HC Deb 13 July 1971 vol 821 cc359-86

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

I beg to move, That the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 558) be withdrawn. This short debate is taking place against a background different from the usual. It has been the custom in the past that discussions on Regulations of this sort have centred upon the amounts of grant to be paid and the question whether the figures should be increased or reduced. Today, however, we face a rather different situation.

I want to put the figures into the perspective of what the Government have done over the past 12 months, particularly in education. There are 29 grant-aided schools in Scotland. We sometimes hear more about the grant-aided and independent schools from hon. Members opposite than about the basic structure of education. The Regulations apply to about 20,000 pupils.

I find the Regulations very strange. The total amount in the Schedule comes to £1,550,990, exactly the same figure as was in the Regulations of 1969. That is strange, because when we introduced those those similar Regulations they came under a particularly vicious attack. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for Development said that the Order was : economic nonsense and educational eyewash, and that is why it should be opposed. Even more important, the Under-Secretary in charge of education said this about those same figures : They are spiteful little Regulations.. This is a silly, unnecessarily spiteful move … In case we did not get the point, he said one paragraph later : an unnecessarily spiteful crack at these schools and all that they stand for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 374–376.] That was said two years ago when costs were not so high as they are under the present, benighted Government. Therefore, we look with some care at the Regulations, as we always do at Tory measures.

If the figures then were spiteful, do the figures in the Schedule really represent the amount the Government intend to give to the fee-paying, grant-aided sector? If they were petty then, the figures they have produced for their friends in those privileged schools must be even pettier and meaner. We are accustomed to petty and mean things from them, but not towards their friends.

Therefore, we must look at some of the small print, where the Regulations say that when … an increase has taken place since October 1969 in the levels of prices, costs or remuneration … the Secretary of State may give such increase in the grant as he may determine. The figures are either meaningful, in which case everything the Minister said two years ago was hypocritical nonsense, or they are to mean nothing, and we are getting an open-ended commitment.

I should like to know just what ceiling the Minister has in mind, or whether he has any ceiling in mind for the amount of assistance he will give those fee-paying schools.

We see the Regulations against a double background. During the last discussion there was a big attack on us for having set up the Public Schools Commission. The first aspect of the background is the question of what was to be done with the grant-aided schools. The Commission has reported, and what a devastating Report it is! For example, it said on page 73 of the Second Report, Volume III : We believe that public feeling and educational opinion is now clearly opposed to selection for secondary education, and few would wish a return to the old selective system, … The few who would wish a return include the present members of the Tory Administration, cutting right across all educational progress in the past quarter of a century. The Report continues : … Britain allows a larger proportion of her young people to drop out of school than her neighbours and major competitors, and is already severely handicapped by this waste of talent. The Commission puts it down to the divisive nature of our school education.

The Report says : An educational system which enables a fortunate minority of children to take their education a long way while permitting the rest to leave school for the labour market at the minimum leaving age is obsolete. This Government are not only trying to turn the clock back and ensure again that the minority are brought up and educated in a divisive structure. They cannot even guarantee any longer that the jobs will be there for the children when they leave school. That is the first background against which we are discussing the Regulations.

The Report continues : There is no time to be lost in creating the new system we need … We might have looked forward, in view of the publication of this devastating Report, to some understanding of this in the Regulations. Fee-paying would effectively exert a selective influence—both socially and educationally … The Report spells out above all the need for a move towards a one-nation type of education—comprehensive education. It says : We therefore recommend that no school in a comprehensive system should charge fees since fee-paying is inconsistent with its objectives. To attempt to operate a 'mixed economy' of selective and comprehensive and secondary schools is, as experience has shown, to create two different types of schools, differing in status, esteem and morale … this seems to us to be well illustrated in the evidence we received about the present Edinburgh situation. In our view, therefore, all schools in the public system of education should fulfil comprehensive roles in local schemes of reorganisation. We have now had the Report and there is not one flicker of understanding, one iota of proof, in these Regulations that the Government have even read the Report. Yet they could have taken cognisance of it in order to move towards the wise findings of this high-powered Commission.

The other background of these Regulations is what the Government have done in their social and education policies since they came to power. There is the question of the return of fee-paying in local authority schools.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Buchan

But not content with the entire privileged sector of the grant-aided schools, and not content with the privileged sector of the independent and public schools, they are attempting—and it is no more than an attempt—to restore local authority fee-paying schools.

Mr. MacArthur

Hear, hear.

Mr. Buchan

What an image of privilege and élitism this Government show in Scotland. That was not the only thing. Consider their treatment of the children within the State sector, those whom they have left out of their worries about the independent and fee-paying local authority schools, the ordinary kids of Scotland, against a background of 121,000 unemployed, with the number of school meals being taken dropping because parents can no longer afford them in their increasing poverty.

Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Buchan

Take your time. This is the background against which these Regulations are designed to perpetuate the small, privileged sector of 29 schools.

Mr. MacArthur

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to school meals, I am sure he will be fair about events in Scotland. The figures show that where 15 children took school meals previously 14 take them now. Against that, where 15 children had free school meals before 19 children have them now. This demonstrates that help is being concentrated where help is really needed. Those are the Scottish figures.

Mr. Buchan

The Scottish figures were published today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Mabon) said earlier, "Look at HANSARD and find out for yourself." The number of school meals has been dropping. It has dropped already by about one-fifth. The number of free school meals has been increasing—up to something like 41 per cent. of the total ; it is probably more with each week that passes. The point is that this increase indicates an increase in poverty. If hon. Members opposite do not understand that, they understand nothing and should take their hands off the social services before they do any more damage.

Mr. MacArthur

The hon. Gentleman will surely concede that it is above all an indication of the increasing band of income within which free school meals are permitted by the Government.

Mr. Buchan

That is not so.

Mr. MacArthur

It is so.

Mr. Buchan

Many of the measures introduced are not yet biting. The other point is that we have seen the statistics of the increasing poverty. They are there to see every month in the Department of Employment's figures. The increase in poverty is coming from the increase in the unemployment. Most of the increases in social benefits have already been eroded by rampant inflation. Poverty is increasing within our ordinary State schools—that is one background against which this privilege must be looked at.

The other background is the financial policies and political dogmas of the Government. What have the three budgets been about? First, they have been in order to cut down public expenditure.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Buchan

Secondly, they have been to reduce taxation.

Mr. MacArthur

Hear, hear.

Mr. Galbraith

Hear, hear.

Mr. Buchan

Thirdly, they have been to make sure that all the beneficial effects of cutting public expenditure are borne by ordinary people so that tax cuts for the wealthy are paid for by the poor.

Mr. MacArthur

Rubbish.

Mr. Galbraith

Come off it.

Mr. Buchan

Yet the Government, dedicated to cutting public expenditure, produce an open-ended commitment to increasing public expenditure for these grant-aided schools. Where is the cut in public expenditure here? In other words, they are prepared to cut expenditure on school meals ; they are prepared to cut public expenditure by depriving primary school children between the ages of seven and 12 of free school milk. But they are not prepared to cut public expenditure which keeps 20,000 children in a privileged sector of education. They have a curious view of what constitutes social priorities.

Mr. MacArthur

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way again. Surely he will recognise that what the Government have done is to direct far greater expenditure to a priority area of need, which is in the State primary schools, which were so grievously neglected by the last Government. That is where the need exists and that is where the money is going—to help young children on the threshhold of education in State primary schools. Cut out all this bunkum!

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. Is he really saying—

Mr. MacArthur

Yes, I am.

Mr. Buchan

—that the money to be saved by cutting down school meals is to be used for increased building for primary education? That is what he is saying. He should listen to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. She said the same thing, but when challenged she said, "Well, when one is stuck for something else to do it is a useful thing to run what is an intellectual exercise." That is all it was. It had nothing to do with expansion of primary schools. The hon. Gentleman should read what members of his Government say before springing to their defence so quickly.

Mr. MacArthur

Total distortion.

Mr. Buchan

We are dealing with a situation in which £1½ million, as a beginning—we do not know how much more is to come—is to be given in the form of grants for these 29 schools while £1 million is being saved by taking away free school milk. Are these the hon. Gentleman's priorities for the children on the threshold of education?

Mr. MacArthur

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his constant courtesy. He is bandying figures around. Does he not recognise that the Government have already put £4½ million more into primary school building in Scotland, which is only the beginning of the increase in the priority area of need?

Mr. Buchan

We have not yet seen the buildings. The sum of £1½ million is to be spent by a Government pledged to cutting public expenditure in order to keep a privileged sector in being while at the same time they are withdrawing £1 million for free milk for children in the free sector of education to pay for it.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway) rose—

Mr. Buchan

I will not give way ; I have given way five times. The one person I will give way to is the Under-Secretary of State. When asked about the Common Market on Sunday, he said for the first time in his life that he had no comment. When asked to comment on the no comment, he said that he had no comment on the no comment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor)

The hon. Gentleman has made very great play of the £1½ million which the Government will give to the grant-aided schools this year which he thinks is outrageous. May I ask the hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of education, how much the Labour Government gave grant-aided schools in Scotland last year? I think he will find that the answer is £1½ million.

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Gentleman does not even listen. I started by making precisely that point. I even added up the figures. I did not merely say that the figure was £1½ million ; I said that it was £1,550,000 and gave the odd digits. I wish the hon. Gentleman would listen. That is one thing we want of a Minister responsible for education.

It is astonishing that after the protestations of two years ago the Government have not increased the amendment officially but have left an open-ended formula. I believe that this is an open-ended formula. I want to know the ceiling which the Government propose.

Why do I criticise this amount when it is exactly the same as the amount when we were in office? The answer is that we have had the Report of the Public Schools Commission and we now know what we should be doing with the grant-aided schools. We should be moving them into the general public sector. What is criminal about the Government's proposals is that they are cutting public expenditure for the poor and continuing it for the rich—in fact, since it is open-ended, they are increasing it for the rich—and at the same time are failing to respond to the needs of education.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his famous "lame ducks" speech, said : The vast majority lives and thrives in a bracing climate and not in a soft, sodden morass of subsidised incompetence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1970 ; Vol. 805, c. 1212.] But the same Government who are horror-stricken at the thought of subsidising Upper Clyde Shipbuilders are not against subsidy when it is for their own people.

Mr. MacArthur

Nonsense.

Mr. Buchan

This is exactly what it is. They are not against subsidy when it is for their own people. They welcome this kind of expenditure but oppose every other kind. We are back to the same problem : they are for the rich, the poor they cut. They want subsidy as long as—

Mr. Galbraith rose—

Mr. Buchan

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Secondly, there is the problem of written-in selection. Not long ago the Minister said that he was not worried about fee-paying in schools. He said that that was not the problem. He is not worried about perpetuating fee-paying as long as he can abolish selection. This is the bargain he offered two years ago. He was prepared to come to an agreement that as long as he could achieve selection fees could go. Is not that so? Can he not even answer this? If he does not want to answer let him look at column 190 of the 1969 Bill Committee proceedings.

This Government have not only brought back the right of selection but have under-pinned it by giving the right to bring back the local authority fee-paying school, so that privileged parents can buy selection. They are also repeating the same framework in the Regulations for grant-aided schools ; not only can parents get selection but they can buy selection. I will give way to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) voluntarily if he wants to tell me what is wrong with this argument. He does not ; so they want to buy selection.

There is a difference from England. It is £1½ million in Scotland, more in England, but we were told of the virtues of the 25 per cent. intake of free pupils into English grant-aided schools. Without any problem for their dogmas, the Government could have done the same in these Regulations. There is no extension here of the 25 per cent. increase in free places, so they cannot even hold true to that. We are back once more to the question of two nations in education, where school meals, school milk and educational opportunities have been cut and, on the other hand, fee-paying schools have been strengthened.

The effect of this is most clearly seen in Edinburgh. Throughout discussions on local authority fee-paying schools, we pointed out that with the continuation of the grant aided local authority and independent schools, 60 per cent. of the pupils in the fifth year, and 75 per cent. of the pupils in the sixth year of Edinburgh secondary schools were in the fee-paying sector. The result is to create a narrow top to the state sector schools and to cream off staffing resources from the state sector schools into fee-paying schools, creating the very anomaly and bad effect upon the State sector that the Public Schools Commission proved. There is not an atom of response to that report here. The same grant-aided schools will continue at a minimum to receive the same grant. Therefore, it is clear, from the report, the actions of the Government and the Regulations that the whole position is incompatible. We accept and are considering how best to implement the recommendations of the Public Schools Commission. In 1971 we can no longer continue to have two nations and an educational system designed to create two nations.

Mr. Galbraith

Does this mean that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in variety in education and would stop parents having the right to choose the school?

Mr. Buchan

Of course we believe in variety. The only kind of variety the hon. Gentleman can see is that which is paid for or that which is not paid for. What a blinkered vision! Why cannot we have a hundred different types of school? Is a grant-aided school necessary, is exclusiveness of education necessary, to achieve this? The hon. Gentleman is talking about privilege under the guise of variety. No variety for his children ; no experimental schools there ; but a good fee-paying Scottish traditional school.

Mr. Galbraith

Quite right.

Mr. Buchan

No variety. We have had enough of this throughout the last twelve months from the Government and their supporters, and we want no more of it.

Mr. Brewis rose—

Mr. Buchan

This is the ninth intervention in a short speech.

Mr. Brewis

In view of what the hon. Member has said, will he say specifically that his party intends to abolish both grant-aided and independent schools?

Mr. Buchan

I said that we accept the recommendations of the Public Schools Commission that the grant-aided schools should be phased towards absorption in the State sector, and we are considering how best to do this. I emphasise the word "phasing" for the simple reason that some parents have sent their children in good faith to these schools and therefore it should be done gradually over a period of years.

Mr. MacArthur

What should be done gradually?

Mr. Buchan

I have told the hon. Gentleman. We have made successive statements on this at last year's Labour Party conference, and now from me.

Mr. MacArthur

Come clean.

Mr. Buchan

I have come clean, absolutely clean. We are going to work this through, and this is what will happen. Hon. Gentlemen had better start counting their coppers ; they may have to pay more for their fees.

Mr. MacArthur

What is to happen?

Mr. Buchan

You had better make up your mind.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Tell him to read the report.

Mr. Buchan

Yes, I would ask the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) to read the report. He must make up his mind that no longer are we to continue a system where half of the privileges are to be paid for by the; taxpayer.

Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Buchan

If hon. Gentlemen want snobbery and privilege, they should be prepared to pay for them.

Our attitude has been hardened and reinforced by the behaviour of the present Government. The line they have taken throughout all our debates on the social services, education and everything else from the beginning has been the creation of two nations.

Mr. MacArthur rose—

Mr. Buchan

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire has tried to interrupt me about seven times, and he still wants privilege. Well, I will give him the privilege this time by giving way.

Mr. MacArthur

The hon. Gentleman has given me much more than my fair share of interventions, but I am confused as to what it is he will do gradually over a period of years. Will he come clean and say whether it is his party's intention to abolish grant-aided schools in Scotland? This is what we want to know—will he tell us?

Mr. Buchan

This has been made very clear twice—most recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central (Mr. Edward Short)—for England and Wales.

Mr. MacArthur

Yes or no?

Mr. Buchan

We have the problem of working this out for Scotland. I am saying that over a period of years this is the way I would do it. [Interruption.] I will continue if hon. Gentlemen opposite will show an atom of politeness. The last Minister who spoke from the Government benches refused to give way, even after insulting my hon. Friend.

Mr. MacArthur

Be generous.

Mr. Buchan

It is not a question of being generous. Do not be so patronising. The gentlemen's party opposite fight for privilege and want to keep that privilege, but they now want other people to pay for it. [Interruption.] They sometimes have the manners of the farmyard.

Mr. MacArthur

Answer.

Mr. Buchan

I have said what will happen. The recommendation of the report was a successive phasing out—

Mr. MacArthur

What will the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Buchan

Shut up for a moment and I will tell you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris)

Order. We must try to be a little quieter than we are. I am sure the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) wants to give time for some other hon. Members to speak, and the more interventions there are the less chance of an opportunity for other hon. Members to participate.

Mr. Buchan

The recommendation has been made in the Report of the Public Schools Commission and we are now working out how best to carry it into effect. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want privilege, then they will have to be prepared to pay for it—and it is about time.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)

It might be for the benefit of the House if a different voice is heard on educational matters.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown

Hon. Gentlemen opposite had better relax because this does not mean that I am on their side. It is just that I thought my remarks might make the debate a little more interesting than were the continuous and protracted debates that took place on this subject earlier in the year.

I wish to ask the Minister one or two pertinent questions to which we are entitled to receive replies. I shall not go into the argument about who gave what and whether this is the same or less than the Labour Government gave. The general principle is that, as this is the first opportunity that the Under-Secretary has had in his official capacity, he will try to justify the present system. I am not arguing whether it is £1½ million or £2 million.

I should like to know what percentage of the pupils at the schools listed in the Regulations leave at 15 years of age compared with those who leave the ordinary State scheme? Has any estimate been made, because the hon. Gentleman has been under pressure from all the teaching organisations, if and when the school-leaving age is raised, of the number of pupils from these schools who might be among those who go to further education centres? Has any projection been made of the impact that the raising of the school-leaving age will make on these schools? Have any of the schools in the Schedule suggested that they should have some comparable designation because they suffer from teacher shortage? Will the hon. Gentleman give us some information on the problems which they face concerning teachers?

Finally, have the Government given any consideration to the Report of the Public Schools Commission? The Minister will have plenty of time to get the information. It seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their own case a disservice. Two of the best suburban schools in or near Glasgow are Milngavie and Newton Mearns, neither of which is fee-paying. I am referring to Protestant schools. Why? Because both are modern, fully staffed, schools. This is what we should be aiming for. We should not be trying to justify a system of privilege which is quite out of date.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) for his great courtesy in giving way to me so generously when I tried to interrupt him during his speech. I hope that I did not overdo it, but I was encouraged to interrupt because there were areas of uncertainty in his speech. I am sure that he will agree that it is important, in the name of democracy, that people in Scotland should know what the Labour Party has in mind concerning education.

I have been asking this question for some years now. The more answers I get the more confused I become, because the answers given by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are never clear. They live in muddy educational waters, and they seem muddier still with every reply that they give.

There is a great deal of uncertainty about the intentions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the future of the grant-aided schools. I have often spoken in debates about these schools and repeatedly asked whether the Labour Party intended to abolish them. I asked that same question tonight. However, I have had no answer beyond being told that over a period of years various things might happen, that they could not be revealed completely now, but that they might be in line with the recommendation of the Public Schools Commission. I did not think that the recommendation of the Commission was crystal clear. There are many who might not agree with the findings of the Commission about education. I thought that it was a tendentious and questionable Report.

The grant-aided schools in Scotland are an important part of the variety of education that we have. The independent, grant-aided and fee-paying sector in Scotland is very much smaller than the equivalent sector south of the Border, but I believe that the balance in Scotland is just about right for our needs. And because it is small and just about right for our needs I view with the gravest suspicion any assault on this sector of education by the Labour Party which, because of dogma, or something equally undesirable, constantly gives the impression that what it wants in Scotland is one system in education, with no choice whatsoever for the parents.

I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that many children at grant-aided schools are there because their fathers' occupations take them abroad. A boarding school is necessary for them, and it is not available in any sector other than the grant-aided one, because the father is often not in a position to pay the very much higher fees which an independent school has to charge.

I believe that the grant-aided schools in Scotland meet a very important social need and that it would be educationally wrong to abolish them, as I suspect hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to do, although they have not the strength of determination to come out and say so clearly to the Scottish people. They will not say it clearly because they know that grant-aided schools have a particular place in the affections of the people of Scotland who do not want to see them abolished.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been waging a steadily mounting campaign against the education system in Scotland. There was their assault on the local authority fee-paying schools in 1969. Mercifully we were able to retrieve that situation just the other day. Tonight we have seen a resumption of their assault on the grant-aided schools.

I still ask what is the attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the independent schools in Scotland? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is capable of giving a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to a simple question. Is it the intention of the Labour Party to abolish grant-aided schools, and soon after that to abolish the independent schools in Scotland? I often ask that question, but I am never given an answer, and I hate being in a position of uncertainty because I like giving clear answers to my constituents who ask these questions. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would help me to answer the questions that I am asked. Is it the Labour Party's intention to abolish grant-aided schools? Is it the Labour Party's intention to abolish independent schools?

I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that a large sector of opinion in Scotland believes that the grant-aided schools contribute importantly to the pattern and variety of education in Scotland. That is a widely held view and is not confined to those whose children happen to go to these schools. I know that from my own experience. Many people feel that grant-aided schools play an important part in the Scottish education system.

The view that I have expressed about these schools is not simply mine or held only by those constituents who happen to have mentioned it to me. It is held by the Scottish Council. The hon. Gentleman knows the Scottish Council, and I am sure that he will have regard to its views. He often quotes what it says, and quite rightly, because it usually has wise things to say. One of the wisest things said by the Council was in a brochure directed at industrialists. It was a good brochure, as all these publications are, and one of the attractions to which the Council pointed for incoming industrialists was the variety and range of choice in Scottish education. If I remember aright, the Council specified the grant-aided schools and local authority fee-paying schools as particular attractions to the new, questing, zestful people whom we wish to attract to Scotland to help us to develop.

Yet these are the very schools which contribute so much to the educational scene in Scotland which the hon. Gentleman is trying to abolish. Perhaps he is not. We are in this great difficulty, as are the people of Scotland. They want to know. This question has been asked for many years and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give a straight answer. Are they to be abolished or not? The question has been asked four times tonight and we have had four answers which are no answers at all. We want to know "Yes" or "No". It is right that we should know. Above all, these schools are part of the variety of Scottish education.

A large part of the strength of education in Scotland is the variety it provides. Behind this there is a large philosophical question. In education we must provide a freedom of choice for parents. This one of the areas of freedom of choice. It comes very strangely from these egalitarians opposite that the grant-aided schools must go or be absorbed over a period of years. We heard from them quite clearly, in 1969 and this year, that they abhor the local authority fee-paying schools and those are the two areas clearly under direct threat. The hon. Gentleman has come clean on this one. We know that he wants to get rid of the fee-paying local authority school and I suspect that he wants to get rid of the grant-aided school.

He has not said anything about the independent schools yet. What the hon. Gentleman and his egalitarian friends are trying to do is to remove freedom of choice from the parent who is not well off and restrict freedom of choice to the very rich parent who can afford to pay fees at the expensive public schools at which hon. Gentlemen opposite like poking fun. This seems to be a most extraordinary doctrine of Socialism—to restrict choice to the very rich. I want to spread choice as widely as possible in Scotland. In the spreading of choice the grant-aided schools have an essential rôle. That is why I welcome the Regulations.

I welcome the fact that in this proposal the grant-aided schools will be assisted in a way which will take note of inflation. That is right. I welcome the Regulations and I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen should have opposed them and obstinately refused to give us their policy in this essential sector of education which provides the freedom and variety which we need so much.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. John Smith (Lanarkshire, North)

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-Arthur) to discover the reason for the perpetuation of the grant-aided system. We had a number of arguments, one of which was that there was a great deal of affection for them. That did not seem to be a very powerful educational argument. We had the argument of variety of pattern, but it seemed to me that the needle in the gramophone got stuck at that point. The hon. Gentleman went on to develop the point a little further. He was talking about individual freedom. He said that it gives a pattern of variety and a variety of pattern and the gramophone went round and round as the hon. Member warmed to one of his favourite themes.

He seems to have two enthusiasms in this House. One is the defence of private education and the other the relief from rates for horse-breeding establishments. He holds these causes dear to his heart and lavishes on them all the skill of a part time adman. He did not come to the central point of the debate which is the challenge we are making to the perpetuation of these schools.

Before leaving that point, I will deal with the rather unfortunate method the Government are using in putting forward figures in these Regulations. They were apparently in use several years ago. There is in the Regulations power for the Secretary of State to make a substantial increase, as he thinks fit. What the Government are doing is putting a base line for their expenditure but not telling us how far they will go beyond the base line. In effect the Secretary of State is asking for a blank cheque from Parliament for the amount he may give the fee-paying schools. It would have been better if he had made a calculation going back to 1969 and come forward with actual figures that it is proposed to give to fee-paying schools. We could then have compared those statistics with the other figures he mentioned, such as the saving that will supposedly be made on school milk and so on. We might then have been able to make a true comparison.

I suspect that as soon as Parliament is misguided enough to give the Secretary of State the powers he is seeking he will see to it that his friends in the grant-aided schools get more than £1½ million. If there is anything in all this talk about the need for variety, why must it always be accompanied by talk of finance? In other words, why must there be a financial barrier of this kind in the education system? Why cannot we have grant-aided schools that do not charge fees? Is Marr College not a good example? Is that the sort of pattern the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire has in mind? I suggest that the enthusiasm that is shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite for these schools would soon dwindle if fees were not involved.

It is interesting also to note that these schools are located, in the main, in Glasgow and Edinburgh. It seems strange that if variety is so important in this respect it has not been taken up by other areas. [Interruption.] I gather that the moans of hon. Gentlemen opposite are designed to indicate that fee-paying schools have been established in the odd other locality, but by and large they are in the central belt.

I doubt whether the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire goes galloping round his constituency advocating the establishment of fee-paying schools here, there and everywhere. In any event, I wonder if he advocates that in one breath and in the next discuss the relief of rates for horse breeding establishments with his constituents?

The Public Schools Commission dealt with this problem some time ago. When the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was casting around for support for his case, he mentioned the Scottish Council. That caused my hon. Friends some wonderment. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Wood-side (Mr. Carmichael) thought he was referring to the Scottish Council of the Labour Party.

It was a far cry from education for the hon. Gentleman to call in aid an organisation which is responsible for the development of industry. One would have imagined that he would have preferred to quote the experts who formed the Public Schools Commission. [Interruption.] They were experts, and I suspect that hon. Gentlemen opposite are interrupting without even knowing who sat on that Commission. The Chairman was Mr. T. Ewan Faulkner, a former convener of Dundee Education Committee, and the Vice-Chairman was Mr. Roger Young, Headmaster of George Watson's College, Edinburgh. The other members included a former headmaster and the director of education for Midlothian, not to mention a principal of a college of education. The only person who might be said to have had any Left-wing leanings was a former hon. Member of this House. I notice that once hon. Gentlemen opposite are told the facts they interrupt no longer. The Public Schools Commission reported : It is easy to plead generally for variety in education, but concerned as we are about the total education system should aim to provide variety within the comprehensive system rather than attempt to reconcile what is in educational and social terms ultimately irreconcilable, the continuation of a minority of selective schools in an otherwise comprehensive pattern. Earlier the Commission reported : The stratification of schools is inevitably at the expense of the comprehensive schools and of the education of the young people in them : this seems to us to be well illustrated in the evidence they received about the situation in Edinburgh. We all know that no city has a worse educational stratification than Edinburgh. There are five different types of school in Edinburgh : comprehensive schools, local authority selective schools, local authority fee-paying schools, grant-aided schools and independent schools. It is the most elaborate pecking order that one could devise for an educational system.

As someone who lives in Edinburgh, I can say that this system causes great dismay throughout the city. I counsel the Conservative Party to be careful about what they are doing. They are the representatives of a dwindling minority of people. The majority of parents are beginning to realise the need to support the State education system. The Conservative Party ought to think a little wider than this and get out of the Perthshire syndrome of politics and think about their future, because increasingly parents are becoming less tolerant about the inequalities and absurdities existing in these direct grant schools.

One does not object to the schools themselves but to the fact that a fee has to be paid for entry to them. Why that is necessary I do not know. If we were starting from scratch, not one Member of the House would argue that we should introduce fees into our education system. Hardly any Members of the House would claim that in another 15 years we will still have fees. Progress towards comprehensive education is going apace. It even has converts within the Conservative Party. Why should we have to suffer this interregnum and perpetuate, during that period, the inequalities and injustices that fall from the present system?

It is a pity that the people who do not realise the harm done by these things are trying to fight off the inevitable. I hope that we shall reach a situation when we will not have these distortions in our education system, either with fee-paying or direct grant schools, annd that the whole of Scotland will have the freedom of choice that the people of Perth have but those of Edinburgh do not have.

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor)

This has been an astonishing debate because the Regulations are simple in their purpose and objective. As with every subject, when we hear the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), and particularly the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), I feel that if we were discussing land drainage Regulations or a hill sheep Order they would find the class war inherent in them.

But these Regulations are not about a class war. This is a simple procedure to bring up to date the Regulations introduced by the previous Administration in 1969, freezing the grants for grant-aided schools and to take account of rises in prices and costs. That is all that we are doing ; nothing more. We are taking account of the inflation which occurred under the previous Government and the inflation which is temporarily occurring under this Government.

We have heard hon. Members opposite fighting the class war. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North, had several rich arguments. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, has had a busy day and has not even read what the Regulations are for. He asked why we have the same figure as we had in the previous Regulations. He said that this was a trick by the Tories to try to pinch money from their supporters. But what we are doing is simply using this as the base and, on that base, we will have a percentage increase to take account of increased costs.

Mr. Buchan

As always, the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the reason why I was surprised at the same figure being there. That is because of the hon. Gentleman's speech two years ago, when he said that the figure was spiteful. mean and inadequate. He is saying now that they are exactly the same.

Mr. Taylor

It was absolutely spiteful, mean and miserable, because what hon. Gentlemen opposite were doing was freezing the grants for good, thinking that they would create a situation in which costs would soar and fees would soar as a consequence.

The school year begins on 15th May, and we have based our calculation on the increase between October, 1969, and April, 1971, in costs incurred in such a school. The main such costs are teachers' salaries and other relevant costs such as heating, lighting and cleaning. Much of the relevant information on these is already available in connection with the calculations needed for R.S.G., and our provisional calculations suggest that relevant costs have increased by about 20 per cent.

We shall be writing to the schools shortly to inform them of the exact amount by which their grant will be increased. It would not be appropriate to set out revised amounts in Regulations, as this would again mean that we would be facing a situation which did not allow for an increase in the cost of living. We are bringing this up to date to take account of the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

Is the percentage increase to be applied to every school, or are there to be individual percentage increases for individual schools?

Mr. Taylor

I will deal with that in detail later. By and large it will take account of the increases as a whole, and we expect that 20 per cent. will be a rough figure. There is provision in the Regulations for going ahead from that.

We have had some other questions. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West said that we were giving more money to the grant-aided schools and taking it from poor children. He talked about how there was an increase in the percentage of free school meals because of an increase in poverty. The hon. Gentleman must know that we have an increase in free school meals because there has been an increase in the exemption limits. In other words, we have made it possible for a wider range of people to be eligible for free school meals, which is part of the policy of this Government of ensuring that we give help where it is needed.

Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Taylor

This must be the last time.

Mr. Buchan

I gave way 11 times. This is on the question of exemptions. The number of free school meals remains a factor of poverty. The point about exemptions is to deal with the inflation and the rise in prices. The poverty factor remains the same. The hon. Gentleman must understand that.

Mr. Taylor

I try to understand what the hon. Gentleman says from time to time, but I regret to say that I do not always succeed, and I do not think that I am entirely alone in feeling this.

What about the justification for the Regulations? We honestly believe that there is a very real case for variety in education in Scotland. We think that excellence in education is more likely to result where there are different kinds of schools free to develop there own systems along their own lines. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West says, "Let us do away with these grants. Let us not have the Regulations." We would then have the ridiculous situation in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in his excellent speech, there would not be freedom of choice for a large range of people in Scoland ; there would be freedom of choice only for the rich. It seems that this is the situation which the hon. Gentleman and his friends are trying to create.

The amending Regulations still operate on the basis of the 1969 "frozen grant" Regulations, not because we necessarily believe that these are the best and fairest way of disbursing central Government money to the schools, but because we agree with the previous Government that it is sensible to give careful consideration to the future basis of grant to these schools ; and we do not intend to make any fundamental change in the present arrangements until this consideration has been completed.

We have had discussions with the governors of the schools. We are looking forward to hearing from them and at a later stage we shall be bringing forward our long-term proposals. We shall take careful account of some valuable points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who asked me a particular point about the percentage of those staying on at the various schools. The most up-to-date figures I have are those for 1968. These figures are taken from page 48 of the Second Report of the Public Schools Commission. Those who left at under 17 years of age, at 17 and 18 or over, were in the various categories 33 per cent., 55 per cent. and 12 per cent. for grant-aided schools and the corresponding figures for education authority schools are 84 per cent., 13 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively.

Then the hon. Member for Renfrew, West presented the argument about this devasting report which condemned these schools and suggested that we should abolish them. The hon. Members for Lanarkshire, North and for Renfrew, West made several quotations from the Report, their suggestion being that here we have a splendid independent assessment by experts in education who, having approached this matter with an open mind, said. "We must do away with the schools".

I wonder whether those hon. Members, in their careful consideration of what was said, looked at the question which was put to the Commission. Was it asked to have an open mind? Was it asked to look at the whole system and say what could best be done with these schools? Not at all. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North knows quite well what the Commission was asked to do. Here are the terms of reference : To advise on the most effective method or methods"— I emphasise those words— by which direct grant … schools in England and Wales and the grant-aided schools in Scotland can participate in the movement towards comprehensive reorganisation …". That was the question. The Commission was not—

Mr. John Smith

And, in the course of that consideration, the Commission came to the conclusion, in enthusiastic terms, that the consequent stratification of schools is inevitably at the expense of comprehensive schools and of the education of the young people in them". It is obvious that the members of the Commission started with their remit, but they ended up as enthusiastic converts to getting rid of fees.

Mr. Taylor

If I were asked to take part in a Commission to try to encourage the consumption of alcohol in primary schools, I might well be rather reluctant to do so, being a sensible person and an office holder in the Band of Hope.

It is scandalous that the hon. Members for Renfrew, West and for Lanarkshire, North, with their other hon. Friends, have tried to mislead the public and other hon. Members who may not know the truth into thinking that we had here an independent Report in the way they described, when, in fact, the Commission was asked to look at these schools and see how they might be brought into the comprehensive system. The Commission did not come to the kind of conclusion that has been alleged, and the Opposition's attempt to make that point is an indication of the disgraceful level to which they have brought this debate.

I have been asked about the future. I have said that it is the Government's intention, because of the consultations we have had, to ensure that we give careful consideration to the future basis for grant and how it might be distributed. Hon. Members may wonder how long these interim Regulations are intended to last and when it is hoped to bring in a new long-term system of grant aid for schools. As I have said, we have had talks with representatives of the schools. We have asked them to let us have their views on, the arrangements for central Government grant for the schools, and, when they have completed their study of the matter, they will, I know, let us have their recommendations as soon as possible. The Government will then consider these recommendations most carefully in the light of what is practicable. I hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory solution for the long term within, perhaps, a year.

Mr. Millan rose—

Mr. Taylor

There are only two minutes left.

Mr. Millan

Has the Minister discussed this with the Scottish local education authorities?

Mr. Taylor

I hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory solution. Our aim will be to get it right. In the meantime, these Regulations, unlike the frozen grant Regulations which they replace, will genuinely hold the position, and could do so more or less indefinitely.

We are not introducing a new principle here. We are not taking £1½ million and giving it where it was not given before.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

From what source is the Minister getting advice?

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Member for Motherwell does not understand these things. I challenge him and all his hon. Friends to let us know their views. Our views are clear, and they have been clearly stated. The Opposition want to strangle the grant-aided schools. They are trying, in effect, to create a situation in which freedom of choice is available only for the rich. That is what they stand for.

By these Regulations, we are simply holding the position. The Opposition have behaved scandalously, they have failed to say what their own policy is, and I ask the House to reject the Motion with contempt.

Question put :—

The House divided : Ayes 155, Noes 185.

Division No. 425.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Ford, Ben McCartney, Hugh
Armstrong, Ernest Forrester, John McElhone, Frank
Ashton, Joe Freeson, Reginald McGuire, Michael
Atkinson, Norman Garrett, W. E. Mackenzie, Gregor
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Gilbert, Dr. John Maclennan, Robert
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Ginsburg, David McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bishop, E. S. Gelding, John McNamara, J. Kevin
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gourlay, Harry Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Grant, George (Morpoth) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Booth, Albert Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Marsden, F,
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hamling, William Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Buchan, Norman Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hardy, Peter Millan, Bruce
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Harper, Joseph Miller, Dr. M. S.
Cant, R. B. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Carmichael, Neil Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Molloy, William
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Hooson, Emlyn Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Horam, John Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Cohen, Stanley Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Murray, Ronald King
Concannon, J. D. Huckfield, Leslie O'Malley, Brian
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oswald, Thomas
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunter, Adam Palmer, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.) Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Dalyell, Tam John, Brynmor Pendry, Tom
Davidson, Arthur Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pentland, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Prescott, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Price, William (Rugby)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Probert, Arthur
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Deakins, Eric Kaufman, Gerald Recs, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dempsey, James Kerr, Russell Rhodes, Geoffrey
Dormand, J. D. Kinnock, Neil Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lambie, David Robertson, John (Paisley)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lamond, James Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&n'dnor)
Eadie, Alex Latham, Arthur Roper, John
Edelman, Maurice Lawson, George Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
English, Michael Leadbitter, Ted Sillars, James
Evans, Fred Leonard, Dick Skinner, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Lomas, Kenneth Spearing, Nigel
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Leslie
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stallard, A. W.
Foley, Maurice McBride, Neil Steel, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon) Weitzman, David Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Strang, Gavin Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Woof, Robert
Taverne Dick White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Whitehead, Phillip TELLERS FOR THE AYES :
Urwin, T. W. Whitlock, William Mr. James A. Dunn and
Varley, Eric G. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) Mr. James Hamilton.
Wainwright, Edwin
NOES
Adley, Robert Green, Alan Normanton, Tom
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grylls, Michael Nott, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Gummer, Selwyn Osborn, John
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Atkins, Humphrey Hall, John (Wycombe) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Baker W. H. K. (Banff) Haselhurst, Alan Pink, R. Bonner
Benyon, W. Havers, Michael Pounder, Rafton
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hay, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biffen, John Hayhoe, Barney Proudfoot, Wilfred
Biggs-Davison, John Hicks, Robert Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Higgins, Terence L. Redmond, Robert
Boscawen, Robert Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bowden, Andrew Holland, Philip Rees, Peter (Dover)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Holt, Miss Mary Renten, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bray, Ronald Hornby, Richard Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brewis, John Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Howell, David (Guildford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Russell, Sir Ronald
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hunt, John Scott, Nicholas
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hutchison, Michael Clark Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. James, David Shelton, William (Clapham)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Simeons, Charles
Buck, Antony Kilfedder, James Skeet, T. H. H.
Burden, F. A. Kimball, Marcus Smith, Dudley (W'wlck & L'mington)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Soref, Harold
Carlisle, Mark Kinsey, J. R. Speed, Keith
Channon, Paul Kitson, Timothy Spence, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Knox, David Sproat, Iain
Churchill, W. S. Lambton, Antony Stanbrook, Ivor
Clarke, Kenneth (Ruohcliffe) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Cooke, Robert Le Marchant, Spencer Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Coombs, Derek Longden, Gilbert Stokes, John
Cooper, A. E. Luce, R. N. Sutcliffe, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Cormack, Patrick McCrindle, R. A. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Critchley, Julian McLaren, Martin Tebbit, Norman
Crouch, David McNair-Wilson, Michael Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Crowder, F. P. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Curran, Charles Madel, David Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Mather, Carol Trew, Peter
Dean, Paul Mawby, Ray Tugendhat, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B. Meyer, Sir Anthony Waddington, David
Dykes, Hugh Mills, Peter (Torrington) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Eden, Sir John Miscampbell, Norman Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mitchell, Lt.-Col. c.(Aberdeenshire, W) Ward, Dame Irene
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Warren, Kenneth
Eyre, Reginald Moate, Roger Weatherill, Bernard
Farr, John Molyneaux, James Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Money, Ernle Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fidler, Michael Monks, Mrs. Connie Wilkinson, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Monro, Hector Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Montgomery, Fergus Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet More, Jasper Woodnutt, Mark
Fortescue, Tim Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh) Worsley, Marcus
Fox, Marcus Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Mudd, David Younger, Hn. George
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Murton, Oscar
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Nabarro, Sir Gerald TELLERS FOR THE NOES :
Goodhew, Victor Neave, Airey Mr. Waiter Clegg and
Cower, Raymond Nicholls, Sir Harmar Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Forward to