HC Deb 07 May 1969 vol 783 cc595-601
Mr. Millan

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 29, leave out Clause 6.

This Clause 6 gave rise to a certain amount of debate on Second Reading and in Committee. I made it clear on Second Reading that it was a matter of judgment whether there should be a restriction of what is an extremely limited right of appeal to the Secretary of State by a parent who is dissatisfied with the course of education that the authority is prescribing for his child.

In view of what I said on Second Reading, I was somewhat dismayed when, during the Committee stage, the Opposition blew this up into a great issue of principle and pretended that the Clause represented a tremendous diminution of parental rights, which it did not. The number of appeals to the Secretary of State from parents against a decision about the courses to which their children had been allocated which are not made at the actual date of transfer is very small, and in the five years up to 1968 was only 23.

In any case, nearly all of those were subsequent appeals by parents who had originally appealed at the transfer stage and who had then been given certain assurances and who had appealed again when they felt that the authority had still made the wrong decision rather later in the education of the children. We are, therefore, dealing with a small number.

The Clause was included in the Bill because, as I have explained, in the comprehensive system it is difficult to make these judgments about the allocation to courses when, in any case, in some comprehensive schools the whole idea of allocation to courses is no longer a valid concept. Another reason for the introduction of the Clause was to meet practical difficulties. Nevertheless, there was obviously a feeling on Second Reading and in Committee that there might just be certain cases where that right should be maintained. I said that I would consider the matter and I have concluded that the simplest way to deal with it would be to eliminate the Clause.

I should have preferred to try to produce a rather better version of Section 29 of the 1962 Act than we now have, but the drafting is difficult. In all the circumstances, although not working completely satisfactorily, Section 29 gives a reasonable kind of practice and the simplest thing to do is to leave it alone, and therefore eliminate Clause 6.

The argument in Committee, particularly in view of what I said on Second Reading, was wildly exaggerated and I hope that the fact that we have now eliminated Clause 6 will not be represented by the Opposition as a tremendous victory, for it is not. In all the circumstances, it is simpler to eliminate Clause 6, and I now commend that course to the House.

Mr. Younger

I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment. However, I am astonished by the Under-Secretary's unfailing ability to make something sound ungracious when it does not need to be. He must admit that, in spite of what he said on Second Reading, if there had not been strong argument and pressure in Committee, which is precisely what Committee stages are for, it is extremely unlikely that he would have changed his mind.

It is most ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to make it appear that in some way we have abused the procedures of Committee by pushing this argument hard and persuading him to make the change. He is making out that he is too proud to be told that there is something slightly wrong with the Bill as introduced, and if that is so we are wasting our time by going through Bills with such care.

I do not want to be churlish in return. Most of my hon. Friends will be pleased that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the points which were put to him in Committee. As one of those who spoke on the Clause in Committee, I must say that if he had not made this change, apart from the reasons which he has adduced, it would have been not merely awkward but extremely damaging to the interests of people who had to move from one part of the country to another, possibly from England to Scotland, and who found their children in the middle of their school careers in the new area having to take a course which the parents did not regard as exactly right. It is most important that they should not be prevented from having the right to appeal against what the new education authority in the new environment decides about a child's education.

I hope that the Minister will agree, and I say this in the most generous spirit that I can, that this has been a useful exercise, and that it is just the sort of exercise that a properly run Committee stage in a properly run House, such as this, should engage in to improve Government Bills. I welcome the Under-Secretary's conversion to the point of view put in Committee, and hope that the House will agree with him, and my hon. Friends who made the point in the first place.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)

Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Galloway (Mr. Brewis) I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee, but I think that the Government are right to take this provision out of the Bill. The Under-Secretary made a case that was answered in his opening remarks, when he said that there were 23 appeals. Even if there had been one appeal to the Secretary of State that would have been a justification for taking this Clause out. It is vitally important that the rights of the subject are protected and that he should have access to the Secretary of State, who is the highest authority in Scotland in matters of appeal. The point about the move from one locality to another, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, is another excellent reason for its deletion, and I am delighted to see that it is being removed.

Mr. Woodburn

In case my hon. Friend thinks that the Conservatives have been imagining possible reasons, I would like to assure him that in one case in my constituency this was a vital means of removing what would have been a grave injustice. A teacher had been away ill, there had been all sorts of changes in the class, and a number of children were deprived of the chance of going on to secondary education, because of the failure of the education authority to give the requisite education.

The mother complained to the headmaster, and was actually threatened with a slander action for alleging that the teacher had not done his job. Fortunately, she appealed to the Secretary of State and an arrangement was made whereby the child went on, as arranged originally by the education authority. The children's ability proved that they were capable of taking secondary education and the appeal was justified.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur

I am sorry that the Minister should have moved the Amendment in the terms which he chose. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that when we are making such good progress on Report it is regrettable that the Minister should, quite unnecessarily, introduce a note of churlish graciouslessness into his speech.

I agree very much with the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that even if there are only one or two cases in which the parents' right of appeal is abolished, as it would be under the Bill as it stands, that would lead to great injustice.

The Under-Secretary of State made light of the effect of the Clause by saying that there were only 23 cases of appeal. I know this because I was able to elucidate that information by a Question to the Secretary of State. Indeed, when we debated this matter in Committee, it was I who called attention to the small number of appeals—only 23—over the last five years. To underline the point, I said that it was not the number of appeals which mattered. The critical factor is the existence of the right of appeal. Indeed, it is the existence of this right which has encouraged many local education authorities in Scotland themselves to review the course and the school selected for children.

Very often, Members of Parliament have complaints from constituents about the school selected for the secondary education of their children. It is often the practice of Members of Parliament, not to write to the Minister about it, but to take up the case locally with the local education authority. Very often, the local education authority says, "Of course, we will review the decision which we have made about the child after the child has spent a year or so in the secondary school." Sometimes this leads to the transfer of the child to a school which is more to the parents' choice. This is encouraged by the existence of that right.

There is another point. I suggest that as comprehensive education develops in Scotland it will be necessary for parents to have the right of appeal—

Mr. Woodburn

The Minister agrees.

Mr. MacArthur

Yes, but in such churlish terms that it is reasonable that we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be deleted.

I remind hon. Members opposite that when we raised the matter in Committee, there were only four Labour Members of Parliament present. Indeed, we were forced to call attention to the small attendance by Labour Members so that the sitting was suspended and the Government Whip went out to fetch other Labour Members in, because we were defending an important principle: the right of appeal which parents had enjoyed. Certainly, the Minister has accepted our view by reintroducing the right of appeal.

It is reasonable that having put our names to the Government Amendment, we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be removed from the Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was certainly an assiduous attender in Committee. He spoke repeatedly, and we were delighted to see him, but he was one of only four at the time. There are many other hon. Members opposite present tonight who did not hear the arguments advanced in Committee. I see no reason why I should not advance them again, and I will do so briefly.

It is important that this right of appeal should be preserved as the comprehensive system develops. We know from the Minister that he now recognises that selectivity in education is no longer a sin, as it used to be in his eyes, and that there will be selectivity of one kind or another in the comprehensive system. It follows that children in many comprehensive schools will move from one course to another during their secondary education, and it seems reasonable to us on this side that parents should continue to enjoy the right of appeal which previously they had enjoyed in Scotland. Many parents may think that the course selected for their child is inappropriate, so it is reasonable to protect the right of appeal.

We are also trying to encourage industrial development in Scotland. Both sides of the House want this and are agreed that it must involve mobility of labour. People will move to better jobs, taking their children to the area of another local education authority—many of them in midstream in their education—and the parents should not be denied the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, if they do not like the choice of education in the new area. Many people return to Scotland from abroad. It is likely that, when a Conservative Government are elected, many thousands of people who have emigrated from Scotland under this Government will want to return, bringing children of school age. They should have this right of appeal.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has seen reason at last. I regret that he spoke in that churlish way, but I am grateful to him for responding, even with that lack of grace, to our powerful arguments in Committee.

Mr. Millan

I deliberately introduced the Amendment in the way that I did, because of the background to it and because of the amount of humbug with which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about it in Committee. When winding up the Second Reading debate, in answer to the point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) I specifically said: … I have some sympathy with the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, and I look forward to having the matter debated in Committee. To my mind, it is by no means a question on which the balance comes down wholly on one side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 374.] I think that that was a reasonable and gracious way in which to answer those points on Second Reading.

Nevertheless, in Committee, before I even had a chance to speak about this matter, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire made a speech full of humbug, talking about Ministers' "total carelessness" about the wishes of parents, and how the freedom of parents was being eroded by the Bill. If he wishes to talk about gracelessness, I could quote many examples from his own speeches in Committee. So I said today that I was not going to have this change made out as being a tremendous victory for the Opposition against a dogmatic Minister who was determined to erode the freedom of parents and who was forced into a concession only by the brilliant speeches of hon. Members opposite.

That is a complete travesty of the situation. If the hon. Member thinks that I will let him get away with that, he will believe anything. That is why I spoke as I did. I am delighted that we are now in a state of amity and brotherhood and can now accept the Amendment.

Mr. MacArthur

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he did little in Committee to win any confidence from us that he had any belief in parental freedom of choice. Our debates, up to column 400, on this matter were concerned largely with the removal of parental freedom of choice. Nothing the Government said in the early debates on the Bill gave us any confidence in the Minister's interest in parental freedom of choice, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Member is making a long intervention.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to