---

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary form of address.

Ms Morris: Please accept my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Havant must decide which of those initiatives he is not prepared to pursue.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Will the Minister give way?

Ms Morris: No, I will not.

What was noticeable about the Opposition motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Havant was that, throughout, there was no mention of parents, no mention of high standards, no expectation of what our young people might achieve, no understanding of the partnership between Government and schools that is essential to raising standards and not a flicker of an understanding that part of the role of Government is to show leadership.

If turning the tide of under-achievement for schools means that we send them 30 extra letters a year, so be it. The Conservatives have carped tonight, but I reckon that a generation of children will be on our side, not theirs. I take seriously the issue of paperwork. But do not weigh it or count it. Read it and evaluate it, and take decisions on the basis not of how many words it contains but of whether it contributes to the agenda of raising standards.

The material that we send to schools is part of a coherent package to raise standards. An attack on that is an attack on standards, and the hon. Member for Havant should be ashamed.

8.8 pm

Mr. Don Foster (Bath): I am delighted once again to have the opportunity to follow the Minister. Whether the House agreed or disagreed with what she said, the whole House will acknowledge the passion and conviction with which she spoke. It was interesting to hear the absolute sincerity with which she committed herself and the whole of the Front-Bench team to resign, should they fail to meet their targets. That was in sharp contrast to Lord Patten, who, as Secretary of State, when he was John Patten, promised that if he failed to meet his targets in relation to grant-maintained schools, he would eat his hat garnished--which, as far as I am aware, he has so far failed to do.

Because the Minister spoke with such passion, it is important for me to explain to her clearly why the Liberal Democrats will support the Opposition motion tonight. However, in doing so I would enter two caveats.

2 Mar 1999 : Column 952

First, I echo the Minister's words by pointing out that there is a degree of irony in the Opposition's tabling the motion when they were undoubtedly responsible for placing a significant number of burdens and unnecessary bureaucracy on our schools. For example, we need look only at the unbelievably cumbersome and bureaucratic system of nursery vouchers, which I was delighted that the new Government rapidly abolished. There are many other examples, such as the early version of the national curriculum and the burdens created by the Conservative Government's proposals for grant-maintained schools. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will pick up some of those, which are clearly illustrated by the Liberal Democrats' amendment.

My second caveat is that I do not accept that the Government should have sat on their hands and done nothing. Under the previous Administration, many people in our schools complained of innovation fatigue, and they desperately wanted to be left alone by the new Administration. But given the state in which the previous Administration left our education service, that was not an option. Therefore a number of changes were necessary, some of which I support, and I accept that they placed burdens on our schools.

The issue for tonight's debate is not about burdens being placed on schools--burdens will always be placed on schools--it is rather, quite properly, about whether the burdens imposed by the Government are necessary: some are not.

The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a powerful case, so I shall not repeat all his points. But the Minister was right when she said that, in making a judgment on the issue, we should consider the evidence. I want to consider the evidence coming from those who work in our schools--governors, teachers and head teachers.

I cannot help but reflect on a recent quote in The Times Educational Supplement from a primary head teacher. He said:

"A secondary head phoned me a couple of weeks ago. He told me how tired he was of no longer feeling in control of his own establishment. So much was being done to him from the outside, be it by the local authority or the DfEE, that he no longer had the enthusiasm to make it work."

In the past 24 hours, my officers have been in touch with the two major bodies that represent governors and managers in our schools--the National Governors Council and the National Association of Governors and Managers. On hearing about today's debate, the National Governors Council said:

"We are very concerned about the burdens imposed on schools by the deluge of government directives and new initiatives. Target-setting in particular is causing serious difficulties. Many of our local associations up and down the country are saying 'We don't know how we can cope with this.'"

The National Association of Governors and Managers made similar points.

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he believed that we should be considering the evidence, but at the moment he is examining hearsay. If he is to do what he said he would do, surely he must tell us which of the Government

2 Mar 1999 : Column 953

initiatives he believes should not have been taken into the classroom. Will he quickly move on to that before he so firmly nails his colours to the Tory mast?

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to bide his time a wee while, I promise that I shall address that very point. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is important to listen to the views of those who work in our schools if we are to determine whether unnecessary burdens have been placed on our schools. The evidence that I have quoted from a head teacher and from the two bodies representing governors and managers is backed up by the evidence that we have from teachers themselves.

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that tens of thousands of teachers are leaving the profession early, demoralised and dispirited, and sadly fewer and fewer people are coming forward to join it. One reason for that which is cited by many of those leaving is the increased burdens being placed on them. It is frightening that more and more teachers are telling me that they are tired of being told by the Government how they should teach and even organise their classrooms.

It is almost as if the Government do not understand the pressures that our teachers already face. Just after Christmas, I received a copy of a circular letter--the sort of thing which many of us receive at Christmas--from a teacher who was the only one remaining of a group of 10 who had joined the profession in 1967. She said:

"I'm absolutely sick of school--it's really hard work and I never know what I'm supposed to be doing! Next term we have an Ofsted inspection which is about the most awful thing that can happen to a school. We are all up to our eyes in paperwork . . . We spend as much time working out of school as we do in school and there's plenty to do at the weekends as well. Housework hardly gets a look-in. I wish we could win the Lottery . . . Luckily I stay healthy and Joe does a lot of things like cooking when he's not working. I don't know how we'd manage otherwise. Isn't it awful to be looking forward to retiring--wishing your life away?".

Helen Jones: Ah!

Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Lady will consider the number of teachers who are leaving the profession early because they, too, feel exactly what this teacher is expressing about the profession. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to acknowledge that those teachers are feeling demoralised and disillusioned, in part because of the burdens that are being placed on them, the crisis in our classrooms, begun under the previous Administration, will continue under her Government.

Liz Blackman (Erewash): Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to teachers in his constituency who are delivering the literacy hour about the progress that children are already making? I have throughout my constituency, and the news is positive.

Mr. Foster: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. Any hon. Member taking part in an education debate should have

2 Mar 1999 : Column 954

spent time talking to many teachers, and I certainly have. Many teachers to whom I have spoken believe that many good ideas are contained within the literacy hour.

Mr. Plaskitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I am in the middle of replying to the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

No doubt those teachers will also say that there are good ideas in the numeracy hour. But many feel that the literacy hour imposes on them, as will the numeracy hour, a particular way of operating which takes away their opportunity to be professionals: to gather evidence of good practice, rightly provided by the Government, and package it for the benefit of their pupils so as to do what the Government want, which is to raise standards.

---