---

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who has done so much in this House to harry the Government about this lamentable subject.

I should declare an interest, although not a financial one, as I am president of the Franco-British Society and a former member of the Franco-British Council. The result of the picture painted by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord is most evident if one travels in France. It is unusual to see British tourists able to book a hotel room or order a meal in a restaurant in any language other than English. Many British people now go to France to live and many of them are unable to speak the language. That is not good from Franco-British relations as it causes misunderstanding.

The cultural side has not been touched on today. I think in particular of French literature, which suffers badly in translation, especially in poetry which is virtually untranslatable. An example of the decline would be in publishing. Only 40 years ago in English biographies of French authors all the quotations were given in French. At present, I suppose at the insistence of the publishers with an eye to sales, all quotations have to be given in English translation—and very flat they sound in the case of poetry. One sometimes begins to wonder what all the fuss is about.

Why cannot we provide in our schools the kind of modern language teaching which our European partners provide? Why does it have to be left to the private sector? Would it not be better to spend a little more money as they do in Europe? Why cannot we make more effort to encourage more modern language teachers from abroad to come and work here? There was a French teacher in my school and I have always been grateful to him. Why cannot we encourage retired teachers to return to teaching part-time, especially qualified language teachers?

I hope that the two amendments, which I warmly support, will be accepted by the Government.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I never want to see anyone who taught me French coming out of retirement! I loathed learning French and have always been bad at languages. That is ridiculous because in countries where people have to learn more than two languages everyone does so without any trouble at all. It is ridiculous that we find ourselves in this situation and there is much that we could and should be doing about it and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will tell us many of the things we are intending to do about it. In particular, we should begin learning languages in primary school—it should be second nature to all of us.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, perhaps noble Lords will put themselves in the shoes of the pupils in the comprehensive in the North East.

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1420

What do they have to gain from learning a language? They are being asked to learn a pretty turgid curriculum which is of little relevance to anyone who expects their life to be centred in the North East of England. I very much doubt whether any of the careers staff have ever thought of suggesting or talking to pupils about jobs in France or Germany—and why not?

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may give him the following example. An airport in the North East is recruiting ground staff in Spain and Scandinavia because no local school leavers have the elementary language skills needed to make announcements. Language learning is not irrelevant to the employment of people who are not going on to higher education. That is one of countless examples.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but in that case perhaps we should look at the curriculum to see whether what we are including for GCSE languages has any relevance to that kind of career. From what I have seen of what my children are doing, I see nothing of relevance. From the position of those pupils, I can imagine wanting to drop languages because what I was being asked to learn was entirely boring. At age 14, you do not focus on the idea of your career as being part of a local airport ground staff.

It is necessary that effort is made in other directions, particularly by the careers departments and services at an early stage to make pupils aware of the difference it will make to have a foreign language. If we are to move to a baccalaureate system, which I would like to see, a language ought to be part of that. It should be recognised by those considering going on to higher education that they must take a language with them; that that would be part of what they were expected to bring as a portfolio into the future.

There is much that we can do other than what is proposed in the amendment. My wishes would be to go in exactly the opposite direction; to take mathematics and science out of level A because if you are not going into a career which needs mathematics or science, you have studied almost everything you need by the age of 14. Apart from in my degree, I have not in ordinary life used any mathematics that I had not learnt by the age of 14. I enjoy science, but the science knowledge that I need in everyday life I had probably learnt by the time I was 12.

The point of slimming down the core curriculum is to give us the opportunity to broaden and diversify, and to ensure that what is in the middle is the stuff that needs to be there. I believe that these subjects belong where they are going to be—that is, at the second level—but that is against the background of us as a nation needing to be 10 times better at languages. However, I do not believe that the amendment is the way to achieve that.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we had a lengthy discussion on some of these issues in Committee. We then agreed that there was little

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1421

difference between core and foundation subjects. Indeed, under Clause 80 modern languages is not one of the core subjects; it is one of the foundation subjects.

I understand that foundation subjects must be part of the curriculum. In terms of key stage 4, Clause 81 provides that modern foreign languages shall be a compulsory part of the curriculum. The issue which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, rightly raised is that under Clause 82 we are moving forward to the 14-19 proposals and the consultation paper raises the possibility of people dropping modern foreign languages more easily than they can under the current disapplication procedures, which are limited. Those schools which are jumping the gun should not be doing so. I hope that they will be duly reprimanded.

I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about the teaching of modern foreign languages. The Minister has been leading up to the task force. I hope that she will speak positively about the teaching of languages. The example of Ireland puts us totally to shame. It is appalling that a country with only 2.5 million people is putting more people through French than this country with almost 60 million people. It is vitally important that we do something to regenerate and revive the teaching of modern foreign languages in this country.

7 p.m.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 which would put a modern foreign language back into the core curriculum. Sadly, I follow the view of my noble friend Lady O'Neill and others that the present situation as regards language teaching is deeply worrying. The Cambridge Language Centre points to the Government's own Green Paper and sets out the sorry state about which we have already heard: the shortage of modern language teachers; A-level entries down from 1991–92 and so on. The clear urgency for dramatic improvements is there for all to see.

Does the DfES's own paper on language learning provide an answer to this problem? I am sorry to say that in my judgment it does so hardly at all. As is so often the case—one finds this at its worst in election manifestos—it is strong on rhetoric, ambitions, aspirations, challenges, "we wants" and "will be" as though defining a need or expressing a desire is the equivalent of providing a solution.

Frankly, the situation calls for drastic and immediate measures if it is not to deteriorate. It is already deteriorating fast. I must emphasise again that in language learning it will be 10 years on, 2012, before long-term plans are fully operational for primary school pupils, rightly identified by a number of people as the key time at which to start language learning. Noble Lords will note that at that stage, they will be entitled to learn a foreign language, not automatically taught one.

In reply, can the Minister give your Lordships some idea of government thinking and a real action plan for the long and short term. For example, are the Government likely to follow up some of the helpful

26 Jun 2002 : Column 1422

suggestions put forward by the retiring German ambassador, Dr von Ploetz, and a number of his EU colleagues? It is suggested that the UK embarks on an urgent programme to recruit language teachers from abroad. He is concerned, as I suggest we all should be, that with the use of modern methods, using the Internet and so on, school exchanges with other countries will become increasingly problematical with British pupils unable to communicate in any meaningful way in the language of their opposite numbers while—surprise, surprise—foreign pupils at the other end will be only too happy to practise their English.

Of even more significance—an important example was given by my noble friend Lady O'Neill—he points to the statistics. One in 10 companies is currently losing contracts because of their workers' inability to speak a language. It is not alarmist to say that by continuing along this complaisant path we put our own citizens at a considerable disadvantage in today's increasingly global job market. And, alas, government policies do nothing to correct that sharp downward trend. On the contrary—it is the nub of the amendment—the Cambridge Language Centre puts it this way:

"The Government damages its own ambition, and is defeating its own purposes. It does so by reversing today's promises of languages up to 16 and by not maintaining modern foreign languages with the 14-16 core subjects alongside English".

What is absolutely clear is the result. Again, we have heard plenty of examples. However, it is spelt out explicitly in the response from the Nuffield Languages Programme. Paragraph 4.1 says that,

"there is ample evidence that removing languages from the core curriculum would lead to an immediate and substantial fall in the number of young people learning a language after the age of 14".

Indeed, to make matters even worse, as my noble friend Lady O'Neill pointed out, the Government are not just anticipating but accelerating that process by jumping the gun. It strikes me, too, as cynical that even before the consultation period had been completed, let alone the Bill passed, the Government are steaming ahead with these damaging proposals, thereby increasing the divisiveness of the present system.

There is already in existence a system of so-called "disapplication" which enables children who are unsuited to be exited from the language programme. So why is there need for that system to be extended and accelerated, particularly when it is clear that virtually every independent school will continue to teach foreign languages as part of the basic curriculum? Not simply Ireland, but all European countries will be doing the same. That is hardly the best way to encourage "inclusiveness" in this country which is one of the Government's major objectives. It is in order to prevent those consequences that I fully support the two amendments.

---