The GCSE results released yesterday contained many inspiring examples of individual achievement. In one prominent respect, however, they also represented a depressing instance of collective failure. The number of pupils who sat French and German fell by 14.4 per cent and 13.7 per cent respectively, and that in the last year in which taking a foreign language between 14 and 16 was, at least theoretically, compulsory. Next year, the total could easily be a mere half of the tally recorded just two years ago. This is a direct consequence of the decision taken by ministers in December 2002 that GCSE students should no longer be obliged to undertake at least one language.

At the time this newspaper attacked the move as an appalling mistake and we feel vindicated in that assessment. It is hardly a view that we hold alone. John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, complained yesterday that the figures were in “free fall”, while David Hart, his equivalent at the National Association of Head Teachers, declared the emerging trend a “catastrophe”.

Jacqui Smith, the Schools Minister, left by her boss, Ruth Kelly, to defend the indefensible, asserted that the pass rate at A* to C for French and German had increased (by about 7 per cent) as a result of this change and insisted that a fresh emphasis was being placed on languages at an earlier age. To that end, she pledged that “every primary schoolchild will be offered the opportunity to learn a language by 2010. Early indications show that over 40 per cent of schools are offering modern languages to 7 to 11-year-olds”.

Her comments are a combination of the irrelevant, the complacent and the mendacious. They are irrelevant because it is obvious that pass rates in modern languages will improve if only those who are keenest face an examination. The same would occur if English and mathematics ceased to be compulsory. They are complacent because the ideal time to begin tuition of foreign languages is between the ages of 4 and 7. The very young pick up vocabulary naturally. Yet the provision of language teaching at infant age in the state sector is negligible. For a minister to all but boast that by the time a child reaches primary school, a risible 40 per cent or so of pupils are being offered a foreign language is a disgrace.

It is also, to be frank, dishonest. The words “offered the opportunity” might lead the innocent to think that French, German or Spanish was a formal part of the timetable. It means nothing of the kind. It could and often does mean that a lunchtime language club is available (and parents may sometimes be charged a fee for this). Research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills itself last year revealed that a staggeringly dire 3 per cent of England’s 17,000 primary schools are providing a sole 20-minute lesson a week in a foreign language.

Ministers must reverse course immediately. Globalisation does not mean that those who speak English as their native tongue can smugly assume that they need not comprehend other languages. Language is the key, furthermore, to understanding other cultures (as is emphasised to immigrants to these shores) and to a rounded appreciation of English itself. There is also another element to this sad saga. Independent schools will continue to compel their pupils to learn languages. A Labour government is thus creating a new class divide in education. Ministers should be ashamed. Words fail us.