753
The Dalai Lama
[1 MAY 1991]
that it would not be appropriate for them, or any Foreign Office Minister, to meet him. In our view such a meeting would be open to misconstruction.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to clarify the Government's policy on Tibet? For example, do the Government believe in self-determination for Tibet and, if so, what action are they taking to promote it? Further, why are the Government treating the Dalai Lama who, as the noble Lord just said, is the political and spiritual head of Tibet, differently from leaders from Lithuania and the Baltic countries? Will the Minister tell the House precisely how they propose to deal with the problem?
Lord Reay: My Lords. as regards our policy towards Tibet, successive British Governments have regarded that country as autonomous while recognis- ing the special position of the Chinese authorities in the area. That continues to be the Government's view.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, are the Government being so wet about Tibet because they are afraid that the Chinese will make even more difficulties over Hong Kong? Are they not aware that weakness in the face of the Chinese is always a disaster, but that strength brings rewards?
Lord Reay: My Lords, of course we wish to have a co-operative relationship with China. We have a responsibility for 6 million people in Hong Kong and it is important to maintain a dialogue with China on Hong Kong if we are to achieve a smooth and successful transition in 1997. However, it would be wrong for us on that account to ignore human rights abuses in Tibet; nor do we do so.
During the recent visit which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State paid to China, he emphasised our concern about Tibet, and human rights generally in China, both to the Chinese Foreign Minister and to the General Secretary. He spoke of the strong feelings in Britain about the situation in Tibet.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Prime Minister has shown a stalwart, splendid and statesman-like attitude in all his dealings with the Kurds in Kurdistan? Therefore, would it not be very good in every way for Britain if he were at least to have the courtesy to receive the spiritual head of Tibet when he next visits this country?
Lord Reay: My Lords. I take note of my noble friend's observation. However, I believe that I have already answered that question.
3.7 p.m.
Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25
387 LD20/5 Job 1-7
Education
754
minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should not exceed 11 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.
3.8 p.m.
Education
Lord Annan rose to call attention to the case for significant change in the priorities, structure and content of education, in particular of vocational training, including that of teachers; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, everyone today is worried about Our low educational standards. Directly the Prime Minister took office, he said that education was his first priority. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who I am delighted to see will be speaking in the debate today, was the first Prime Minister to voice his concern. Now His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has echoed the disquiet that has been growing over the past 15 years.
There is no doubt that that disquiet is justified. But do not let us assume that all our schools are sinks. There are thousands of dedicated and able teachers who lead their pupils to achieve very good results. Indeed, my college, King's College Cambridge, which has an entry of 70 per cent. from maintained schools, came top of the tripos results last year in terms of percentages of firsts and 2.1s. We may preen ourselves on the number of O-levels we achieved-or, more likely, credits in the School Certificate-but let me assure noble Lords that the syllabuses in GCSE and A-level are far harder, and the range of knowledge required far wider, than anything that we had to learn. The level of literacy today is undoubtedly lower than it should be. But let us remember that during the years of national service nearly 20 per cent. of those entering the armed services were illiterate. In fact. standards have risen.
However, the trouble is that standards have not risen as fast as those of our competitors abroad. Of course, standards have always been high in France and in Scotland too where the Church helped to reduce the illiteracy. But we do not work our children hard enough. We do not teach them how to learn. We do not drill them to write clear English or master basic mathematical manipulation. Of course, some of the new methods of teaching may be at fault, but part of the trouble, beyond doubt, is due to immigration. I visited a West London school two weeks ago in which 28 different mother tongues were spoken among the 750 pupils. The most recent mother tongue was spoken by a Kurd whose father was in hospital having shrapnel picked out of his back.
The Government are to be congratulated on taking central control of the curriculum, and for the first time making the Secretary of State really responsible for what is going on in the schools. That was a long needed change. But they cannot be congratulated on their failure to provide money to implement those changes. We cannot impose tests. order head teachers