| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Head Teachers (Retirement)
14. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what study she has made of the reasons for early retirement of head teachers. [33211]
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has made no study of the reasons for early retirement of head teachers. She is, however, considering the issue of early retirement for all teachers following a recent report of the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Spearing: Was it not the duty of the Secretary of State to have done that some time ago, bearing in mind the reports from professional associations of rapidly rising early retirement through stress? Is not the task of a head teacher to assemble the appropriate educational offering for all pupils in the school, for which he should be provided with the resources so to do? Have not the Government's changes turned head teachers virtually into business managers, dealing with a variety of issues that are extraneous to education? Does that not prejudice the quality of teaching and education and affect the standards that are attained and are constantly on the lips of Ministers and Conservative Members?
Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman, rather uncharacteristically, has departed from the factual background to his question. He should consider the fact that only 2.3 per cent. of heads and 1.5 per cent. of deputies retired on ill-health grounds in 1994-95. That is hardly a torrent or a flood. He should also bear in mind the fact that the increasing rates of ill-health retirement in teaching are below those in the health service or even the civil service. That hardly suggests that head teachers are peculiarly stressed or are retiring earlier than anyone else. I repeat that the Secretary of State will examine the subject of early retirement from teaching. Presumably, that will encompass heads.
Mr. Duncan Smith: When my hon. Friend looks in detail at the figures, will he bear in mind the fact that as we have now released schools from complete political control through local management of schools--and, ultimately, through the grant-maintained system--we are at last offering to those who aspire to be head teachers and to those who are head teachers the opportunity to run their schools for the benefit of the pupils? Essentially, that means that heads will be better off, will enjoy their job and will get greater job satisfaction. Are they not therefore more likely to stay for longer than those who wish to retire now?
Mr. Forth: How typical of my hon. Friend to encapsulate the difference in attitude between the Government and the Opposition. He rightly identified the opportunities available to heads the better to run their schools, while Opposition Members saw it as a matter of stress and a disadvantage. There could not be a clearer difference.
Nursery Voucher Scheme
15. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to extend the nursery voucher pilot schemes to other areas. [33212]
Mr. Robin Squire: Our plans for nursery education vouchers are transparently well known. We expect to extend the voucher scheme to all local education authority areas in England in April 1997.
Mrs. Jackson: In consultations with parents of nursery children in my constituency, I have found not one who wants the system of nursery vouchers foisted upon my area. Will he accept the sensible amendment accepted in the other place two weeks ago, whereby the pilot schemes for young guinea pigs in Wandsworth, Westminster, Norfolk and Kensington would be properly evaluated by the House before being extended?
Mr. Squire: We are, naturally, considering the matter in light of the vote in the other place, but we remain confident that the scheme has many attractions for parents. I hope that when the hon. Lady next meets parents she will point out to them the result of the survey of parents in phase 1 areas, which disclosed that 87 per cent. of Norfolk parents already rate the scheme as very good or quite good. The chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, which represents some 20,000 voluntary groups across the country, spoke the truth when he said that the House of Lords had got it wrong and that at least 200,000 young children would lose out as a result.
Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the scheme has met with great approval in Norfolk and that, in my constituency, the figure of 87 per cent. is probably an underestimate? Is he further aware that parents are very pleased, in spite of the great reservations expressed by the Labour establishment in Norfolk and elsewhere? Will the Norfolk schools that would have liked a nursery school project this year be given every possibility of getting one next year?
Mr. Squire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his last question, but he will understand if I cannot give him that commitment this afternoon. The structure and sense of his comments is absolutely right, and his findings in Norfolk are reflected in each of the phase 1 authorities. The only danger is not the scheme itself but the distortions spread by Opposition Members.
Mr. Blunkett: Will the junior Minister tell us why, in her letter to the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stated that she thought that she would experience greater difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons?
Mr. Squire: Much as the Government's commitment to open government becomes more apparent week by week, I hesitate to embrace these discussions on the Floor of the Chamber. Labour has no policy on nursery education, despite 17 years in opposition in which to plan for one. All Labour is prepared to do is to seek to frustrate the expansion of a scheme to provide quality nursery provision across the country. Labour should be ashamed
of itself. To use the vernacular that is appropriate today, even if there is extra time in this area, there are no golden goals for Labour--there are only penalties for parents across the country.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does my hon. Friend think has been said to the parents of children who are on the waiting lists, without much hope, of the state nursery units in Sheffield? Why has not the hon. Member concerned met them?
Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right. If only Opposition Members, including those representing Sheffield, would give the same consideration to spreading the range of choice of pre-school provision that the Government are delivering, matters would proceed more smoothly and parents would be the gainers.
EU Social Affairs Council
16. Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to attend a meeting of the EU Social Affairs Council; and what matters relating to working conditions she expects to be discussed. [33213]
Mr. Forth: The next meeting of the Social Affairs Council is scheduled for 24 September. No agenda has yet been agreed, but I shall seek to ensure that the focus is on providing the environment to reduce unemployment and not on agreeing unnecessary, new and damaging European legislation. In the European Union, we want to make sure that there is a level playing field in the single market, an impartial referee in the European Court of Justice and no own goals to handicap our global competitiveness.
Ms Quin: Has the Minister noticed that the principal employment policy adviser of the Confederation of British Industry recommends that the British Government end their opt out from the social chapter? How does he explain to his European counterparts the fact that British industry is increasingly ignoring Government advice on the subject?
Mr. Forth: I wonder whether that would be the same adviser who advised entering the exchange rate mechanism. If so, we can safely discard the advice.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of accepting the social chapter and the minimum wage? Does he agree that those factors above all else have caused high youth unemployment in other European countries, whereas our young people have far better life chances and a better chance of getting jobs?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. To keep faith with our young people--happily, our youth unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of most of our partners and competitors--we must ensure that we do not embrace policies that will prejudice youth employment. We find it hard to understand how Opposition Members claim to be concerned about youth unemployment when all the policies that they would adopt would force it up.
Mr. Meacher: If European social market legislation is so damaging, will the Minister explain why 90 per cent.
of that legislation was passed into British law by his Government before the social chapter was heard of in 1993? How can the social chapter be so damaging when only one measure--the European works directive--has been passed under it since 1993? Even in that case, the 140 British companies affected by the opt-out all later decided voluntarily to opt in. As the evidence shows that the member states with the best social provision are also those with the most competitive and productive economies, is not all the claptrap about the social chapter merely a cheap Tory pre-election stunt?
Mr. Forth: I was trying to find something of substance in the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that I stumbled on one thing that he accidentally said that illustrates clearly the difference between our parties. The fact that businesses agree to do something voluntarily is entirely a matter for them. The difference is that we would not unnecessarily force something on businesses whereas his philosophy--old Labour personified--is to force businesses to do what he thinks is good for them. We recognise their freedom of choice.
Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the Council, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Opposition Members that factories such as mine in north Yorkshire have to work when the work is there, not when some Greek Commissioner says that it is there? If we were saddled with the 48-hour week, we would lose orders and have to lay men off. What is he going to do about the 48-hour week? Will he compare the Government's approach with the spineless attitude of the Labour party to such matters?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, who knows about these things, is right to put his finger on the fact that measures that seek arbitrarily to limit the reasonable and realistic action of businesses are likely to prejudice the competitiveness of the European Union as a whole. As a member of that Union, that concerns us. We want Europe and Britain to be globally competitive; that is where jobs and wealth come from. Any measure that seeks arbitrarily and unthinkingly to trammel competitiveness is likely to prejudice our opportunities. The Government are examining carefully the directive that he mentioned and will respond in a proper way in due course.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |