The Prime Minister
… in the Health Service to give their views of how the Health Service is going. On Friday, we will be doing housing as our main conference. Tomorrow morning, we will have health. This morning, education is our main subject.
Mr Kenneth Baker (Secretary of State for Education)
May I start with some charts to show our commitment to the state-maintained sector of education. This is the record of expenditure per pupil under Mrs Thatcher's Government and what it was under the Labour Government. This shows an increase in funds of 19 per cent. per child in real terms. You can see that under Labour there was an actual cut, so there is no truth at all in the story that there is any lack of commitment. The actual amount of money that we have increased for the education budget this year is 18.8 per cent. This allows us to bring down the pupil:teacher ratio quite dramatically. There has been a drop from about 18.7 per cent./18.9 per cent. to 17.6 per cent. There is a further commitment to reduce it to 17.1 per cent. I have increased the number of trainee teachers, both in the primary and secondary areas. This has also allowed us to bring down the actual number of classes over 30. We want to see it come down even further. This is classes with one teacher over 30 pupils.
This shows the expansion of higher education under this Government. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of students going to our colleges, polytechnics and universities—some 157,000. That means that the age participation rate at 18 has gone up from about 12.2 per cent. to about 14 per cent, an historically high figure. But that is simply not good enough. I have committed the Government to an increase of 50,000 students taking degree courses by 1990. Indeed, by the end of the century, I want to see one in five of our young people aged 18 going on to higher education. This is a very very important target. We have to ensure that we provide the needs of society and the needs of business and industry with a trained qualified manpower that we have. I have absolutely no doubt that a better educated nation is a more prosperous nation. [end p1]
We also see over the period of our Government a switch to science and engineering graduates. Again, there is a very very important increase here. I had some part—working with Keith Joseph—in the switch to move the balance more in our universities and our polytechnics into science and engineering. Unless this trend goes on—we are committed to it going on—we will not be able to have the skilled manpower which is going to be necessary for the rest of this century to ensure that we remain a technically able, competent and adventurous country.
Finally, I will show what is happening over teachers' pay during the last Labour Government and our Government. This tells many more stories than just about teachers' pay. You see Labour coming in with very high hopes, going out on a massive spending spree and having to cut dramatically the amount of money which teachers get. That is the inevitable consequence of Socialism. They come in with high hopes; they do not intend this to happen but, in fact, it is spend, spend, spend. They are very good at spending well, but no good at creating it. Under the Conservative Government, we have seen a real terms increase. This is the latest offer. It is 16.4 per cent. this year, which is 25 per cent. over 18 months. Half of that is actually going to find its way into the pay packets of teachers at the end of this month.
We value very highly the profession of teaching. The great bulk of the profession are not militant. A great bulk of the profession are dedicated people who are dedicated to the vocation of teaching and work very hard and long hours. These charts show the progress of education during the lifetime of this Government.
I now turn to the policies that we are putting forward, because they are based on that commitment. We are the only Party in this Election who are putting forward positive policies to raise the standards and quality of education for all children.
Only the Conservative Party is offering opportunity for all parents to choose the most suitable schools for their children. Our policies are based basically on three proposals. First, we will introduce a national curriculum for all state-funded schools, coupled with attainment targets, so that all parents and teachers will know what standards children should [end p2] be achieving and how well they are doing. For the first time in many years, there will be a clear, national standard against which parents and employers will be able to judge the performance of children and the education system itself.
Secondly, we will give to head teachers of all secondary and larger primary schools control over their own budgets—local financial management as it is called. Pilot projects are in some 21 local education authorities, which are experimenting at the moment very successfully. They have shown that there are real benefits by delegating and devolving responsibility this way.
Thirdly, we will increase significantly the choice for parents. We will do this, first, by removing the artificial restrictions set by LEAs on the number of children allowed to go to popular schools. All secondary schools will be able to admit pupils up to the school's physical capacity. This will allow popular schools to utilise fully existing accommodation. We will allow maintained schools to become independent of local education authorities if it is the clear wish of parents and the governing bodies. The Government is wholly committed to the principle of free education within the state system. Grant maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees. They will be funded by direct grant from the Department of Education and Science at the same cost per pupil as the local LEA school.
Grant maintained schools will retain their character and range of ability intake. That will be part of the understanding with the DES. parents choose different types of schools for very different reasons, and we expect grant maintained schools to continue offering a range of educational types.
When a school becomes grant maintained, it will retain the same character as it was when it was an LEA school. The grammar school will remain a grammar school, a comprehensive will remain a comprehensive school, and a secondary modern school will remain a secondary modern school. The arrangement between the school and the DES will ensure that the existing range of ability intake will continue. If a school at a later stage wishes to change its character, then it can apply to the Secretary of State under procedures akin to those of Section 12 of the Education Act 1980. [end p3]
We will press ahead—this is, again, a development of our policies to increase parental choice—with the pilot network of City Technology Colleges to be based in urban areas. CTCs will specialise in technological education and allow industry and future employers to involve themselves in education.
Finally, in the area of parental choice, we will increase the number of children benefiting from the Assisted Places Schemes in independent schools to 35,000.
Both Opposition Parties are dedicated to eliminating parental choice. They totally oppose grammar schools, the Assisted Places Scheme and the right of parents to choose independent schools. They believe in a state monopoly of education, and offer no hope to parents who see standards slipping and education hijacked by educational bigots.
The Labour Party actually distrusts and fears people taking control of their own destiny. The Alliance patronises people and believes that they are unable to take their own decisions.
It is we Conservatives who believe that people ought to be free to make choices about how they run their lives. We believe that many more people are capable of rising to meet the challenge of responsibility if only they were given that opportunity. We will give parents that opportunity.
The Prime Minister
We shall have questions on education first. We aim, as usual, to finish the conference at 10 o'clock. We have not been over-successful, but we will have another go.
Q
In regard to opting out, how would the decision be made? Would it be made by a parents' meeting, the governors only, or by the head teacher in consultation with the governors only? Would the rest of the teaching staff be involved, or would you introduce postal ballots?
Mr Baker
The governing body has to agree if it wants to put the issue to the parents, who will then vote on it. The governing body of any of these schools will be empowered to put a proposal to the Secretary of State to cease to be maintained by the LEA and acquire GM status. The proposal will require a resolution by a majority of the governors, and by a majority of more than 50 per cent. of those voting in a postal ballot of parents of children at the school. Each parent [end p4] will have one vote.
Q
What time would have to elapse before that decision could be reversed by a vote of parents and governors?
Mr Baker
I am much more optimistic than you. Once a school has opted out and become grant maintained, it is unlikely to want to opt back into the situation of local education authority control. As regards the timing, we propose to put it into our educational reform Bill in the first Session of the next Parliament, so we hope that it will be on the statute book by the summer or autumn of next year. After it is statutorily available, I expect schools to come forward with proposals in 1988–89 with a view to the first ones probably opting out in 1990.
Q
If a school opts out and it is a comprehensive school and some time later it decides to become a grammar school, will the younger brothers and sisters of pupils at that school be able to attend automatically, or will they have to pass these entrance exams that will be set?
Mr Baker
We would retain what is called the sibling policy. The sibling policy.
Prime Minister
They are looking a little bit astonished. You do tend to give preference, if you possibly can, to brothers and sisters.
Q
As with the CTCs, do you intend to allow grant maintained schools to be able to pay higher salaries to teachers?
Mr Baker
Yes, if they wish to do so. But let me make it clear that they will have the same per capita funding as the local authority maintained school. So they will only be able to pay higher salaries to teachers, should they wish to do so, by making savings from within their overall budget.
Q
By what criteria, Secretary of State, will you decide whether to allow a grant maintained school to change its character? [end p5]
Mr Baker
When the application is first made to become a grant maintained school, I will have to satisfy myself that, in fact, if they become a grant maintained school that they will be able to manage it competently as managers—a very important point because they will be receiving grant funds from me. It will be public money, state money, taxpayers' money and I must be assured that that will be handled properly and managed properly. I will also want to be satisfied that they provide a high standard of education. The grant maintained schools will, of course, have to conform to the national curriculum, and will be subject to inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectors.
I envisage that when a school gets grant maintained status, it will be established and we will want to see how it runs for a few years. They will want to get the pattern of running an independent school. Then if they wish to make an application to change the nature of the school, I would have to see what that is and we will go through the same procedures akin to the ones in the 1980 Act, under Section 12.
Do not think for a moment that schools will automatically want to become grammar schools. They may want to become technological schools, vocational schools because, after all, people choose schools for a whole variety of reasons. It is not just academic subjects. The popularity of a school will depend, for example, on such things as its size, its location, its ethos, its specialities, vocational and technical subjects, its attitude to religious and moral education, its attitude to games, whether it is single sex or co-ed, and whether it provides a full-rounded education. Not all parents will want their children to be restricted solely to academic subjects. The challenge to grant maintained schools will be to motivate all children with all their varying talents.
Q
What additional charges are you or your Department considering introducing in state schools? The Labour Party has mentioned such things as school trips, music lessons, cookery and even stationery. What precisely is the present situation?
Mr Baker
The Government are wholly committed to the principles of free education within the state sector. The review of local authority fees and charges looked at all services, but no consideration has been given to charges and [end p6] fees that would breach the established principle of free education. The Government recognise, however, that there is a problem highlighted by some recent ombudsmen rulings about the longstanding practice of LEAs charging for certain extras. This practice has existed virtually for as long ago as the 1944 Act. It is nothing new. In fact, it is operating in many Labour authorities. I was in a Labour authority area last night, which operates the practice.
Q
Do you think that you could produce a definitive list of the extras?
Mr Baker
Yes. Certainly I could.
Q
Prime Minister, you said the other day when we were questioning you on this that there was already a certain element of selection within the state system. But I think that you would agree that that is normally done on local arrangements—local head masters making their own arrangements within the borough. Would you accept what the Opposition Parties say—that with these new schemes there will be a far greater element of selection introduced into the state system?
Mr Baker
This is not a return to the 11-plus. This is a deliberate misinterpretation by the Labour Party and by the Alliance. I made it absolutely clear that when schools opt out, they will retain their character and the same range of ability intake. As you quite rightly said, this depends—as far as comprehensives and secondary moderns are concerned—on a variety of different practices in local authorities usually connected with a catchment area. Therefore, we intend that that should continue.
On the question of selection, this happens at the moment when a popular LEA school is over-subscribed. The selection processes are well-established and vary according to the nature of the school. Reports, interviews, assessments and tests of aptitude, which in appropriate circumstances may include some written work, will continue. Grant maintained schools will be obliged to retain the existing range of ability intake. [end p7]
Mr Tebbit
The key point about selection is that, in future, there will be an enormous increase in the amount of selection done by parents of the schools. So it is parents who will be selecting schools more and more in the future. That is the big increase.
Q
What scope and restrictions will there be for the grant maintained schools to raise money, apart from what is received in the per capita funding from the DES?
Mr Baker
I make it absolutely clear that they will not be allowed to charge fees. As regards charges, they will have to conform to the established local education authority practice. But, of course, if they wish to—this happens now in state maintained schools—raise money by any manner of means they wish, they can. I was in a school in a Labour-controlled authority area last night where they had raised a very substantial sum of money—£40,000 from industrial sponsorship—to send their band to America. This is the sort of thing that happens.
Q
Why are you so defensive about the 11-plus, when you so obviously like the grammar schools which have an 11-plus?
Mr Baker
I am not at all defensive in that sense, because I have made it clear that when schools opt out and become grant maintained, a grammar school will remain a grammar school and, of course, that school will have a selective process as it does now. But our views are being misinterpreted in that if a comprehensive opted out or a secondary modern, it would become selective. I made it absolutely clear that that is not our intention and we will not let it happen.
Q
How long do you think it would be before the state education system is good enough for it to be the norm for senior Conservative politicians to send their own children to state comprehensive schools?
Mr Baker
That question has been put to me by Mr Giles Radice and Mr Bryan Gould. As regards Mr Radice putting it to me, there is a great deal of humbug. Mr Radice was privileged to have a very exclusive education, which his parents chose for [end p8] him and he is denying that choice to lots of other parents. Then Bryan Gould also put it to me and asked whether the Minister for Education should be a Minister of Education if he is not in the state system. My answer to Mr Gould is, “Does that mean that members of the Shadow Cabinet and Front Bench Spokesmen should be debarred from being members of the Shadow Cabinet and speaking on housing matters if they do not happen to live in council houses in their constituencies” . It is a false point.
We are providing much greater choice for parents. The choice that exists at the moment for parents is limited. It is limited to the 93 per cent. maintained sector where we have increased the choice significantly and to those who wish to go independent. By creating grant maintained schools, we are increasing the range of choice and opportunity for parents right across the board. That is an opening up, not a closing down.
Mr Tebbit
We may all remember Nigel Lawson 's classic definition of the difference between the extremists and the moderates in the Labour Party on this issue. The extremists, he said, want to prohibit the private sector education tomorrow; the moderates would want until their children had completed their education.
Q
What will be the criteria for boroughs wishing to take over education from ILEA? Will they automatically get a prefence? If not, will their alleged militancy be a factor?
Mr Baker
On the criteria, we will introduce, again, in our great education reform Bill a proposal to allow individual London boroughs to opt out of ILEA. They will have to submit proposals to me, and they will have to satisfy me and the holder of my office that they could be a local education authority and run the education services in their borough. I will have to be satisfied that they could do that before I allow them to become local education authorities. I would have to assess their ability. I think that there will be considerable enthusiasm for this. It is very interesting that this is the first time that a question about ILEA has been put to me during this Election campaign. Obviously, I appreciate that you cover a London newspaper. The hope that we are holding out to parents in Inner London and, indeed, [end p9] in other education authorities run by Labour in London is not only the opting out of the boroughs, but the opting out of the schools. I am often asked what sort of schools will opt out. I met groups of parents yesterday in the Midlands who very much welcomed the opting out scheme, because they have grammar schools at threat. I met another group in the West Midlands where sixth forms are at threat, and they welcome the opting out.
There is another group which will welcome the opting out. That is the parents who are locked into inner city schools where Labour offers no choice of hope whatever. In many of those inner city areas, educational bigots have taken over. Those bigots are anti-police, anti-family and anti-achievement. They … . (?) and indoctrinate. One of the latest documents that has been produced is a document that ILEA Drama and Tape Section have in a hand in. It is now going around to teachers both in Inner London and, I believe, some authorities outside. “Challenging Heterosexism” . As Secretary of State for Education, I am not in the business of challenging heterosexism and nor are the parents of this country. That is the sort of political interference and educational bigotry that we have given schools the chance to opt out of.
Q
Can you tell me what the publication is?
Mr Baker
“GEN” —the double issue of March challenging racism and sexism in our schools. It is the Women Resources Centre, ILEA Drama and Tape Centre.
Prime Minister
Would you like to have a look at it? He has got some more, too!
Q
On that subject, have you seen the report in today's Sun that ILEA have apparently appointed a convicted rent boy to be governor of a junior school and an infant school just down the road from this Press Conference?
Mr Baker
I have seen the report, but I literally cannot comment on it. I do not know the details. [end p10]
Q
When the new grant maintained school policy comes to the London borough of Brent where we have in some schools a majority of children who are black, will the Government, as part of parental choice, for the first time be funding Britain's first school for Moslems, Hindus and other people where the parents have a majority following the great tradition of Catholics, Anglicans and the Jews in this country?
Mr Baker
Yes. I must make clear that our proposals apply to all parts of the country, and to all schools within the state maintained sector. The answer to that question is yes.
Q
What response to you have to the reported comments of David Hart, the General Secretary of the Head Teachers' Associations, this morning, particularly his assertion that opting out is dangerous?
Mr Baker
I have read the report. I also heard some of his comments on the radio. Over the past few months, I have talked about this policy with some heads who have come to see me to talk about their problems and have actually asked to opt out. Heads in many areas, particularly in the inner cities, are very reluctant to disclose their hands at this moment of time, because they fear that there might be recrimination against them by the local education authority. But David Hart made the point on radio this morning and said that there was a problem in our inner cities and why cannot you deal with just opting out in the inner cities. That was what he was basically saying, and leave the rest to the education system. I cannot do that. There have to be systems for the whole of the education system. As I indicated earlier, I had approaches yesterday as I was going around on the election stump from parents outside the inner cities who said that they welcome the opportunity that grant maintained status will provide.
Prime Minister
I thought that David Hart made on point which we would like to stress very much. There are many many children in this country getting an excellent education under many local education authorities. It is not thought that there will be great take-up of the opting out there, because they are already very good indeed. I think that the way in [end p11] which we approached it was that where things are working well, let us leave them alone, but leave the option for the parents. It is a good American principle—if things ain't broke, don't fix them! We will leave the choice to the parents about whether they should take up the option. Many many parents are very satisfied with the education that their children are receiving. One would not expect them—unless there are unusual circumstances—to opt out, but the choice is there.
There are many good local education authorities which provide an excellent education. I went back to my old school and its education is quite superb, and I do not think that there will be any demand whatever for using this extra choice. But it is there for parents who wish to use it. In the state sector, we have not had enough choice. People have to pay their rates and taxes and sometimes take what is available and are told that they cannot change it. We are now giving them a chance to change it. I thought that David Hart said, “Why don't you say that some local education authorities are good?” We gladly do so.
Q
After eight years of Conservative rule, you say that many parents see standards slipping in this country. Should not the voters be considering what the record has been over the past eight years as well as whatever future you are now offering them?
Mr Baker
In 1980, we introduced the 1980 Act and last year, the 1986 Act. In both of those Acts, we increased the power of parents to have a greater say in education. Over the past 30 or 40 years, one of the characteristics of the English education system is that parents have not had a big enough say. The voice of the consumer—the voice of the parent and employer—has not been listened to. The great principle of the Butler 1944 Act under Section 76 was that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents and it has been more honoured in the breach than the observance. We have set about doing that by giving parents greater choice in the 1980 Act. The Labour Party objected to that very strongly—choice over the selection of their children for schools. There are 10,000 appeals each year. Slowly, the voice of the parent is coming through more and more. Under the 1986 Act—which was basically Keith Joseph 's proposals—we increased the number of parents on governing bodies. That is changing this year and next year, so the voice of the consumer—the parent—is [end p12] heard. That is a voice that must be heard, because they are insistent on improving standards. As I said, I do not believe that their voices have been heard lough enough in the past.
Prime Minister
I think that there is another problem that has arisen in the past eight years. The Left has gone Lefter, and the Left is now in the centre of the Labour Party. It is using the education system in many cases to indoctrinate pupils. As you know, under the 1944 Education Act, the Government had no control over the curriculum whatever, save, that they insisted on some religious education. That absence of control over curriculum was to prevent indoctrination of the children under the circumstances of the last war. It was right at that time. The very absence of that has now led to indoctrination in some of the Left wing local authorities, and we have a duty to step in both with schools that will stay local education authority maintained and other schools to see that there is a certain national core curriculum that will not be set up by Government, but, in fact, by consulting with those who are providing superb education in the education system. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that some of the local education authorities have gone much much Lefter and are using a state monopoly position in the education of children, which is something that no Government could leave untouched. So we say, where it is good, leave it alone. Where it is not, give parents a chance to opt out.
Mr Baker
Absolutely right. Many people in the Labour Party are worried about that concern. The leadership of the Labour Party does not address the problem and deal with it. These are people who are running education authorities, standing in the Labour name, and they are not disowned nor dealt with. Labour offers——
Side 2—
Q
If a London borough choose to succede from ILEA, would there be anything to stop the school opting, under your system of choice, to rejoin that authority? If not, why not?
Mr Baker
Yes. There will be two things going on at the same time. There will be opting out to become individual [end p13] education authorities. There will also be the opportunity to opt out whether the actual borough has opted out or not.
Q
A review has been going on about the possibility of introducing student loans. Could you rule out the possibility that topping-up loans will be introduced by the end of the year?
Mr Baker
I spoke to a lively student meeting yesterday in Birmingham on the whole question. I was actually telling them about the increase in students under our Government. But on the question of student finance, I asked George Walden, the Minister responsible for higher education in my team to look into the whole matter of student support. Students receive support broadly from four areas: from grants, parental contributions, in some cases from the social security system, and from their own earnings. There is no doubt that this has grown up in a rather hotch-potch sort of way. If you back to the original Beveridge Report, you will find that students were expected not to be involved in the social security system, and to be excluded from it. In the review, I would like to consider ways in which students would not have recourse to social security. So George Walden is looking at all possible alternatives. He has not excluded the possibility of top-up loans. They may be much more desirable to many students than the loans which they have at the moment, which are called “overdrafts” . But I want to make absolutely clear that there is no proposal whatever to replace grants completely by loans.
Q
At the Labour Press Conference this morning, it was said that you are spending only 5.5 per cent. of national wealth on the Health Service compared with, I think, 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. in Germany or France. Do you agree with those figures? If so, do you intend to do anything about it?
Prime Minister
We are having a health Press Conference at 11.30 am. My recollection is—perhaps you will confirm it—that we took over a situation in which the Labour Government was spending only 4.8 per cent of GDP on health. So we are greatly in advance. Added to the fact that GDP has gone up considerably, you have a double increment. First, the increased percentage and, secondly, the increase in GDP. [end p14]
Q
In comparison with Europe?
Prime Minister
In most European countries, much larger amounts of money are spent privately on health. That is one reason why they have a bigger proportion of their GDP on health. I think that you will find in this country that a bigger proportion of its health spending is through the National Health Service and is comparatively small on private. In other countries, their expenditure is greater because people spend a great deal over and above that. One of the health organisations has a substantial list. I have had it by me sometimes, but you will be able to get hold of it.
Q
Yesterday, Mr Ridley said that a switch to capital value rating—which may or may not be Labour policy according to which document you read—would be devastating for those in the south. Can you say why that should be so?
Prime Minister
For the very obvious reason that the value of houses has gone up enormously in the south. In my constituency on Saturday, I did about 10 calls and we were discussing this. I was calling on pensioners and we were talking about the rating, and one of them said “When I bought this house, we bought it for £2,500. It will now go for about £120,000” . They are pensioners. If you are going to go to capital value rating, it will hit pensioners worst of all. It will be absolutely appalling.
Mr Tebbit
It is extremely arbitrary, which was the point that Nick Ridley was seeking to make. For example, one could find an innocent person like Dr Owen, who bought a house in a rundown area in the east of the city. But since this Government has been in office, the capital value of his property has soared. It would really be unjust to make him pay a lot of extra tax because of the success of this Government. It is actually happening in the north of England as well.
Q
On the question of Mr Kinnock, one of the points that you were making, but was made even more sharply by Mr Tebbit, was that he was somehow running away and was not available, so you could not, so to speak, get your hands on him. [end p15]
Prime Minister
I have no wish to do—I rather thought that you found me much more easy to question than someone to whom you cannot put questions. That is part of democracy.
Q
But the point is—given the background which you say means that he is hiding from questions—Mr Kinnock has challenged you on several occasions to a television debate. It seems odd to innocents, like ourselves, that you have not availed yourself of the opportunity.
Prime Minister
Does it? You should come to the House of Commons Questions twice a week. When I hear the Labour Party say that they will set up a Ministry for Women, I say, “Who in the world is going to set up a Ministry for Men, because they need it more than we do” .
Q
Yesterday, Mr Ridley referred to a list of 100 approved landlords. Can you tell us whether that is an official Department list or is it a Central Office list?
Mr Tebbit
I do not think that he gave a number, Prime Minister. I am sure that if you wanted to approach Mr Ridley to see if one could have access to the list, that would be the right thing to do.
Prime Minister
I would not have thought so, surely.
Mr Tebbit
If they wanted to approach him, I do not know whether he would be able to give that list.
Prime Minister
But the point that he was making was that you simply cannot have a change of tenancy from local authority to just any private sector landlord. That would not be right. Therefore, to enable that to come about, it would have to be a person who had a good reputation. I do not really think that every list of that kind is not necessarily a list which would open to the public. The question is: what are the criteria for getting on that list. But by all means put it to Nick Ridley when he comes here again on Friday. But I do not think that one must jump to publishing lists of that kind necessarily. [end p16]
Q
Is it an established Government list?
Lord Young
Yes, it is the existing list for approved tenancies, which the Department of the Environment has had (?) since the scheme first came in.
Q
If you become the first Prime Minister to win a third term, would you consider putting in the lobby of this building a plaque with the names of Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn, Bernie Grant, people like Alan Woods of Camden Council, Brent and, above all, the one and only Kenneth Livingstone for the enormous services that they have rendered to you over the years and during this Election?
Prime Minister
No, we think rather highly of our building. We would not like to have those names in it.
Mr Tebbit
You will not do it while I am Chairman, Prime Minister!