our local electronics companies and it would be good for Britain's balance of payments.

Mr. Brooke : My hon. Friend alludes to something to which there was a passing reference in my statement, but obviously his reference to Channel 5 goes outside the statement. There is widespread recognition of the industrial opportunities and the broadcasting gains that can flow both from advances in digital and from the potential of Channel 5. It is certainly a subject of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I never lose sight.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n) : The White Paper makes a commitment to the transfer of a proportion of network production from London to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give about the content of those programmes ? Where will editorial control lie ? It would not be good enough simply to transfer the production of those programmes, because it is important that they reflect the language, culture and tradition of each of those countries and regions.

Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reference to the BBC's transfer of network production. However, the opinions that we gathered during the consultation process showed that there are as many people who want the production in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, in parts of England of programmes that have a universal application for the nation, as there are

Column 328

who want a strictly regional application. It is an exercise in balance that will have to be sustained within the countries and the regions themselves. However, it is a point which is not remotely lost on the BBC.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC continues to give tremendous stimulus to music through its broadcasts, its orchestras and its promenade concerts and that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is completely wrong about it ? I join in the general welcome for my right hon. Friend's decision on the 10- year charter and his references to the Select Committee's work, but will he accept that the licence system is not quite satisfactory ? The evasion rate is 7 per cent., there are many criminal cases and all the expensive paraphernalia of detector vans. May we dare look forward to the day when eventually it will be possible to disconnect non-payers, as one would with water bills ?

Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to the BBC's commitment to music and I pay tribute to his work as a member of the Select Committee. I alluded to the changes in technology that will make it possible to consider alternatives to the licensing system, let alone to examine the system itself, but he is right--there is resentment that some people in this country enjoy the benefits of television without paying for it.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) : During his deliberations, did the Secretary of State receive any representations from those people who are versed in technological Babel and who are calling either for a merger between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury or for joint public-private sector ventures between the BBC and British Telecom or Mercury ? Does not he recognise that that road leads inevitably and inexorably, first, to loss of editorial control and, ultimately, to privatisation ?

Mr. Brooke : In response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, I said that the issue of the convergence in the technologies would obviously overshadow the next 10 years of the licence fee, but I made no comment on the substance of the issue.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members--although obviously not all-- are pleased by his reassurance that the licence fee will be the fundamental way of financing the BBC over the next phase ? However, does he realise that our support is necessarily provisional because, in the rapidly moving world of telecommunications and broadcasting, we want the following principles to be maintained : continuity, universality and above all, quality ? In the past, the BBC has been renowned for those things, but we want a reassurance that they can be achieved in future.

Mr. Brooke : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing what might be regarded as a new issue : the fact that maintaining the critical mass of the BBC to achieve the objectives that he described has been an important element in our thinking. As for the provisionality of his views, there will be an opportunity, prior to the year 2000, to review the licensing system.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Will the Secretary of State accept that, while I welcome his

Column 329

statement's broad approach and the principles on which that it is based, there is real concern among broadcasters in Scotland, Wales and, I am sure, in the English regions-- there is nothing parochial about that concern--that they do not wish to broadcast inwards but they wish a fair opportunity to broadcast outwards to the rest of the United Kingdom ? Does he also accept that an antidote to the centralist tendencies in the BBC or any large organisation is needed and that the Government have a duty to ensure that resources and the commitment are there to allow all parts of the UK to play a full part in the BBC ?

Mr. Brooke : In answer to other questions, I have mentioned the moves that the BBC has already made, but all hon. Members will be watching closely to see what the outcome will be. The BBC's heart is clearly in the right place.

Several hon. Members rose

Madam Speaker : Order. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

4.23 pm

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you take a close interest in the affairs of the Principality and no doubt you will have read the leading article in the Western Mail which refers to a statement that the Secretary of State for Wales intends to make. The article reads :

"The Development Board for Rural Wales is to be scrapped. Welsh Secretary John Redwood will unveil his plans to abolish the quango in the Commons tomorrow."

It would not be appropriate to raise the substance of that matter today, because, even though it is controversial and will be bitterly resisted by Opposition Members, it is a matter for future debate. However, I want to raise with you, Madam Speaker, the fact that such a statement seems to me a clear illustration of the arrogance of a Government who have been in power too long, and who demonstrate at every turn their total contempt for the people of Wales. Above all, it shows gross and deliberate discourtesy to the House, and to you, Madam Speaker. You have ruled before that when Ministers have a statement to make to the House of Commons, they should make it to the House of Commons,

Column 330

not pre-empt the proceedings of the House by running away and making statements to the press. Will you confirm that that is the practice, and that that is what you require Ministers to do ?

Madam Speaker : I must confess that I am not an avid reader of the Western Mail , and as I am not in possession of all the relevant facts, I do not wish to comment on the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. What I do know is that much newspaper comment is often speculation, but I reiterate my view that all important announcements by Ministers should be made to the House in the first instance. I hope that Ministers will always bear my comments in mind.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR FRIDAY 22 JULY -- Members successful in the ballot were :

Mr. Harry Cohen

Lady Olga Maitland

Mr. Alan Meale

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible for you to outline your thinking on statements ? I understand the position of the Speaker if there is a pressing day and urgent business, but we all know that today is a very light day-- [Hon. Members :-- "No."]. Only eight Members were still seeking to catch your eye earlier, Madam Speaker, and we finished at 4.23, not even at a "round figure" such as 4.30 or some other magic hour. May I ask for your thinking on the subject ?

Madam Speaker : I do not operate on magic hours ; I operate on the basis of when I think the statement made by a Secretary of State has been exhausted by Back-Bench Members. I felt that that was the case today, as I do on many occasions. I have many factors to weigh and to take into account --such as the business before us, which I do not consider at all light, and the fact that we shall return to the issue. I also take into account the fact that I often see frustration on the faces of many hon. Members who are very active ; the hon. Gentleman is one of them. I know that he likes to put questions to Ministers, but I have to take so many things into account, and I think that it was fair enough that we finished when we did today. Of course I shall remember the hon. Gentleman on a future occasion, just as I will remember other hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Column 331

School Leavers Community Service

4.27 pm

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include details of the school leaver's contribution to community service ; and for connected purposes.

You will not be surprised to learn, Madam Speaker, that my favourite English historians are Messrs Sellars and Yeatman who, in their classic work "1066 and All That", divided the great moments and the great figures of history into those that were a Good Thing and those that were not. I believe that the whole House will accept that community service is indisputably a Good Thing.

In my part of the world, hundreds of young people are involved in community service--through their schools, through the scouts, the guides and the sea cadets, through Church groups and through voluntary organisations as different as the YMCA and the Chester rural youth action team, and through schemes as well established as the Duke of Edinburgh's award and as innovatory as the Central Council of Physical Recreation's sports leadership award. Many young people in Chester and beyond are giving freely of their time--helping senior citizens to paint a kitchen, clearing a local canal, picking stones off waste land to turn it into a playing field, working with a will in the local hospital or hospice, serving the homeless and the discarded. Many thousands of young people are already committed to voluntary service--but not enough. We need more. In fact, we need them all, because community service should be part and parcel of every young person's education.

A number of people have been floating ideas in this area for a number of years. Indeed, looking through the cuttings file in the Library, it seems that the notion of some kind of national community service has been on somebody or other's agenda since the ending of national military service back in 1963. The Prince of Wales raised the issue again last week. The Labour party's Commission on Social Justice has explored the possibility. The Government have promised £350,000 as part of their "Make a Difference" initiative to encourage more first-time volunteers and to provide new opportunities and easier access to volunteering.

Across the political spectrum, I hear people talking about the role of the active citizen. I think that I even detect a certain squabbling as to the ownership of the concept of civic

responsibility.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten) : We thought of it first.

Mr. Brandreth : The Secretary of State asserts that we thought of it first. He is right on most things, so I shall give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Argument, debate, conferences, pamphlets, editorials are all very well, but it is time for action, which is why I am proposing today a practical first step.

Thanks to the Education Reform Act 1988, every school leaver is now equipped with a national record of achievement. My Bill proposes that that all-important document should contain space for a clear and detailed record of the school leaver's contribution to the community. So, alongside the national vocational

Column 332

qualifications and the GSCEs, one would be obliged to show the detail of the community service that one has undertaken.

We can learn from the experience of the United States in this area. In 1992, Maryland became the first state to require community service from students as a condition of high school graduation. Other states now follow Maryland's example. I am not advocating a top-down approach with a heavy structure to impose compulsory community service, but a simple mechanism which will encourage an ever-increasing number of young people to give their time, energy and talent to the community, so helping the community and, equally important, helping themselves.

The move will have wide support. Dr. Martin Stephen, the chairman of the HMC community service committee, has been a pioneer champion of the cause. Community service volunteers, through its CSV education programme, are actively working with schools and colleges to involve young people in positive community action. Martyn Lewis, the good news broadcaster who is visiting the House today, is patron of "Youth for UK", a scheme designed to promote volunteering by 16 to 25-year-olds, based on the belief that all young people should be encouraged to undertake a period of voluntary work.

Wisely, "Youth for UK" wants young volunteers to begin by taking advantage of the opportunities that already exist. It wants to encourage greater co- operation between current providers without in any way threatening their independence. It wants to extend the scope for volunteering so that, in time, sooner rather than later, every young person in Britain will see community service not simply as an exciting challenge, but as a natural part of civilised life in a civilised society.

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been a Member for a couple years only, which is why I still claim to be loosely in touch with reality. Amid the arcane procedures and curious rituals that we have here, several of which still puzzle me, I have nothing but praise and thanks for the opportunities which exist for hon. Members to promote private Members' Bills. My first such Bill did not get past its Second Reading, but the essence of it was taken up by the DTI. My second Bill did not reach Committee, but aspects of it now form part of a Department of the Environment planning policy guidance note. The Video Recordings Act 1993 is now the law of the land and the Marriage Bill may yet be. I am pleased to report that it completed its consideration in Committee this morning.

Whatever the cynics may say in the House and beyond, we Back Benchers, as well as making a noise, occasionally make a difference. I understand that, since 1970, just six ten-minute Bills have reached the statute book. Given the contribution that the young can make to community service and given the contribution that community service can make to the young, it would be glorious if this Bill could be the magnificent seventh.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Graham Riddick and Mr. Nigel Forman.

School Leavers Community Service

Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 22 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to introduce a mandatory requirement for the National Record of Achievement of every school leaver to include

Column 333

details of the school leaver's contribution to community service ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Column 334

Orders of the Day

Education Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

New clause 1 --

Commencement

Part I of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which it is passed.'.-- [Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.35 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 32, after may', insert after 1st April 1996'. No. 11, in clause 26, page 16, leave out lines 26 to 29.

Mrs. Taylor : The Opposition have tabled the new clause and amendments to give the Government another chance to reconsider their ludicrous timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the Bill. We are opposed to the Bill in principle and we think that it has some serious practical faults. We are extremely unhappy with the Government's lack of attention to the practical difficulties that their proposals will bring to education. We believe that it would be appropriate, even at this late stage, for the Government to think again.

One of the main features of education in the past decade, and especially in the past two years, has been change on change, experiment on experiment and change seemingly for the sake of change. If any hon. Member asks a parent, a school governor or a teacher to state their concerns about education, above all else--there is much else that they complain about--they will speak out about the pace of change that the Government have imposed on education.

Regulations have been introduced before those that preceded them were implemented. Enormous amounts of education legislation have been introduced in recent years. Even now, the Government having been forced to reconsider the national curriculum, there is an insistence that that be done at breakneck speed.

The Bill is yet another example of the haste that the Government show when introducing their legislation. I thought of asking the House who it was who claimed that a good maxim is legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. On reflection, I considered that that would not be a fair question to put to the House because the statement was made by the Secretary of State at the time of an Appeal Court hearing by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.

It is fair to ask why the Secretary of State always insists on legislating before consultations are complete and in pushing legislation through regardless of the views of those involved in education. Why does the right hon. Gentleman, time and again, tell us that every piece of legislation that he brings before us will be the last piece in the jigsaw ? That was the phrase that he used when the Bill came before the House for Second Reading. Alas, it was the phrase that he used on Second Reading of what became

Column 335

the Education Act 1993. Whoever is Secretary of State when the next piece of education legislation comes before us will undoubtedly use similar terminology.

I shall remind the House how rapid has been the change to education that the Government have introduced. In March, the Secretary of State announced that the SCITT--school-centred initial teacher training--pilot schemes were to go ahead. At the time, he said that those pilot schemes were going to be in advance of any future reforms. However, the Education Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 November and, as the Secretary of State was forced to acknowledge in response to parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), the results of those pilot schemes will not be known until next May.

Therefore, we have a Bill which is supposed to be based on the experience of pilot schemes, but we are debating this important legislation before we know the outcome of those pilot schemes. It is clear that the pilot schemes were no more than a sop, a pretence and an appearance that the Government were going to be reasonable. There are no arguments in favour of the very rapid timetable that the Government have introduced, but there are many arguments against it. One of the arguments against the Government's timetable is the confusion in Government quarters about what they think should be happening with regard to teacher education generally.

The Opposition argued on Second Reading and in Committee that it was essential that teacher education should be provided by a partnership between higher education and schools which could provide practical experience. That point was acknowledged on occasions by junior Ministers who seemed to accept that that was the best way to proceed. However, that is not what the Bill allows for. It allows for that partnership to be broken.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell) : Just for the record, does the hon. Ladconcede that the Bill does not preclude that either ? The fact that something may be desirable does not necessarily mean that it must be prescribed in statute.

Mrs. Taylor : Something as desirable as a partnership in this critical area should be on the face of the Bill. We will reach a critical amendment on that point later and I know that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are concerned about that issue. I hope that Ministers will respond to my point at this early stage. What is the Government's collective view on the future of teacher education and that partnership between higher education and schools ? I have seen the document which has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. That significant and official document is dated 1 June 1994. It is therefore also a very recent document. It is therefore a recent statement of Government policy. It states : "The planning and implementation of ITT will necessitate the strongest possible partnership between ITT providers and schools." It is clear that Northern Ireland Ministers expect that partnership to be important and to continue.

In the past couple of days, I have seen an even more interesting statement by a Minister, this time at the Scottish Office. I assume that one Department responsible for education consults another Department responsible for

Column 336

education. However, in Scotland, the Scottish Office has decided that, far from schools having an even greater role in teacher education, the reverse will be the case.

Scottish Office Ministers have issued a document to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities which contains new guidelines. According to those new guidelines, instead of the present arrangement which has been advocated by the Scottish Office whereby trainee teachers should spend 22 weeks in school, the Scottish Office is now recommending that they should spend 18 weeks in schools.

The Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education may well look startled by my comments and I must admit that I was somewhat surprised when I read the new guidelines. While Ministers responsible for education in England and Wales are allowing school-centred initial teacher training-- that is, schools to be the focal point of teacher training--their colleagues in Northern Ireland are talking about the importance of partnership and their colleagues in Scotland are reducing the number of weeks that trainee teachers need to spend in schools to obtain practical experience.

I submit that, with Ministers facing in so many different directions, it would be wise to accept the new clause and allow further time for reflection.

4.45 pm

Mr. Colin Pickthall (Lancashire, West) : I was not aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office document. Her points add a great deal of weight to the new clause.

The fact that not enough time is being given to assess the results of the pilot schemes properly is very important to the new clause. However, the new clause, like the Bill, is also about the future of the quality of teacher education. Public confidence in our teachers in future will depend largely on what happens as a result of the Bill.

We believe that the Government intend in the longer term that their programmes like school-centred initial teacher training should be expanded across the whole of the teacher education sector. At the moment, the Government argue that that programme applies only to a section of postgraduate courses. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education said that there were no plans to expand the scheme at this time. When talking to a Centre for Policy Studies meeting last year, the Secretary of State said that SCITT schemes

"give students the opportunity to bypass teacher training." That phrase says a great deal about the intentions.

In Committee, we also heard what many Back Benchers would like to see happening to teacher education. In contrast to that, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who has a distinguished record in education, said :

"By all means let us try to reform teacher training . . . by encouraging a great deal more emphasis on classroom skills and experience . . . However . . . we must be careful not to reduce too far the role of higher education institutions. They have a great deal to contribute".--[ Official Report , 23 November 1993 ; Vol. 233, c. 353.]

That was well said and I hope that Ministers will take that point into account.

Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State to impose any changes he wishes on the Teacher Training Agency. That again opens up an avenue about which we are concerned. We have tabled new clause 1 because we believe that the consequences for education could be dire. It could be dire

Column 337

for the teaching profession ; for schools and their pupils in consortia ; for teacher education departments in universities and colleges ; and for local authorities and their responsibilities. Those dire consequences may not happen, although we do not know that. However, we know that education institutions of all kinds are infinitely adaptable and none more so than higher education and HE in so far as it is involved in teacher education. It has adapted enormously over the past two decades. However, the balance of probability is that there is a massive element of risk in what the Government are doing. About 99 per cent. of education practitioners are at best apprehensive about the consequences of the Bill, and at worst diametrically opposed to it. Asking why leads us to seek to amend the Bill.

In recent weeks, we have seen the disintegration of some partnerships or parts of partnership schemes. We know that the basis of partnership is being extended into SCITT schemes. In Committee, we noted that the deputy head of the Bishop Stopford school in Enfield was reported in The Guardian of 17 May as saying that the consequences of partnership for his school were extremely problematic. There had been serious consequences for senior members of staff who were using far too much time in the supervision of students, and therefore the school was withdrawing from the partnership.

In Committee, we were informed of an article in The Times , written by a mature student, Jeremy Howard, who had spent 15 years as an art dealer before experiencing such a partnership. His view--it is straight from the horse's mouth--is :

"The trouble with learning in the classroom is that you get few second chances. It is not easy in school to admit when things are going wrong, for fear of an unsympathetic response or being labelled incompetent."

He reports on Keith Holt, who leads the school-based pilot scheme at Whitmore school in Harrow and who believes that students who plunge straight into a school-based course tend to be less adventurous in their teaching. Perhaps that is what the Government want.

Attrition rates among mentors in partnership schemes are up as much as 25 per cent. That is what Manchester university has experienced. Student drop- out rates in partnerships are growing and are greater than in older established schemes. There have been reported cases of students in partnership schemes having restricted access to higher-ability pupils because the school fears for their over-exposure. Obviously, it has league tables in mind.

The Association of University Teachers and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education sent hon. Members a document which pointed out that, in one Birmingham partnership scheme, all the selective schools have left the scheme because of pressure on staffing resources.

Those cases are anecdotes and individual examples, but they are important straws in the wind to demonstrate the risk that the new clause would avoid.

The response of head teachers in particular is that, as teachers of children, they are inherently unsuited to teach students in the school situation. Time is needed to examine that judgment, about which teachers have been informing us throughout the progress of the Bill.

Column 338

Current pilot schemes obviously benefit from initial enthusiasm and commitment. One would expect that. Therefore, one would imagine that the Government had everything to gain from delay. Presumably, the results from pilot schemes will be good and will be enthusiastically reported. The Opposition believe that there should be time for them to be properly assessed.

There is much concern about the widening of and the effect of SCITT schemes over a period, the effect on cost assessment in schools, and the effect on the increased bureaucracy needed in schools to run the schemes. The Bill does not allow time to assess those wider implications. We have had reports of the pressures on teachers as a result of the incessant changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury remarked on, and there have been the pressures of curriculum change, which I hope will ease a little over the next 12 months.

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : One understands that the hon. Gentleman is a former lecturer and that he wants to stand up for the old higher education lecturers who are his friends, but has he taken the trouble to go to a school which has a school-based initial training scheme and assess it for himself, as I asked in Committee ? Has he done so yet ?

Mr. Pickthall : I have not been to one of those schemes, but I intend to do so. As I said in Committee, I do not expect to be critical ; I expect such schemes to be well run. That is not the substance of my argument.

There have also been league tables and reports of tensions that have been created by league tables, particularly if a schools finds itself slipping in comparison with other schools in the neighbourhood, which could happen because of over-exposure to students. One has seen that already. There have been problems in schools of managing surplus places and the financial consequences of that. There has been the exceedingly high incidence of retirements among experienced teachers in the past few years--the very teachers who would best be able to support students in those circumstances. All those factors mean that there will be excess stress on school staff involved in the schemes or the neglect of students--one or the other.

We also must consider the effects on students. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said that it takes five years to assess the success of a student's training or teacher education. I would not go that far ; I do not think that one could wait that long, but at least some time is needed to assess output--one year, perhaps. For example, we should ask how many students have a job at all at the end and what problems they have in terms of their qualifications. Will there be two tiers of new entrants into the teaching profession as a result of the Bill ? What success have students had in the first year, particularly now without a probationary year as a support ?

What will be the effect on students of the lack of individual tutorial supervision, the lack of library and research back-up that higher education institutions have, and the lack--I would not underestimate it ; it is terribly important--of student mutual support and welfare systems ? We must also consider the effect on teacher education departments occupied by young lecturers as well as old ones, I might add, in universities and colleges. They need time, just as the country needs time, to assess the consequences for themselves.

Next Section

Home Page