| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Orders of the Day
Education Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
3.43 pm
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government have had the opportunity overnight to consider the enormity of the loss last night of new clause 3 and its impact on the rest of the Bill, and the Clerks of the House have had a chance to ponder the ramifications of that loss. I seek your guidance again today on the effect that the loss of the new clause will have on clause 6 and paragraph 22 of schedule 9, both of which refer specifically to new section 259A of the Education Act 1996, which was struck out by the House last night. Other clauses, including clause 5, refer to the enlargement of premises, and one might reasonably argue that they, too, are impacted upon by the removal of new section 259A.
Madam Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will understand that it is not for the Chair to take any action in the matter--that is entirely for the Government, whose legislation it is. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, the matter was raised with the Prime Minister, who left the impression with the House that he believed that it was now being discussed with the usual channels. Certainly, it is not a matter for me at this stage. No doubt we shall hear more about it later.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night there seems to have been some confusion about the vote. There have been reports on the media today that the vote was other than as recorded in Hansard. Last night, I voted according to my principles and my conscience. Can you tell me why the Leader of the Opposition was not in the same Lobby as I was?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order. No arguments. We have dealt with that. It is over and done with. Let us move on to the Bill, and take positive action with new clause 10.
New clause 10
'( )--(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales.
(2) A body established under this section shall have the functions of advising the Secretary of State as to the following--
(a) rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers:
(b) the qualifications to be required of persons seeking to become or remain teachers:
(c) the professional development and appraisal of teachers:
(d) such matters, including matters relating to education or the employment of teachers or other persons connected with
(e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.'.--[Mr. Kilfoyle.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, there was general agreement on the need to raise educational standards by improving the quality of work of individual classroom teachers. The Minister conceded that a general teaching council could make a contribution to raising the morale and status of the teaching profession. He raised a number of quibbles, which could easily be dealt with.
First, the Minister asked whether, given the widespread support for such a body, it needed to be set up by statute. The answer is clearly in the affirmative, for reasons that flow from the nature of the organisation and its necessary status and functions. If it is to police professional conduct and discipline, it must have universal coverage and the ability to apply sanctions. If it is to discharge its duty effectively, there can be no opportunity for the small number of teachers who may be subject to discipline to avoid it simply by opting out of the organisation.
There are already a number of professional associations that teachers can join on a voluntary basis. Although those bodies do much good work to promote better professional standards, they exist primarily to protect the interests of their members--long may that continue. It is significant that the teacher associations strongly support the establishment of a statutory general teaching council. They recognise that it would have to be a fundamentally different organisation.
There is already a voluntary GTC, which exists to promote the creation of a statutory general teaching council. It is widely supported by organisations representing teachers, their employers and the wider community. They recognise that their objectives cannot be achieved by an expansion of voluntary activity.
In Committee, the Minister asked whether the general teaching council would require public subsidy. The answer is emphatically no. That would be not only unnecessary but undesirable. Independent funding would help to guarantee the independence of the body.
There are approximately 500,000 teachers in Britain. If they were all required to pay a registration fee of just a few pounds a year, the GTC would quickly achieve an adequate budget for its relatively modest costs. The universal requirement for teachers to register would simultaneously keep the fee low and ensure that the organisation remained independent of Government, without resorting to mass voluntary membership. It could thereby be both professionally independent and rigorous on standards. That is another reason why it would require a statutory basis. Teachers have made it clear that they would willingly subscribe the small registration fee necessary for the benefits that would accrue--as they do in Scotland.
In Committee, the Minister asked how the general teaching council would relate to the Teacher Training Agency. A general teaching council would encroach on the territory of the Teacher Training Agency, but its role would be complementary rather than one of substitution. The Teacher Training Agency is charged with spending
28 Jan 1997 : Column 159
The general teaching council emphatically would not be a creature of Government and would not be concerned with spending decisions, but it would be an extremely useful source of consultation and would provide a mechanism for the dissemination of ideas and good practice throughout the teaching profession. It would also have sufficient breadth and legitimacy through its broad representation to gain respect for its work in upholding professional standards that a small appointed body, however well managed, would be hard pressed to emulate.
Finally, in Committee the Minister said that the general teaching council was an idea that had found its time, and he acknowledged that it had merit. However, he was worried about certain difficulties that he felt needed to be resolved before the matter could progress.
There may be matters of detail to be resolved, but new clause 10 deals only with the broad principle, which the Minister accepts. It will be for the Secretary of State--hope, a Labour Secretary of State--to determine its implementation. There are no serious obstacles. The proposal has greater support and fewer intrinsic problems than almost any of the educational innovations that the Government have forced through in recent years.
Why is the Minister so easily discouraged by such trivial difficulties? The truth is that he is not, and nor is the Secretary of State. According to a splash exclusive by Mr. Chris McLaughlin and Ms Alison Brace in The Mail on Sunday, a once-removed organ of the Conservative party, the centrepiece of education policy for the Conservative Government, if they were fortunate enough to win the next election, would be--surprise, surprise--a general teaching council. There has been a metamorphosis in attitudes if that is the true direction of Conservative party policy, because in 1993 the Government voted against the establishment of a general teaching council. We welcomed the Minister's semi-Pauline conversion in Committee towards the principle of a general teaching council.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, is also very much involved, and I believe that he will attempt to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, to put a specific perspective on the notion of a GTC.
We make a very simple offer to the Government. If there is only a smidgen of truth in the story that was published as an exclusive in The Mail on Sunday--if, as I believe he does, the Chairman of the Select Committee represents the consensus that exists in the House on this vital issue for the further professionalisation of teaching--there is a very simple solution. That is for the Government to accept today the new clause, which we tabled in Committee and withdrew.
Whatever objections needed to be accommodated or changes made, we would be willing to meet in a cross-party consensus, which I believe exists among most Members of the House on the need for a general teaching council. We would meet the Government on that, and we would support those necessary, perhaps technical, amendments when the Bill went to another place. There will be no problem if there is agreement on principle.
Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington):
I am seeking to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments
28 Jan 1997 : Column 160
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |