| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Feb 2003 : Column 1072—continued
Mr. Straw: That would have been better, in a way, but in diplomatic speak the choice was between "all necessary means" and "serious consequences". Everybody in the diplomatic community knows that "serious consequences" means the use of force. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it would be better if diplomatic speak was more explicit, I agree, but those words mean force.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Many hundreds of my constituents are Iraqi citizens. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what consideration the Government have given to the status of those constituents if hostilities break out? He will appreciate that they know better than anyone of the need to disarm Saddam Hussein, because they fled from his regime. It would be a travesty if their lives were disrupted further by this country's engagement in a war against Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Straw: I applaud the courage of many of my hon. Friend's constituents who are Iraqi exiles. Their families may still be at grave risk within the territory of Iraq. This country has a proud humanitarian record and we shall continue to uphold that record in the event of military action against Iraq.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been famous for consulting focus groups? A very big focus group will meet on Saturday in London. It is high time the Government concentrated on listening to those voices from rural and urban Britain instead of paying too much attention to that highly motivated clique in Washington.
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I am very much a member of old Labour—[Interruption.] I have never consulted a focus group in my life, except the open-air meetings that I hold regularly in the middle of my constituency. I shall continue to do so. We recognise the strength of feeling about the issue and we are listening, but the faith that we have placed in the United Nations system can be sustained only if we do not make the mistakes that the country made before the second world war, when we failed to back that fine diplomatic institution, the League of Nations, with proper means to enforce its will.
Personal Statement
2.47 pm
Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make this early response to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was published this morning, especially in the light of the imminent parliamentary recess and my wish to make my position clear.
I accept unreservedly the Committee's report, which finds me muddled and naive in my negligent understanding of the additional costs allowance. I apologise again unreservedly to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House and to my constituents. I am so very sorry.
BILL PRESENTED
Food Justice Strategies
Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. David Amess, Mr. Don Foster, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. David Drew, Dr. Ian Gibson, John McDonnell, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and Mr. Mike Wood, presented a Bill to require the production and implementation of food justice strategies to eradicate food poverty; to make provision as regards the content of those strategies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 58].
Education for 14 to 19-year-olds
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.49 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband) : This is an important, timely and, I hope, useful debate. I look forward to contributions from both sides of the House, because education and training for 14 to 19-year-olds needs consensus and common cause, as well as sharp exchanges. The Government recently published their views in response to the consultation on last year's Green Paper, "14-19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards", which was debated in the House on 21 March 2002. I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) is here. She made an important speech in that debate, and I look forward to contributions from the Front-Bench teams of the two Opposition parties, the composition of which has remained the same since that debate. They will be pleased to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) will wind up the debate; I am sure that he will bring his customary élan to that task.
There were 4,000 responses to the Green Paper that was published a year ago, including some from hon. Members. As a result, we have refined some proposals, dropped others, and introduced new ideas to the package. I am grateful to all who have helped fashion the proposals that were published on 21 January. I believe that they represent the foundation of a new and positive approach to 14-to-19 education and training that should command widespread support.
I am encouraged by reactions from the education community, and I thought it noteworthy that Dr. John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, should say that
- "we can look forward to reforms that will be much stronger than those set out in the Green Paper 12 months ago."
Today, I want to advance four propositions: first, that our system has strengths, but also the structural weaknesses of a low-status vocational offer and a narrow academic track; secondly, that greater flexibility at 14-plus is necessary over the next few years to promote sustained engagement by those dissatisfied with the current offer at GCSE; thirdly, that in the longer term, structural reform of the curriculum, and of assessment and qualifications, should seek to build a ladder of opportunity for young people, preserving standards and enhancing achievement; and fourthly, that for the immediate future, the Government are making the right choices to ensure safe delivery of this year's A level and AS level exams.
There is much to celebrate in our education system. To celebrate our successes is not a very British thing to do, but I think that we should. Ofsted says that we have the best generation of teachers ever. There have never been so many lessons judged "good" or "excellent". Test and examination results have never been higher. I remind the House that the Government have put their money where their mouth is with the most sustained increases in funding for a century, including in further
education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) shouts something about colleges, and in doing so he tempts me to repeat the figures. There will be £1,000 extra for the average school pupil by 2005–06, and an extra £1.2 billion for further education over the same period.English qualifications are highly valued by higher education and by employers. Advanced level provides intellectual rigour and demanding standards. It is a robust platform for a three-year English university degree course. A levels and AS levels are—to coin a phrase—certainly well worth the paper that they are written on. Vocational qualifications such BTEC, RSA and City and Guilds provide high quality occupational skills and knowledge that are valued by employers.
These strengths should not however disguise the weaknesses that remain. Only half our 16-year-olds achieve five good GCSEs at age 16, and less than half of boys do so. Some 5 per cent. of young people leave school without any GCSEs at all. Participation levels at 17 put us ahead only of Greece, Mexico and Turkey in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league table of participation rates. One in four of 16-to-18-year-olds had dropped out of education and training at the end of 2000—a rate that is significantly above the OECD and EU averages. Moreover, a young person from a professional background is more than five times as likely to qualify for higher education as one from an unskilled background. So now is the right time to turn our attention to the 14 to 19 phase of education. We have world-class performance in primary schools, key stage 3 reforms are focused on high achievement at age 14, every secondary school is to become a specialist school, and every teacher is to be backed up by high quality support. However, for a high-aspiration, high-achievement system we need reform at 14-plus.
Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton): Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the story in today's edition of The Times by confirming that his proposal for federations of secondary schools will not involve a reduction in parental choice, or a reduction in the exam result information on individual schools that is available to parents?
Mr. Miliband: I am happy to confirm that, but I am tempted to say to the hon. Gentleman not only that he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, but that he should not believe everything that members of his Front Bench tell the newspapers. The proposal for federations of schools is designed to promote collaboration among teachers at local level, which will help to drive school improvement. We want to increase the richness of, and the amount of, data that are provided on school performance. I do not regard the proposal as a threat to either of those things.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |