§ Mr. DuncanI beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 14, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) The union should return to students who are not or have ceased to be members any fees or grants paid by them or on their behalf or by the institution, in proportion to the part of the academic year for which the student is not a member.'.The choice that the Government have extended to so many areas of life has not been extended to students. Student unions remain a closed shop—a fact that has been adequately debated in Committee—and the opt-out that has been granted to students is inadequate. The absence of choice is an insult to students and it would be compounded if this little, simple amendment were not passed today.At the beginning of any academic year, a grant is made per capita to the student union, but if, in the exercise of his opt-out, a student were to withdraw his support for the student union, there is no mechanism for the return of any part of his subscription to the source from which it came. If the student were to cease to be a student, he still would not receive such a rebate. Once the subscription is made to the student union, it is there for the whole academic year, regardless of whether the student wants to opt out of membership of the student union or leaves the university altogether. That is inequitable.
This simple straightforward amendment would provide a pro rata rebate for the period in which the student did not wish to be a member of the student union or did not attend the university and it would remedy the situation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a sensible Oxford man, will accept the amendment.
§ Mr. EnrightIs it not interesting that the Secretary of State, whom we all saw preening himself on television declaiming to the Conservative party conference what he would do about student unions, has not been present for a single part of the debate on the National Union of Students? That is shoddy and disgraceful. I do not just keep my thoughts to myself but say them openly.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) should be withdrawn at once. It is a disgrace. One needs to tidy up institutions from time to time and no institution is perfect, but it is wrong to suggest that the things that the NUS has done wrong are of such an order that a Bill is required to crush it—I pray to the Lord that it will be turned down.
What lies behind the hostility of the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is worrying. I have already examined in Committee the problems of the hon. Member for Colne Valley. He used to like people when he came here—it says so in his Who's Who entry—but he does not like people any more; he has taken that out of his entry.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. May I inquire what relevance that has to the amendment?
§ Mr. EnrightI am attempting to look into the psychology of hon. Members who would table such petty amendments to what is already a rather petty Bill. I am trying to suggest that their motives are unworthy and not consistent with the aims of hon. Members.
395 The hon. Member for Colne Valley is a strong and unashamed supporter of the Economic League, yet he and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talk about choice. Choice for students—
§ Mr. DuncanOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I think that I can deal with this without further assistance. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the merits or otherwise of the amendment or amendments under consideration. I do not believe that an investigation of the psychology of hon. Members who may have tabled the amendments falls within that category.
§ Mr. EnrightI am saying that—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I am suggesting that it is not relevant.
§ Mr. EnrightI am talking about choice, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned in moving his amendment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I, for example, had no choice about the fact that the insurance company to which I was signed up contributed to the Economic League. To suggest, therefore, that students have some choice is wrong.
What is even worse is that the amendment should be proposed at a time when, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested, students are genuinely suffering. Students in my constituency need the NUS and the solidarity—I use that word unashamedly—of that organisation to get by. The National Westminster bank has shown that one in three students is thinking of leaving. That is certainly true in my area. As hon. Members know, as from next September, 30 per cent. of the grant will be cut from students—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is not in order. Unless he comes to order soon, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. EnrightI am suggesting that unless we have the solidarity of the NUS, which the amendment seeks to destroy in pettifogging fashion, a number of my constituents will suffer severely. I should like to outline those difficulties to show how they suffer. If, Madam Deputy Speaker, you rule that that is out of order, I shall sit down, but that is the purport of what I am trying to do.
The people in my constituency cannot be supported by their parents. One in three of the men are out of work and are seeking work.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sorry, but that goes far beyond the scope of the amendment. We are dealing with fairly narrow points. This is one single amendment and I fear that it will not bear the amount of weight that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put on it. I now call Mr. Graham Riddick.
§ Mr. RiddickThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to speak to the amendment. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), with whom I have always got on perfectly well, has not done himself any favours this evening. I suppose that it was mildly amusing when he ran through my history and my curriculum vitae in Committee, but it is not very funny the second time round.
The hon. Gentleman was talking about the National Union of Students, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend 396 the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) so much as mentioned that body once during his speech. In fact, the amendment does not affect the National Union of Students to any great extent. Neither my hon. Friend nor I say that students should not be allowed to belong to the NUS. If they want to belong, of course they can. That is what we stand for; we believe in choice. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was somewhat off beam, but perhaps he is a bit off form today; perhaps this is a bad day for him. We shall put his performance down to that.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I initiated a debate on the practicality of the students' new-found freedom to choose whether to belong to a student union. I am pleased that the Bill introduces the element of choice to student unions, so that students who do not wish to belong can choose not to do so.
In my view it has always been nonsensical that young people who wish to study at institutions of higher education have had to belong to student unions, especially as some of those unions have done and said the most ridiculous and extreme things in the name of all students—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall into the same trap as another hon. Member did. He, too, must address himself to amendment No. 23.
§ Mr. RiddickI am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that I want the principle of voluntary membership of student unions to be absolutely genuine.
The original Bill, which gave students the opportunity to opt into student union membership, provided genuine choice, but sadly the House of Lords had other ideas. Because we now have a different approach to the Bill, I shall argue that there is a case for allowing students to have a rebate of fees. That is what the amendment is about. We must ensure that the principle of voluntary membership is meaningful, and that students have a genuine choice. Under the current provisions of the Bill, they may not have such a choice.
My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that we had a debate about whether students who have opted out should continue to have access to the facilities provided by student unions. He could not accept my amendment, which would have set that principle in tablets of stone.
§ Mr. GunnellThe hon. Gentleman has already commented on the view of the clause taken by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Does he not agree that the amendment would add yet more detail to what is already an extremely detailed clause? It is already 124 lines long, even before we add the amendment and lengthen it even further. The CVCP described the clause as otiose and unworkable. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that paying back subscriptions halfway through the year would add more unworkable detail? Does he not agree with the CVCP that there is already an awful lot of administration involved in universities, without adding further administrative details in a clause that does nothing worth while?
§ Mr. RiddickI should have thought that it had become clear that I do not altogether agree with the approach of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. The amendment is fairly small, and I think that it would fit into the Bill rather well, actually.
397 I was about to argue that if the Bill does not say that all students will have access to the facilities of the student union even if they opt out, the amendment offers an alternative approach, whereby any student who opts out would receive a proportion of the money paid by his institution to the union on his behalf. At the moment the problem is that, when a student opts out, he not only opts out of what he probably wanted to opt out of—the political campaigning activities of the union—but forfeits his right to use the student union facilities.
§ Mr. Don FosterFollowing the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a student who opts out of attending lectures should be entitled to a fee rebate for the lecture course, and that a student who opts out of using the library should get a rebate, too?
§ Mr. RiddickI suppose that that is the sort of stupid intervention that one would expect from the Liberal Democrats.
The sums paid by institutions to student unions vary significantly from institution to institution. If the money were paid to the student who opted out that would provide a tangible gain for him. Indeed, a fees rebate would mean that a student's choice whether to leave the student union would be based on a reasoned judgment of whether he could get better value from other student bodies or outside bodies, as well as on issues of conscience. Certainly it would give the student unions a real incentive to retain student membership—and they could do that by providing good-quality services and by being more responsible and representative.
Therefore, if students opt out of student union membership, either they should receive the proportion of the fee paid to the union by the institution on their behalf, or alternatively, if the money continues to be paid to the union, they should be permitted continued access to the union facilities.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendment I hope that he will spell out clearly the fact that the Government expect student unions to allow students who opt out of union membership to continue to use the facilities. Indeed, we made some good progress on that point in Committee, because several Labour Members went so far as to agree with that. It is important that my hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps the Opposition spokesman, will reinforce that point again. The amendment is about giving genuine choice to students, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give a positive response.
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesThat it should come to this: that the carnivores of the Conservative right wing should be reduced to tabling an amendment as meek and mild as this, trying to attack student unions on the basis of some concept about rebates.
I may add that Conservative Members should show a little delicacy when talking about the openness with which funds are used by significant bodies. We are all too well aware of the fact that they are members of an association, a political party, that is staggeringly coy about donations, whether given or received. One would have thought that there would have been an element of delicacy in the drafting of such an amendment.
There are several real anxieties about the amendment, and I shall put them in straightforward terms to the hon. 398 Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). First, I know that he is thinking of the model of the large, aggressive, politically challenging major university union, immensely damaging to Conservative interests and campaigning on education issues. But the reason why such a union may operate against Conservative interests is contained in the policies that the hon. Gentleman has supported and the Government have carried out.
I remind the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that there are other student unions as well. For example, in further education colleges the contributions per student may be about £1.20 per year. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should put into legislation a requirement that when a student leaves a college for some reason, or withdraws from the student union, or does not participate as fully as he wishes, he will be able to claim back a fraction of that £1.20? Is he saying that the institution would have to set up some machinery whereby that fraction of £1.20 should be refunded? Of course not. It is ludicrous nonsense and it reflects the fact that some Conservative Members are more concerned with indulging their ideological predispositions than with looking at the reality of education.
What kind of organisations do Conservative Members belong to or can they reflect upon which can budget easily on the basis of people being able to withdraw their subscriptions over part of a year? It would be extremely difficult for most organisations to cope with that if they were anything like significant employers. Many student unions have quite large turnovers and employ professional staff. How would they cope if there were a withdrawal of a substantial amount of resources midway through the year?
It should be recognised that, of course, the student union grant is a block grant for all facilities. Although the student may wish to withdraw himself from certain functions of the student union, the amendment's intentions would be extremely difficult to implement when that student still had access to services provided by the student union, such as heating and lighting of a building, health and safety provisions, insurance, and so on. How would it be possible for an institution to prevent some students from benefiting in part from some of the generalised services, while seeking to refund them for services which they no longer accept?
I shall address the following point to the Minister as well. I have no doubt that the model that the Government have in mind in this aspect of the Bill is a group of people of political principle who decide that the student union has pursued an action which they no longer wish to support and the Government deem that such groups ought to have the democratic right to withdraw. We all respect such a model because it has a democratic concept behind it.
The worry is that, apart from people withdrawing from the student union on such political grounds, we may see minority groups of students withdrawing for a whole range of different reasons. Obviously, there are many ethnic minorities in our student bodies. They may want to withdraw from the student union on the grounds that it provides certain facilities which they would like to see provided in a slightly different way. They might want more no-smoking areas or areas where people could be quiet, or provision to be made for a particular diet in the refectory. If the student union fails to provide such facilities, the Bill puts an obligation on the institution to make good any deficit.
399 9 pm
I ask the Minister to consider that point seriously, because there are anxieties that higher education institutions will have burdens placed on them as a result of opting out by students, which have not been envisaged up to now—certainly not in the arguments put forward by the Minister. That shows how difficult this part of the Bill is. Therefore, if the Minister accepts the complicating, unhelpful amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and, somewhat predictably, supported by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), he will be piling additional burdens on an area of the Bill that I and many people involved in education to a much greater extent than I am already foresee leading to untold trouble for our institutions in ways that the Government have not recognised.
§ Mr. BoswellThis has been an interesting debate, which has enabled us to clarify a number of issues of principle and of detailed application of the proposed legislation. I should let the House know at the outset that I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), although I understand the spirit and sentiment in which he has moved it. I shall outline the ways in which we are addressing his concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in a moment.
I shall deal first with the comments made by Opposition Members. Frankly, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was somewhat below his best. He was particularly ungracious in his remarks about the Secretary of State and somewhat hysterical in his remarks about the general position of students.
No one is pretending that everything in the garden is lovely for students or that they have ample and huge funds. Of course that is not the case. Nevertheless, the real value of the package available to them is maintained year by year in terms of what they have to spend while they are students. Moreover, when one measures the drop-out rate on an objective basis, one sees that it is not generally increasing. I should add that for the past four years we have included the access funds as well. That is immensely useful in meeting the concerns of students who are in difficulties. The funds are administered by the institutions.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) gave tongue to his concerns and, understandably, expressed his personal anxieties about the amendment. He talked about the various types of provision and the wide range of facilities offered by student unions from the large, professionally staffed ones to those that are run on a shoestring, perhaps in further education colleges. The hon. Gentleman could have given the example of an Oxford or Cambridge junior common room. We acknowledge that there is a wide range of provision.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton invented, perhaps, a Government model and suggested that we saw a group of politically motivated persons, or people not necessarily motivated by any other sentiment than dissatisfaction with their union, exercising their right of choice and opting out. The hon. Gentleman argued against that and said that there could be a series of principled withdrawals to force changes of provision or to avail those concerned of the provisions of the clause.
The anti-discrimination or unfair disadvantage provisions that we debated in Committee are exactly what they 400 are set out to be. They are directed to institutions or unions which set things up in a way that creates an unfair disadvantage for students. These provisions enable a group of students to claim that they are being unfairly disadvantaged. They do not prescribe that there should be exact equivalence. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton knows that elsewhere in the Bill we have provided that institutions are required to give details of the services that they offer, both through the student union channel and outside it. It should be possible, therefore, to make an informed choice.
I have followed some of the speculation that has ensued and I seek to convince the House that it is somewhat alarmist. I assure the hon. Gentleman, if I did not make it clear earlier, that we have received a number of comments from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It is my intention to reply to the committee's letter and my reply will be on the record by the time those in another place complete their consideration of the Bill.
I assure my hon. Friends that I understand the sentiments underlying the amendment to which they spoke. It is important in principle that students who choose not to belong to a union should not have to pay for services that they do not receive. They should not have to pay for the cake, as it were, and not receive the biscuit.
The Government have given an undertaking that public funding from which institutions provide services to students will not be altered or reduced on account of the reforms set out in the Bill. Institutions need that funding to maintain services for opted-out students.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I mention briefly the various channels—the audit trail, as it were—along which public money flows and makes its way through the system. The moneys come from the Government to the funding council. They move from the funding council to the institution and onwards to the student union. At no stage is there an earmarked amount of Government funds for the student union. Nor is such funding contingent on a particular level of union membership.
When we reach the levels of the institution and the student union, there is an intermingling of private sources of funds, which must be taken into account. As has been said, an institution may typically give a block grant to a student union without earmarking it, for example, as £X to the rugby club, £Y for the debating society, and so forth. It is a highly unhypothecated system and we would not seek to intervene in the process.
Having said that, however, I agree with my hon. Friends that the right to choose whether to belong to a student union is central to our student union reforms. It was on the front of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a year ago. It requires—and we are determined to ensure that it achieves—a real choice. Indeed, that is exactly the point in respect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton led his amendment. It is no good just talking about the voluntary principle: there must be a real exercise of choice. That must mean that those who decide not to join the union must not face such a loss or disadvantage as to render it a hollow option. We therefore amended the Bill to ensure that there would be no unfair disadvantage as a result of making that choice.
There are bound to be differences between union and non-union members. For example, students who opt out cannot expect to take part in elections. We explored that point in Committee. Opting out cannot be cost-free. 401 However, students should be able to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of membership, with due transparency, knowing what they will get and without fear of discrimination or loss of access to important services.
We have already discussed with the representative bodies the importance of ensuring that services remain available to non-members. To underpin that, we have confirmed that institutional budgets will not be reduced on account of the number of students opting out. We have also discussed with those representative bodies the principle—and this relates closely to the amendment—of fair treatment of self-financing students who opt out, and the institutions understand that point.
Where self-financing students opt out, but continue to receive services through the union, institutions will need to decide whether a reduced fee, in proportion to any reduction in services, would be fair and appropriate. We do not think that it is appropriate to require the diversion of money used at present to provide services for all in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton suggests. We believe that that is too prescriptive. It is also a little too negative.
From the discussions that we have had and the assurances that we have received, we expect that institutions will wish to continue to provide services for all students, including those who opt out. They may be provided in several ways, either separately or on an agency arrangement through the student union. However, we expect institutions to continue to provide those services and they will therefore need to retain the funds in their hands to ensure that those services are maintained.
We believe in a real principle of choice and I am at one with my hon. Friends in that regard. That is extremely important. We believe in non-discrimination and fairness in the way matters operate. We believe in transparency so that people know where they are. We understand from the institutions their readiness to continue to provide services for all students, with the qualifications that I have given, but on the basis of non-discrimination or unfair disadvantage.
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesMay we be clear about this? I understand that where it can be readily identified that funds have been reserved because students have opted out, a deduction can be made from the contribution to the student union. However, there will clearly be a loss of economies of scale. It will be extremely difficult to quantify and to separate certain services in those terms. Will institutions therefore be able to look to the Government for supplementary resources to take account of the fact that the grant saved will be insufficient to make up for the deficit in facilities that will occur?
§ Mr. BoswellI do not accept the hon. Gentleman's seductive premise, nor his conclusion. In most cases, as I have already said, institutions wish to continue the services. We have received that set of assurances from the institutions, so the point about economies of scale would probably not arise in practice. On the hon. Gentleman's conceptual point, I have already made it clear that this is not hypothecated money. Any particular needs of institutions at any one time will be considered on their 402 merits by the respective funding councils in the light of the resources that we make available to that funding council. I can give the hon. Gentleman no clearer assurance than that.
We expect the services to continue. We believe in the principle of a free, real and transparent choice. For those reasons, although I fully understand the spirit in which my hon. Friend moved the amendment, I invite him to withdraw it, as we are not able to accept it.
§ Mr. DuncanIn view of my hon. Friend's continents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
9.14 pm§ Mr. BoswellI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I commend the Bill to the House for its very clear merits. Part I establishes a specialist agency to facilitate teacher training, with very clear and commendable objectives, which are set out in clause 1, to contribute to raising the standards of teaching, to promote teaching as a career, to improve the quality and efficiency of all routes into the teaching profession, and to secure the involvement of schools in all courses and programmes for the initial training of school teachers.
Only those blinded by prejudice or, perhaps, crippled by excess conservatism, could suggest that such a body will be anything other than a force for good in such an important sector. We believe unashamedly in the concept of a specialist, dedicated body with a specific remit to raise quality and standards in teacher training, and we will deliver it through the Bill.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that the Opposition would focus on school-centred training in later debates. My word, in that respect alone she was certainly right. Most effort in Committee was spent by the Opposition on a stubborn defence of the right of universities to hold the ring on teacher training—in effect, to decide whom to let in as competitors to their own provision. We tried hard to convince the Opposition that our purpose was to provide a measure of choice and diversity. We did not seek to subvert higher education provision of teacher education. We seek to provide an alternative which will be judged on its merits and will be accredited by the same body.
This House has made very clear on Second Reading, in Committee and today its views about our concept. It has endorsed the principles of choice and diversity within a framework of high quality, as now reflected in the Bill. It could not accept the unclear words that were added to the Bill in another place, and it also chose not to accept any of the many alternatives that were offered by Opposition Members with the same purpose of, in effect, compelling the participation of higher education in school-centred initial teacher training. We have no objection to its involvement; but we do not compel it to take place. That has been the substance of the matter, although it was only briefly touched upon.
Inevitably, the Committee stage, which was good-natured, highlighted a number of different and interesting perspectives on the provision of teacher education. Many of us will have enjoyed hon. Members' contributions, and I hope that we have learnt something from them. On the 403 whole, it has been a valuable and good-natured series of discussions, even if we were unshakeable, as we felt we should be, on the main principle which I have discussed.
In the relatively long hours of a Committee stage, it is usually possible to find out a number of points about the Opposition's policies. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not possible at the Dispatch Box to question the Opposition about the conduct of their policies from time to time. I was slightly disappointed with the responses of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends. In spite of our questioning, we did not hear whether she supported the boycott of tests by one out of six teacher unions. We were hoping to hear about that but we did not. Can the hon. Lady tell us now?
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorCan the Minister tell us where that is in the Bill?
§ Mr. BoswellA lot of parents will want to know what the hon. Lady and her party think about it.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Minister, like other hon. Members, must adhere to the proper rules. The rule is that on Third Reading one debates what is in the Bill.
§ Mr. BoswellIndeed. I was extremely interested in a number of other issues that were not raised in Committee, such as grant-maintained schools and specialised teacher assistance, which come within the concerns of quality and choice in teacher training.
It is interesting—and I give due credit to Opposition Members—that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) did not turn up during our considerations today, despite his emphasis on education. He expressed a certain interest in teacher assistance, which I thought was coming at least a little bit our way on that matter. I shall be strictly fair to the hon. Gentleman. We agreed on one point which was entirely germane to the Bill, and it came out clearly from it. He said that he welcomed the proposal—as I do—by the National Union of Students to seek charitable status. I hope that that proposal—painfully slow as it always is, because it must be painstaking-will proceed. That will be a positive gain from the Bill, as will the detailed provisions of the student union clauses we have been discussing.
For the most part, I felt that on the central issue of teacher training, we all aspire to securing quality, but we must find practical means and effective delivery to ensure that we get it. The hon. Lady and her colleagues showed only the splendour of unreconstructedness.
Part II of the Bill secures much greater accountability in the working of student unions and real choice about whether they can join, should join or choose to join those bodies. Those sound principles are not the subject of dispute. The Bill includes a good and workable method of putting them into practice, precisely in line with the objectives and principles that my right hon. Friend set out last year.
In part II, we have a structure which was introduced with common consent in another place. It provides a framework of good practice for universities and colleges to implement without bureaucratic interference from the centre; and each in its own appropriate way. We have in this place made some improvements which are designed to ensure that the choice for students on whether to belong is 404 real and, as promised before the Bill left another place, to enhance the information provisions to increase transparency.
Put simply, I believe that the Bill should pass into law as soon as possible to allow its full benefits of extending choice and raising quality to be realised. I hope that those in another place will be able swiftly to endorse the amendments that this House has made in the spirit of greater choice and accountability, in which they were clearly intended.
§ Mrs. Ann TaylorWe should welcome back the late Secretary of State, who clearly could not be bothered to turn up for much of the debate. Perhaps that is not surprising because he does not know the Bill well, not having served on the Committee. It would have been interesting to hear his swansong this evening, but it was not to be.
I shall take up a point made by the Minister when he said that we concentrated most of our attention in Committee on part I of the Bill. That is true. I intend to concentrate most of my brief remarks this evening on part I as well, because I regard it as the most important part of the Bill and, in a sense, because I am charitable by nature and do not want to add to the humiliation of Ministers, especially when they have already been reminded of the rhetoric about student unions which has been used by the Secretary of State on other occasions. Perhaps the Secretary of State has suffered sufficient humiliation recently without our repeating some of his more extravagant statements from the Tory conference.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State missed the comments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), to whom I shall certainly give way.
§ Mr. RiddickA significant number of teachers who are members of the National Union of Teachers will be directly affected by part I of the Bill. Will the hon. Lady join me in urging those NUT members to stop their boycott of tests?
§ Mrs. TaylorEven the hon. Gentleman's intervention is too contrived to be in order on this occasion. Perhaps he would be interested in reminding his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what he said earlier, while his right hon. Friend was absent. The hon. Member was reminding us that part II of the Bill was a long way from "the spirit" of the original Bill. He said that by way of complaint. Opposition Members very much welcome that change in the Bill, however. This is one occasion on which the other place did a very good job of improving legislation that was seriously flawed.
In the very brief time that I wish to take, I shall remind the Minister of some of the questions that are still important and which he should be reminded of before the Bill is granted its final passage through this House.
First, I should repeat what Opposition Members said in the Standing Committees on other education Bills. It is wrong when quango after quango is appointed by the Secretary of State alone, and that situation cannot continue. I say that as a shadow Secretary of State, as one who would very much like to sit on the Government Benches, and as one who would not always want the Secretary of State's powers to be curtailed.
405 We really need a system that is not so open to political abuse. The system that we have suggested, in which members of national educational quangos would be approved by the Select Committee on Education, is one which a serious Government and people who are seriously interested in democracy ought to take further.
Secondly, on the pace of change, the Secretary of State once said that change in education should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. During the past two years, as far as I can see, he has done nothing to ensure that that is the case. We have had rapid change on rapid change, which is causing serious concerns in education, as is the fact that the Government are going ahead with this legislation before the results of the pilot scheme have been announced.
Other specific questions were not answered in Committee and were not touched on today, such as the European validity of the qualifications that prospective teachers will get from courses. That is an extremely important question and one which Ministers ought to be willing to answer, for the sake of the prospective students
Also, the Minister never told us why the Government are taking these first steps to deprofessionalise teaching, when other Ministers are moving in the opposite direction, for example with nursing.
The central consideration must be quality—whether any of the measures in the Bill will improve, or have the potential to damage, the quality of teachers. Our concerns remain. They have not been dealt with adequately throughout our debates on the Bill.
The Minister said that we were stubborn in our defence of universities, but that is not the case. We are stubborn in our defence of the principle of partnership. Teachers should have both higher education and practical experience. In Committee, both Ministers frequently praised that partnership, and it should be an essential part of the provision. The principle of partnership should therefore be incorporated in the Bill.
Ministers have heard on other occasions the information about schemes that have been tried in the recent past. Mention was made this evening of the role of OFSTED. Ministers will recall the OFSTED report on the articled teacher scheme, which said that the degree of inconsistency in the scheme was more evident than in conventional postgraduate certificate of education courses.
That potential for inconsistency, a reduction in quality and a patchiness—with qualifications that do not mean what the students might think they mean—are at the heart of our concerns about the Bill. Ministers have said that we have not provided all of the solutions. Perhaps a Bill that starts off in a confrontational way without a proper consultation and which is rushed through is not one that is open to much constructive amendment. We did attempt constructive amendment, and we tried to concentrate on quality issues.
We tried to resolve the dilemma that Government Members often seem to face of not being quite sure whether they think most teachers are rubbish or are doing a good job. We saw that dilemma with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who was somewhat scathing in many of his comments.
From Second Reading onwards, we have suggested many of the issues that should be developed and looked at with regard to teacher education. The need for a core 406 curriculum and the issue of special educational needs were discussed, and there should be—I think that there could be—cross-party agreement on what is needed for prospective teachers. We talked about the need for better induction, better support teachers and more in-service training.
Ministers seemed to have fixed minds from the start. We got the impression in Committee that the Ministers saw the merits of many of our arguments and, left to their own devices, might have been able to come up with some modest amendments which could have improved the Bill. The Bill could damage teacher education in this country seriously, and could thereby damage the educational opportunities for our children.
I end by reminding the House of what the Secretary of State said on another occasion. He said that if we legislate in haste, we can repent at leisure. The Secretary of State may have a lot of leisure for his repentance, but, in the meantime, our children's education could be damaged.
§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)The Bill came from the Lords to the House of Commons in a tattered state with bits taken off it. It staggered through Committee and tonight it has come to us for its final stages here. The two Ministers tonight—the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the education world—have not only been singularly unconvincing but also singularly unconvinced in what they told the House.
I asked myself tonight whether I would buy a used car from either of the two Ministers. They wax lyrical about the vehicle of change which they have presented in the Bill, but I would not buy a Ford Anglia from those guys. They have sold us a horse and cart from the monitorial age, and we have teacher training which comes from the "learning at Nelly's knee" syndrome.
Like so many of the Government's education policies and so many other Tory policies, the measure was spawned by denigrating, destroying and undermining all that is good at the moment. The Government create a climate in which almost any change and policy put forward can be accepted. We know where the policies come from. They come from the Centre for Policy Studies and from the pen of Sheila Lawlor, and that is how the Bill has come to pass.
It was spawned in response to the sort of scare stories that we heard from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland), whom I notice has been very much absent from this debate. Here we have a solution to the problem of teacher education that is still looking for the problem.
Where is the massive support for this proposal? I have travelled around the country with the Select Committee on Education, and one sight that I have not seen is parents marching with banners reading "We want more students clogging up our children's classes."
Let us consider one or two of the practicalities of the Bill. Opposition Members want broad-based teacher education: we believe that all teachers need practical experience, but that experience should be gained in several schools. Many students are currently trained in only one or two. We also believe that their education should be underpinned by theory, and placed in a context of knowledge.
A good teacher training course should include some element of the history of education, and provide knowledge of how children learn and an understanding of 407 the social context in which they live. Moreover—as the Secretary of State will doubtless agree—student teachers should learn about the national curriculum, testing and many of the other measures introduced by the Government.
How will the Teacher Training Agency and the new teacher training scheme work? The Select Committee—and no doubt other hon. Members who have visited schools around the country—encountered a common criticism. The expression that we heard so often from heads and governors was "innovation overload": because too many changes and new ideas had been imposed at the same time, teachers had been bogged down with paperwork and bureaucracy—ticking forms, filling in boxes and dealing with the shifting ground of an ever-changing national curriculum, sometimes with poor facilities. On top of that, they are having to write courses for teacher trainees.
§ Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. JamiesonI would, but I do not wish to subject the House to the banalities that the hon. Gentleman's interventions usually contain.
If individual schools, or clusters of schools, are to take on groups of students, what is to be the critical mass? Will it be 10, 12 or 15 students? If the scheme is to be cost-effective, there must be a critical mass. I think that it must be between 10 and 15. Even in a large comprehensive with as many as 80 or 100 staff, the addition of 15 students would impose a considerable burden; most large schools would not take on more than three or four at any one time, because of the disruption involved. I need not remind the Minister that one of the reasons why Harrow school left the partnership scheme was the disruption that it anticipated.
If a large comprehensive will not be able to cope, how will a large primary school with perhaps 20 teachers cope? How will a small primary with six or seven teachers deal with perhaps a similar number of students at the same time? As with so many of the Government's Bills and policies, no consideration has been given to the way in which the proposals will work in the classroom.
I know what many parents will feel about the Bill. They want their children to be taught by well motivated, highly skilled teachers; they want those teachers to spend their time with the children in the classroom. What they do not want is for the school to be full of students so that teachers spend their time helping those students.
The most serious contradiction in the Bill is the fact that Tory Members have constantly criticised teacher training and trendy ideas during the 1960s and those teachers who, supposedly, conspired to lower standards, yet the Bill gives the job of training new teachers to the alleged villains of the piece.
The Bill is seriously flawed. It has little support in schools and no support among parents. The only glimmer of light in the gloom is that few schools will take it on because it is totally unworkable.
§ Mr. Don FosterThe hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the two Ministers on the Front Bench as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I have a grudging affection for them—and for the Secretary of State, who may not be with us for much longer—but I thought that they looked more like the Flower Pot Men as 408 they watched the Secretary of State wandering in and out of the Chamber. "Bill and Ben, the Flower Pot Men. Flubberdub. Where did the Little Weed go?"
The Bill is totally unnecessary and unwelcome. Nevertheless, our debate has brought some welcome developments. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed part II of the Bill, on which the Government have shown some willingness to listen to concerns expressed by people both inside and outside the House, despite the blandishments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
It was also interesting to hear the Secretary of State apparently welcome the idea of an outside, non-partisan body that would look into some education issues. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that the Education Commission has secured some additional funding to continue the excellent work that it was doing.
I also welcome the Government's admission that the parents charter was not all that it was cracked up to be. I particularly welcome the Minister's remark that one could not rely on a document like that.
The vast majority of the damage will be done by part I, which fails to recognise the real problems in the education service. The Government would have done far better to deal with those problems than the issues which they have dealt with in part I. Their energy would have been put to better use in looking at the underfunding of the education service and giving even more impetus to increasing significantly the level of nursery education available to three and four-year-olds. They should have dealt with the desperate need to establish a general teaching council to raise the professional status of teachers rather than to reduce it, as part I does.
Part I is also dangerous. For example, it introduces into our education service yet another unelected, remote, undemocratic quango. More than 55 per cent. of all central Government expenditure on education is now through quangos. People are concerned about the denial of the democratic principle by those quangos, not least when they see that their membership is solely in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will appoint between eight and 12 faceless men and women who will meet in secret and not be answerable to Parliament. They could certainly never claim to represent an independent or credible organisation.
The Secretary of State assured us that the Bill would not give him any additional powers. He continually tells us that he has moved power from the hub of the wheel to the rim of the wheel, yet, as recently as today, he demonstrated effectively the way in which the Bill gives him significantly increased power.
The Secretary of State was pleased to be able to announce as recently as today a new initiative in respect of OFSTED, whereby he would use his powers under clause 7 of the Bill to dictate that OFSTED should be allowed to visit organisations and institutions and that, if they did not let it in, no funds would be available. The clause provides:
The Secretary of State may make grants to the funding agencies of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine.That two-line part of the clause shows the enormous power that the Secretary of State will gain from the Bill.The Secretary of State also said, during his brief contribution, that he was perhaps sorry that he had not started reforms of teacher education sooner, but that one has to start somewhere. That belies all the changes that 409 have taken place in initial teacher education under the current Secretary of State and his predecessors in recent years, some of which I welcomed.
The Secretary of State rightly moved the initial teacher training so that more time has been spent in the classroom. Moves by the Secretary of State and the Conservative Government have ensured the establishment of worthwhile partnerships between schools and institutions of higher education. Those are welcome, but the proposals in the Bill, especially the drive towards school-centred initial teacher training, are, I believe, a move too far. That move will, in due course, remove opportunities for choice and diversity as more and more institutions drop out of providing initial teacher education.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Government Bench have been able to provide no evidence of support for those proposals. They have been able to provide no evidence that the proposals will improve the quality of teacher training, and there has been no realisation by the Secretary of State or his colleagues of the distinction between training someone to join the profession of teaching and technician education.
The Bill—especially part I—will do a great disservice to the country's education service, and it will continue to lower the morale of the people working in the service. I very much hope that it will not be given a Third Reading.
§ Mr. GunnellIn the past two or three weeks, my constituents have reminded me of the only aspect of education about which there has been agreement across the House as far as the Bill is concerned—we are anxious about the quality of education.
Constituents have come to me, expressing a great deal of anxiety about the fact that their children had not been able to obtain, or they thought that their children would not be able to obtain, places in schools in Morley, which is half of my constituency, because so many people were coming in from outside the constituency—and indeed from outside Leeds—under the Greenwich judgments. Indeed, the authority originally allocated their children to schools that they felt were of lesser quality.
That brought it home to me that the three high schools in Morley are all schools where the quality of the education is good, and the quality is good because the head teachers and staff are good, as are the relationships that exist in the schools. Those are all schools that I have been in at the time that I was involved in teacher training, and they are all schools that have a great deal to commend them. It was not surprising, therefore, that my constituents felt aggrieved that their children were placed in schools that they considered to be of lesser quality.
It has been the view of the Government that they are bringing forward a Bill that improves the quality of education because it improves the quality of teaching. I find that they have not made their case.
The Bill has no merit from beginning to end. It is notable that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has already gone on record as saying that she would get rid of the Teacher Training Agency if she were Secretary of State. That is a commitment that I very much hope and expect she will fulfil. It is the only fit thing to do.
410 The Bill is based on myths. We know what they are because those of us who served on the Committee were given the briefings that were given to Conservative Members. Each of those briefings starts with one of the myths.
The briefing for part I of the Bill talks of political correctness. It states that higher education institutions, particularly teacher training institutions, are more concerned with political correctness than education. We heard that in Committee, we heard it from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and, of course, we heard it from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is very concerned about political correctness.
All the examples given—most of them from Lancaster—were to be found in the briefing given to Conservative Members. It was not quite respectable enough to have come from central office, but it came with some guarantee from the Ministers. It consisted of various myths about the worst things that were thought to happen in teacher training institutions.
With part II of the Bill came another book of myths of the dreadful things done by student unions. We heard that again today from the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Colne Valley. Once the hon. Member for Colne Valley sees the word "union" on a piece of paper, it affects him in a certain way. I wonder whether, if I look at the Huddersfield District Chronicle, I shall find that the hon. Gentleman has been attacking the Mothers Union or the Band of Hope Union. As soon as he sees anything about unions he responds in a particular way.
The fact that part II of the Bill exists is a tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The Lords made it clear that part II, as originally envisaged by the Government, was nonsense. Part II contains the longest clause in the Bill—a clause which does nothing and which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals rightly said was otiose and unworkable. Otiose means idle—the clause is idle, as is that part of the Bill, because it does nothing and does not contain legislation of any value. All it does is make it possible for people who are not student union members to ensure that they can get their drinks at the union bar—that was always going to be the case. Part II is a complete waste of time. It is not particularly dangerous and only becomes so if many people opt out of unions and the unions find it hard to fulfil their welfare functions.
Part I is based on the myth that what happens in higher education is politically correct. Part I is dangerous. We must consider the likely consequences if the Teacher Training Agency remains in existence for very long. It will reduce the quality of teaching. Because of my own background I am particularly concerned about the quality of science teaching. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is concerned about the quality of chemistry students. I accept that sometimes chemists may have greater difficulty in coming to terms with the subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth specialises than he would in coming to terms with theirs.
We must be concerned about the quality of science teachers because we must be concerned about the number of science graduates—we know that there will be a shortage.
There are particular difficulties in training science graduates for work in secondary schools because there is disharmony between the concept of a university degree in science and what we now ask of science teachers in 411 secondary schools. The best students still very much aim for a single-subject honours degree. Fortunately, there are now some degrees that encompass two or even three subjects, but they are relatively few.
When the teacher with an honours degree in physics or chemistry goes to a secondary school, he will be expected to teach not just physics or chemistry but across the whole range of sciences. Quite rightly, we have moved towards integrated science to give students an understanding of the fundamental principles of science as a whole. That means that that teacher must have academic retraining or he will spend a great deal of time teaching a subject in which his academic background is weak.
The Secretary of State will know that many people recruited in times of teacher shortage do not have the academic background to teach science in secondary schools. That problem will be compounded by a system that takes the initial training of teachers away from higher education. University departments of education have a range of science expertise that can help individual students. They also have a range of equipment that simply is not available in individual schools.
I have visited many schools that are hesitant about laboratory work because of the cost of materials. Therefore, when training teachers they cannot encourage them to experiment. Everyone knows that, when conducting an experiment for the first time, we are likely not to have it right so it does not work. Any one in science teaching has had that experience. We have to learn to deal with that, but it is better to do so within a university setting than in a school in front of a class of 30 to 40 pupils. I believe that not just in science, but more widely, there will be a reduction in quality as a result of removing teacher training from higher education institutions.
A second factor is that, over time, many schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) cited Harrow—will drop out of initial teacher training. Ilkley grammar school has said that it can no longer take teacher training students because there is a fundamental conflict between its job of educating children and the job it is being increasingly asked to do of training teachers, even in partnership with higher education institutions.
That conflict means that schools that want to concentrate on pupils and on what happens in the classroom are increasingly reducing the amount of contact between student teachers and pupils. They feel that that is important if they are to maintain their positions in the league and their examination results. There will be a reduction in the number of schools involved in teacher training.
The future under the Bill and the Teacher Training Agency will be one of a diminishing number of higher education institutions and schools involved in teacher training. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that some of the measures that the Government have taken in previous years have led to more contact with schools and have been beneficial to the system, but the Bill's provisions in respect of the Teacher Training Agency will weaken teacher training.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said earlier that he was concerned about intellectual rigour in education. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers are not concerned about 412 intellectual rigour in teacher training; they are, in fact, diminishing it. They believe that education theory can be taught by people who have retired from the—
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, through opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
§ Question agreed to.
§ Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
§ Mr. GunnellI was coming to the end of my speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that might be popular.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said, concern about intellectual rigour in education seemed to make the hon. Member for Buckingham melancholic. He might well be melancholic about the lack of intellectual rigour in the proposals, which are made on the basis of that what happens at the chalk face and what happens in the ivory cocoon are completely separate. We believe in a teacher training system where the practical experience in schools is fully consonant with a theoretical base in which there is an understanding of education.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI call Mr. Colin Pickthall. [Interruption.]
§ 10.1 pm
§ Mr. PickthallDid Conservative Members think that they could get away that lightly?
The core of the impulse behind the Bill is the assumed inefficiency and political undesirability of teacher education in the higher education sector. The Government's target has shifted in the past few years. Formerly, they said that teachers were responsible for all the ills of society, for not providing sufficiently trained pupils to fulfil the needs of business and commerce or young people sufficiently trained to be quiet citizens. The changes made in successive Education Acts were accompanied by a barrage of scorn that Conservative Members directed at teachers. Unfortunately for the Government, the experience of the population vis-a-vis their schools did not coincide with that, and the Secretary of State for Education succeeded in uniting almost all sections of education in resisting the Government's general attitude towards teachers.
In the past year or two, therefore, the Government have shifted their target—it is now teacher educators in universities and colleges. Conservative Back Benchers, if not co-Ministers, as they refer to themselves, have poured contempt on those people who are involved in teacher education. That has been obvious tonight. The hon. Members for Ealing, South (Mr. Greenway) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) make blanket condemnations of teacher education in colleges and universities. Throughout Committee, their argument was based on a painfully compiled booklet that contains a mixture of anecdotes, apocryphal details, exaggerations and generalisations about the dealings of teacher education departments and faculties. It was somewhat equivalent to the urban myth that we have read about in the newspapers.
The Secretary of State—we quoted this many times—said clearly in public that the school-centred initial teacher training schemes are all about bypassing higher education, 413 although, if I may get in a plug, the college where I used to teach in my constituency is the only one in the country that was judged "excellent" for its PGCE courses last year.
Conservative Members still talk about teacher training colleges—they referred to them again today—but they have not existed for a decade and a half. A huge change has taken place in colleges and universities and—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I do not know what hon. Members on both sides of the House are talking about, but I do know that I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I hope that the House will settle down a little.
§ Mr. PickthallThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A huge change has taken place, and is still taking place, in partnerships between colleges and schools. Most people, including hon. Members on both sides of the House, agree that partnerships are the right way forward, and that despite their many problems they are producing, and will produce, the goods. That was, and is, the change.
The Minister has accused us of being "conservatives" in the matter, but we are not; we are living through and, I hope, helping with a crucial change. But leapfrogging over that change comes another change—the school-centred initial teacher training scheme. Throughout Committee stage and today, the Opposition have tried to explore what the education experience of a trainee teacher should be.
Certainly that experience should be practical and school-based to a large extent, but it should also be theoretical. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have heard Conservative Members throwing out lampoons about theory in education. Students are required to know about the foundations of knowledge and skills, and how they are acquired. Of course, that involves some sociology and psychology; some legal knowledge—that can be a minefield—and knowledge of the structures of education systems and of comparative studies, as well as sex education, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) discussed, special educational needs and a host of other things.
Training also involves constant discussion and collaboration with other students, which the Bill seeks at least to water down. It also involves subject knowledge, which higher education can provide and schools cannot, to the same level. Teacher education involves the use of libraries and technologies, which universities and colleges can provide. Most of all, it involves the neutral role of a tutor, who is not involved in the particular politics and circumstances of the school.
Tonight we have again tried to explore the reality of the impact of those changes on the schools that will be directly affected. In all cases, Ministers' replies to us have largely avoided the central issues that we have tried to raise. We have tried to build in safeguards with our amendments, and to alert parents to the tremendous changes that SCITT schools will undergo. Again, all that has fallen on stony ground. Any impartial observer would have thought that the vast number of amendments proposed in Committee by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democratic party spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) were constructive, neutral and certainly free of ideology. Yet Ministers brushed them all aside.
414 Ministers have tried to assure us throughout the Bill's passage that higher education, including that part of higher education concerned with teacher education, is in no danger from the Bill. But they have only to listen to their own Back-Bench colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Ealing, North, to realise what their real intentions are.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall go on for another 10 minutes in that case. In conclusion, I should like to make a small bet with the Minister; perhaps he will respond to it when he sums up. The chairman of the Teacher Training Agency has been announced, and I should like to make a small wager that the name of Sheila Lawlor will figure, at least on the short list, for the post of its chief executive. I believe that we all have a fairly clear idea of her views on higher education, teacher education and even nursery schools.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) that the Bill is intellectually disreputable and will do great damage to teacher education and to the future of our schools.
§ 10.8 pm
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesIt is not often that one has the pleasure of seeing the House fill with hon. Members in eager anticipation of one's contribution, so I feel it incumbent on me to sum up the major issues arising from the Bill in a conspicuous effort to persuade Conservative Members, even at this late stage, to realise that it would be folly to give a Third Reading to such a bedraggled measure.
For those hon. Members who have been so busy elsewhere that they have not been able fully to follow the detailed development of the measure, it may help to refresh their memories if I remind them that the Bill started life as a most aggressive measure from the Secretary of State, with which he meant to achieve two aims. First, he was to achieve a new dawn for teacher education and the training of teachers in this country and, secondly, he would demolish the student unions, especially the National Union of Students—a source of such grievance to certain members of the Conservative party, but not to those who take an interest in educational matters.
The Bill was introduced in the other place and it was dismantled—not by the Labour Opposition, although our case was presented by our colleagues with their usual forcefulness and accuracy, but, in fact, by Conservative Members; right-wing Conservative Members, who knew something about education and thought that the Bill was nonsense. They thought that it was such nonsense that the Minister in the other place had the good sense to take the Bill away for several months and cogitate on its problems in some hope that, when it eventually returned, it would have a safe passage through the House.
The reason why the Bill will continue to have difficulty—I hope that it will have difficulty this evening, too—is quite clear. First, it is not the case that anybody sets out to defend higher education as such. We all seek to defend quality performance by higher education, but, we are not prepared to tolerate—nor are those who thought about the issue in the other place—a significant erosion of teacher training on the basis of an experiment which is only part-way through and the results of which are unproven.
It seems reasonable, in education at least, that we should have some regard for scientific methodology and some respect for the fact that, if the Government are carrying out 415 an experiment in the consortia of schools which conduct teacher education, that experiment should run its course and a true evaluation should be made before legislation is passed. It is far from that. I appeal to reasonable Conservative Members to recognise that they are being asked to vote on giving the Bill a Third Reading when we have no evidence of the success of the experiment, except hearsay.
We know that the experiment will certainly lead to a considerable erosion of the quality of teacher education for the following reasons. The development of teacher education in schools will be fraught with difficulties. Conservative Members must know that schools are under strain. All Conservative Members with experience of governing bodies and of representations from parents will recognise that the convulsions which schools have undergone in recent years has put them under great pressure. If results are to be published and the Government's much-vaunted league tables are to be the measure of school performance, schools, rightly, will concentrate on those measures of success identified by the Government.
I ask Conservative Members whether they would, as members of a governing body, therefore take lightly an assumption that the school should devote significant resources to teacher education, to untrained students being before the classes in significant numbers to promote their education, but not, of course, being able to provide the same, experienced teaching to the students in their charge? Would they be certain that the resources were forthcoming in that scenario, when schools recognise that the pressure on resources at the present time is intense?
The experiment will erode teacher education, because, as the Government know, university departments of education—and especially university governing bodies and senates—will be watching the position with great concern. Those governing bodies now see that the work of university departments could be reduced because the governing bodies no longer control the resource flow to the departments, since it comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State's quango—yet another of the unelected organisations set up by the Secretary of State to operate in education. Is it any wonder that there are great anxieties about the supply of teachers for the future, great worries about the strains and stresses on our schools and great concern about the quality of performance of the new scheme that the Government are thrusting upon us?
The second part of the Bill is now so truncated as to be scarcely worth Conservative Members bothering to participate in debates upon it. We had the rather undignified spectacle this evening of two or three Conservative Back-Bench Members, in place of the 50 or 60 hard ideologues of their party, out to wreck the National Union of Students, seeking to ensure that, if a student contracted out of his £1.20 a year payment to the union, he should receive a 40p rebate on the ground that he had not had full value for money. That was the absurdity to which we were reduced.
In effect, the Bill tells students—an increasingly large range of students with a significant number of votes, and an increasing number of part-time and mature students—and their representative institutions that the Government want to create the nanny state. It will place universities in a position in which they will have to supervise every move, every piece of expenditure and every action made and taken by students unions. We are talking of students who 416 are supposed to be being educated for a democracy. As I have said, many of them are fully participating members of that democracy. I warn the Government that when students get the chance next time to participate fully in the democratic process, the Conservative party will get short shrift on the basis of the Bill.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 249.
419| Division No. 289] | [10.16 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Alexander, Richard | Dover, Den |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Duncan, Alan |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Duncan-Smith, Iain |
| Amess, David | Durant, Sir Anthony |
| Arbuthnot, James | Dykes, Hugh |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Eggar, Tim |
| Atkins, Robert | Elletson, Harold |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Evennett, David |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Faber, David |
| Bates, Michael | Fabricant, Michael |
| Batiste, Spencer | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Bellingham, Henry | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Forman, Nigel |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Booth, Hartley | Forth, Eric |
| Boswell, Tim | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Bowden, Sir Andrew | Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Bowis, John | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | French, Douglas |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Brazier, Julian | Gale, Roger |
| Bright, Graham | Gallie, Phil |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Garnier, Edward |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Gill, Christopher |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Burns, Simon | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Burt, Alistair | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Butcher, John | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Butler, Peter | Gorst, Sir John |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW) |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Cash, William | Grylls, Sir Michael |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hague, William |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie |
| Churchill, Mr | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Clappison, James | Hannam, Sir John |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) | Harris, David |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hawkins, Nick |
| Colvin, Michael | Hawksley, Warren |
| Congdon, David | Hayes, Jerry |
| Conway, Derek | Heald, Oliver |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hendry, Charles |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. |
| Couchman, James | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Cran, James | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | Horam, John |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Day, Stephen | Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Devlin, Tim | Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Jack, Michael | Ross, William (E Londonderry) |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Jessel, Toby | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Sackville, Tom |
| Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr) | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim |
| Key, Robert | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Kilfedder, Sir James | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Shersby, Michael |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Sims, Roger |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Soames, Nicholas |
| Legg, Barry | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Leigh, Edward | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Lennox-Boyd, Mark | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lidington, David | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Lightbown, David | Spring, Richard |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham) | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Lord, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
| Luff, Peter | Stephen, Michael |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Stern, Michael |
| Maclean, David | Stewart, Allan |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Streeter, Gary |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Sumberg, David |
| Madel, Sir David | Sweeney, Walter |
| Malone, Gerald | Sykes, John |
| Mans, Keith | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Marland, Paul | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Marlow, Tony | Taylor, John M. (Solihull) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Mates, Michael | Thomason, Roy |
| Merchant, Piers | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Mills, Iain | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Tracey, Richard |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Tredinnick, David |
| Moss, Malcolm | Trend, Michael |
| Nelson, Anthony | Trimble, David |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Trotter, Neville |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Norris, Steve | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Ward, John |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Waterson, Nigel |
| Page, Richard | Watts, John |
| Paice, James | Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Patnick, Irvine | Whitney, Ray |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Whittingdale, John |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Pawsey, James | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wilkinson, John |
| Pickles, Eric | Willetts, David |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Wilshire, David |
| Portillo, Rt Hon Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Rathbone, Tim | Wolfson, Mark |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Wood, Timothy |
| Renton, Rt Hon Tim | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Richards, Rod | |
| Riddick, Graham | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm | Mr. Andrew Mackay and |
| Robathan, Andrew | Mr. Bowen Wells |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Allen, Graham |
| Ainger, Nick | Alton, David |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Galloway, George |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Gapes, Mike |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Gerrard, Neil |
| Ashton, Joe | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Barnes, Harry | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Barron, Kevin | Godsiff, Roger |
| Battle, John | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Bayley, Hugh | Gordon, Mildred |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Graham, Thomas |
| Bell, Stuart | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Bennett, Andrew F. | Grocott, Bruce |
| Benton, Joe | Gunnell, John |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Hain, Peter |
| Berry, Roger | Hall, Mike |
| Betts, Clive | Hanson, David |
| Blunkett, David | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Boateng, Paul | Harvey, Nick |
| Boyes, Roland | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Bradley, Keith | Henderson, Doug |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Heppell, John |
| Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Burden, Richard | Hodge, Margaret |
| Byers, Stephen | Hoey, Kate |
| Caborn, Richard | Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Home Robertson, John |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Hood, Jimmy |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Cann, Jamie | Hoyle, Doug |
| Chidgey, David | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Church, Judith | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Clapham, Michael | Hutton, John |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Jamieson, David |
| Clelland, David | Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Coffey, Ann | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Cohen, Harry | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) |
| Connarty, Michael | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Jowell, Tessa |
| Corbett, Robin | Keen, Alan |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Khabra, Piara S. |
| Cummings, John | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Lewis, Terry |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John | Litherland, Robert |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Darling, Alistair | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Davidson, Ian | Loyden, Eddie |
| Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | McAllion, John |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) | McCartney, Ian |
| Denham, John | Macdonald, Calum |
| Dewar, Donald | McFall, John |
| Dixon, Don | McKelvey, William |
| Dobson, Frank | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | McLeish, Henry |
| Dowd, Jim | McMaster, Gordon |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | MacShane, Denis |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | McWilliam, John |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Madden, Max |
| Eastham, Ken | Maddock, Mrs Diana |
| Enright, Derek | Mahon, Alice |
| Etherington, Bill | Mans, Keith |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Marek, Dr John |
| Fatchett, Derek | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Fisher, Mark | Martlew, Eric |
| Flynn, Paul | Meacher, Michael |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Meale, Alan |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Foulkes, George | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) |
| Fraser, John | Milburn, Alan |
| Fyfe, Maria | Miller, Andrew |
| Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Sheerman, Barry |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Morley, Elliot | Short, Clare |
| Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Simpson, Alan |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Mudie, George | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Mullin, Chris | Snape, Peter |
| Murphy, Paul | Soley, Clive |
| O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) | Spearing, Nigel |
| O'Brien, William (Normanton) | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| O'Hara, Edward | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Olner, William | Stevenson, George |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| Parry, Robert | Straw, Jack |
| Patchett, Terry | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Pendry, Tom | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Pickthall, Colin | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Pike, Peter L. | Timms, Stephen |
| Pope, Greg | Tipping, Paddy |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Turner, Dennis |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) | Vaz, Keith |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Prescott, John | Walley, Joan |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Purchase, Ken | Wareing, Robert N |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Watson, Mike |
| Radice, Giles | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Randall, Stuart | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Raynsford, Nick | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Redmond, Martin | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Reid, Dr John | Wilson, Brian |
| Rendel, David | Winnick, David |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Worthington, Tony |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) | Wray, Jimmy |
| Roche, Mrs. Barbara | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Rogers, Allan | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Rooker, Jeff | |
| Rooney, Terry | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Mr. John Spellar and |
| Rowlands, Ted | Mr. Eric Illsley. |
| Ruddock, Joan |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.