HC Deb 21 July 1971 vol 821 cc1635-46

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

12 midnight

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

I wish to raise in this Adjournment debate the need for an inquiry into Craigie College. I know from the outset that I shall have some difficulty in convincing the Under-Secretary of the need for an inquiry. I believe that earlier this month a letter was issued from St. Andrews House on his behalf stating that he had full confidence in the board of the college. I shall therefore no doubt have some difficulty in the next 15 or 20 minutes persuading him to change his mind on this matter.

I note, however, that he is not a man who makes up his mind firmly on a matter and never changes it under any circumstances. We have all noticed the change of stance that he has developed on the Common Market, as the Prime Minister has used his patronage powers. I have not the same patronage powers as the Prime Minister has, but I hope to employ my arguments to the extent of persuading him to reconsider his position in relation to Craigie College as he has in relation to the stance that he previously took on the Common Market.

I am glad to have the opportunity of this debate—and at the outset I wish to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for his ready acceptance that I should apply for time. Craigie College is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr, and the case that has given rise to the demand for an inquiry concerns a constituent of his. The college serves a much wider area than simply Ayr Burgh, and the case of his constituent raises matters of general public importance. Hence my interest in the case.

It is right to put on record the acknowledgement of the hon. Member's agreement for me to proceed. I am sure that he would want me to emphasise, however, that his agreement for me to proceed in no way implies that he agrees with my views about the substance of the case.

Craigie College is an important public institution in Ayrshire. It is a source of teacher supply, but it is more than that ; it is an establishment in which those who teach our children not only enlarge their academic experience and improve their expertise but where they also learn the important lessons of civil conduct which they will ultimately impart, along with the three Rs, to our children.

Craigie College is not a machine for the manufacture of teachers but an institution which makes a not insignificant contribution to the shaping of our society. It is essential that the conduct of those deputed to formulate and implement policy should be discharged in a manner which retains public confidence in them, and that they should be readily available to the public to check and scrutinise if responsible organs of public opinion deem it necessary to do so.

Those who are responsible for the running of Craigie College may feel annoyed that a demand for an inquiry should be made in this House, but I would sharply remind anyone who harbours such feelings that the college was built by the public for public purposes and is maintained by public money, voted by the public's Parliament, and that they—those who run the college—are or should be accountable to the public. When public money built Craigie College it was not the intention to construct a small, private empire for little tin gods or goddesses to strut around in and abuse whatever power they have been given, or managed by personality prowess, to acquire. It is not their college ; it is public property, employed in the public interest, and there must be public accountability.

I am sorry to repeat myself so often about public accountability, but it appears to be a concept so new to those who run the college that it is unknown to them. I readily acknowledge that on paper—and that means in theory—there is some form of public accountability built into the college constitution and by the method of appointing the board of governors from various interests and as responsible individuals. When, however, this machinery manifestly fails to work, as it has done at Craigie, there is a clear duty upon the Government to initiate an inquiry. When in failing to work in a responsible manner the machinery actually causes serious harm to an individual, as has happened as Craigie, there can be no excuse for the Government's refusing to act. May I remind the Under-Secretary of his recent past as a journalist on the Glasgow Evening Citizen where he constantly billed himself as the champion of individuals who were aggrieved by institutions, public and otherwise.

The need for the inquiry I am seeking arises out of the David Carter case as it has become known throughout Ayr and the rest of Scotland. This case was first drawn to my attention by a report issued earlier this year by the Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy. This report showed that a young lecturer, David Carter, was appointed on a temporary contract in 1966 which was extended for two years in 1969. Two other lecturers were in a similar position. In 1970 he learned by chance that, while his two colleagues were to be placed on the staff on a permanent basis, he was to be dismissed.

I use the word "dismissed" advisedly, I will refuse to accept from the Under-Secretary an evasion of the issue on the technical grounds that Mr. Carter's contract was "temporary". He had worked for four years at the college and his service entitled him to a standard of treatment and to certain explanations for the non-continuance of his employment which have never been forthcoming.

In the view of most sensible people who know the meaning of the word temporary when applied in certain sections of public employment, David Carter was sacked. He attempted to find out why. His attempts and those of his head of department, a Mr. Tosh, led to the uncovering of incompetence among the governors, of disregard for basic individual rights by the principal, and the ventilation of pent-up grievances by staff members at the college.

The Carter case has shown that the chairman of the board and the principal appeared to be oblivious to the right of a Member of Parliament to seek and to be given essential information on a matter of deep public concern. I did not want to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I sought to keep it away from here altogether. After receiving and reading the C.A.F.D. report I interviewed Mr. Carter after obtaining permission from the hon. Member for Ayr. I then wrote to the principal asking for an interview with her and the chairman. As I said in my letter to her, I recognise there are two sides to every issue. I talk from some experience of inquiries in public bodies.

The principal wrote back, in effect, that she would not see me. I made a second request and I received exactly the same answer. It appeared to me that a Member of Parliament was getting the cold shoulder. I am not protesting in a personal sense. I have had the cold shoulder before and will no doubt get it again. But I am concerned about the principle involved here : whether people who are responsible for running a public body should be permitted to turn away a perfectly legitimate request from a Member of Parliament elected by certain people in the County of Ayr.

I have never known a case, in my experience of public bodies—it covers all levels, from district councils to regional hospital boards—of a Member of Parliament being spurned in this manner. I find it surprising and very revealing of a mental attitude of isolationism which seems to grip the principal and others responsible for the administration of the college—isolationism which as public individuals they are not allowed in theory or practice.

I have been forced to the conclusion that the defects in the running of the college, as identified in the report, probably do exist and the people in charge are anxious to hide something. I can draw no other valid conclusion from the refusal to meet me on this important matter.

The C.A.F.D. report shows that Mr. Carter approached the then board chairman for an explanation of his dismissal. He was informed that the chairman's committee had acted on a recommendation by the principal, that it had been accepted without discussion—I stress that—and that the chairman could only assume that there might be some dissatisfaction with Mr. Carter's work. The report gives the full text of a letter sent by the college secretary to Mr. Carter, following the meeting of the chairman's committee :

" Dear Mr. Carter, At the meeting of the chairman's committee on 1st September, 1970, the position of certain members of staff, relative to their appointment, was discussed. It goes on to explain that he is not being put on a permanent basis.

So there is a contradiction, with the chairman of the board, who was present at the chairman's committee meeting, saying that Mr. Carter's position was not discussed and an official letter from the college secretary to Mr. Carter saying that his case was discussed. This is something which requires to be cleared up as soon as possible.

This young man's careers has a black mark against it because he is the only person in Craigie who has never been put on a permanent basis after running on a so-called temporary contract. That has been done without discussion—or was there discussion? That is one of the questions that an inquiry would answer.

So alarmed was Mr. Tosh, the head of Mr. Carter's department, by the assumption of dissatisfaction which the chairman had implied, that he informed the chairman of the board that his opinion had never been asked for and that, if it had been, he would have given Mr. Carter a good report. Mr. Tosh also tried to get the chairman to raise the issue at the full board meeting which would have to endorse the chairman's committee's decision to sack Mr. Carter.

When the full board met on 24th September, at least five governors knew of the concern felt both by Mr. Carter and the head of Mr. Carter's department. Not one of them appears to have commented when the minutes were ratified. After the ratification, the principal is said to have given a so-called voluntary statement, that she agreed with Mr. Carter that his future lay in secondary schools. She is not recorded as having referred to dissatisfaction with Mr. Carter.

What I have just said is all according to the C.A.F.D. report, which has never been seriously contradicted. The important point is that no discussion appears to have taken place among the governors about Carter's sacking at the full board meeting on 24th September. As they were ratifying the decision of a committee which appears not to have discussed the matter, the action of the governors was obviously lacking in any element of natural justice or fairness.

For several months during this Session, the Government have boasted that the Industrial Relations Bill will lay down procedures against unfair dismissal, and they have published a Code of Industrial Relations Practice, which is said to introduce fairness to industrial relations for the first time. I am bound to ask how Carter's treatment accords with these principles.

It is little wonder that there is grave public disquiet about this case in Ayrshire. The principal made one generous concession. She allowed Mr. Carter to apply for his own job when it was advertised. He did so and was interviewed by an appointments committee. The way that appointments committees appear to work in Craigie is, to say the least, a little odd. After interviews, it appears that the principal asks other members of the appointments committee to give their assessments of the various candidates. Then she makes up her own mind whom to recommend to the board—a method of work which is completely alien to me, and I have been involved in elected and non-elected public bodies for several years.

At Mr. Carter's interview the head of his department, acting as a member of the appointments committee, said that if any candidate other than Carter was selected, he wished his dissent to be reported to the governors. Mr. Carter was not elected and the C.A.F.D. report states that the chairman of the board claimed that the head of department's dissent was not reported.

Subsequent events have shown a sharp deterioration in public confidence in the college, with expressions of concern in responsible local newspapers and in academic circles. It appears that the conduct of the college authorities has not been all it should have been, and this brings me to a letter which Mr. Tosh, the head of Mr. Carter's department, sent to me this week, having heard that I would be raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Tosh informed me that after the college had issued a statement describing the C.A.F.D. report as inaccurate, he, Mr. Tosh, who had figured prominently in the report, sought an interview with the chairman to identify the inaccuracies. He got neither interview nor reasoned reply. He also stated that as a member of the appointments committee who interviewed applicants for Carter's job, he was not satisfied that Carter's application got "fair and objective consideration". The letter made this point : Students who have attempted to have the case ventilated since the C.A.F.D. report was published have been placed under vows of 'confidentiality' by the principal and vice-principal and told things which are simply not true in order to dissuade them from pursuing the matter. The technique has worked, too. The next point which Mr. Tosh made is of particular concern to those of us who are responsible for the oversight of public institutions : There is little respect in the place generally"— referring to Craigie College for the process of consultation and democracy. Resolutions of the Board of Studies are often either reversed or ignored ; to raise points or motions exposes one to irrational and personal hostility ; full and open discussion of policies and issues is impossible in the prevailing atmosphere ; and the structure encourages arbitrary and unchecked exercise of power. For the sake of everyone who works in the place, including the principal, there needs to be a revision of the structure". That letter was sent to me not by a crank but by the head of a department inside Craigie College.

There appears to have been no real justification for the Carter dismissal in the first place. It appears from all that has been said—and much has been said through the local correspondence columns and in the report—that either the principal was striking at the head of a department through a young colleague or was exercising personal animosity against a young man who, as the report and the published correspondence shows, had had the temerity to question the methods by which she runs her régime.

There are grounds for seriously doubting the competence of the governors to play their rôle properly and there are serious doubts about the way in which the administration treats its staff and colleagues within the staff. A number of questions therefore need answering urgently.

First, what was the real reason for Carter's dismissal? Second, why was he not given the reason? Third, why were his head of department's views treated so lightly and not communicated to the board as requested? Fourth, has the board any policy for safeguarding staff from victimisation? Fifth, is it sensible to have the principal as vice-chairman of the board to which she is ultimately responsible, and does not this practice render the board incapable of exercising essential independent judgment in evaluating advice from the principal? Sixth, who runs the college, the principal or the board, because there is some doubt about this in many minds in the County of Ayrshire?

I suggest that to get the answer to that final and most important question, as well as answers to the others, we urgently need an inquiry into this whole affair.

12.20 a.m.

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

I should first like to thank the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). My hon. Friend has, of course, been in touch with me on several occasions about this matter. We have had several meetings, he has made many representations to me and we have fully discussed the case on many occasions.

Having paid the hon. Member that compliment, I certainly cannot compliment him on some of the remarks he has made tonight, about some of his emotive language and his references to abuses of power, victimisation, tin gods and the like. Much of what the hon. Member has said is a great disservice to an outstanding college and, I believe, an outstanding principal. Many of the hon. Member's remarks were wholly unwarranted, and in the short time that is left to me I hope to deal with some of his specific points.

First, the hon. Member raised the question of dismissal—which, of course, it was not—and referred to the Industrial Relations Bill. I know that he is very busy these days, but I wonder whether he has read the Bill as carefully as he might have done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I do not wish to draw the debate too narrowly, but I should have stopped the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in his reference to the Bill at all. I hope that this makes clear that I was allowing undue latitude when the hon. Member made any reference to it, and I hope that the matter will not be pursued.

Mr. Taylor

I certainly will not pursue it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the case of holders of permanent contracts, however, I agree that there is a gap, which will be filled by the Bill, but such contract holders will then have a right of appeal against dismissal. This, however, has no bearing on Mr. Carter's case : his is a fixed-term contract which does not come within the scope of the proposed appeal procedure. Nor will future fixed-term contracts necessarily come within that scope. It will depend on the terms in which they are drawn. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, as we cannot discuss it tonight, I commend to him the study of Clauses 20 and 28 of the Bill.

Against that background I turn now to the details of Mr. Carter's case. First, the common ground : he was offered and he accepted a three-year appointment in October, 1966, and a two-year extension of that appointment in 1969 ending in September, 1971. In September, 1970, the governors decided not to offer him either a further extension or a permanent contract. Instead they advertised his post and though he competed for it another candidate was preferred. Following this, I understand, he applied unsuccessfully, for a principal teachership in a secondary school in Fife.

Now for more controversial matters. The Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy took up his case and the hon. Gentleman, in presenting his arguments tonight, relies heavily on the Council's findings. I have read its report and am rather less impressed. The Council makes much of the extension of the contract which, in a curious way that I confess I am not wholly able to follow, it seems to think makes the decision not to offer a further contract tantamount to dismissal.

I have thought that it might equally, and indeed more reasonably, be argued that the governors were not quite sure of Mr. Carter in 1969 but were—perhaps generously—giving him a further chance by extending his temporary contract before making up their minds.

Mr. Sillars

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the governors actually discussed Mr. Carter's case at the chairman's committee and the subsequent full meeting of the board?

Mr. Taylor

I will try to deal with all the points. The hon. Member knows, of course, that the matter was fully discussed at a meeting of the governing body. I will not refer to which one, but it has been fully discussed. However, as I have said, Mr. Carter undoubtedly accepted his new contract in 1969 on the footing that it was a temporary one with no commitment by the governors beyond September, 1971.

Next, we have the allegation that Mr. Carter's case is in some way unique. I have made inquiries of our largest college of education, Jordanhill, on this matter and have learned that during the past 25 years, 249 temporary contracts have been offered and accepted and that of these 86 have not been renewed. Where is the uniqueness of the situation, therefore, when 86 out of 249 have not been renewed in a large teaching college in Scotland? During the past three and a half years, the comparable figures were 36 and four. Temporary contracts and non-renewal of them are not, therefore, so unusual. On the point that nonrenewal must be an adverse comment on Mr. Carter's professional competence and thus, by inference, damaging to his career, I understand that many of the Jordanhill people whose contracts have not been renewed have gone on in due course to important posts. In addition to school headships and senior appointments in educational administration a number have taken up appointments at other colleges of education.

The hon. Member then talked about grave public disquiet. I wonder whether he has noted that other bodies in much closer contact with the system than the Council for Academic Freedom and Democracy and with considerable potential interest in this matter have been singularly silent. There is an Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland, a body widely representative of college staffs. Apart from that, many lecturers, as former teachers in the schools, retain, I believe, their membership of one or other of the main Scottish teachers' associations.

Yet, following publication of the C.A.F.D. report, none of these bodies has been moved, either by Mr. Carter or by any of his colleagues, to raise the matter, either with my right hon. Friend or, so far as I am aware, with the governors. Moreover, in letters signed by 23 members of the staff in support of the governors and the principal, I am informed that the college staff association, which is open to all members except the principal and vice-principal, pronounced on 19th March : The staff association acknowledge that the decision to terminate the temporary contract of Mr. David Carter has been taken according to the established procedure. It also rejected a request that the association should formally press the governors to set up an inquiry. That is some indication of the so-called public disquiet.

The hon. Member mentioned student concern. No representations have yet been made to the Secretary of State, although I have read Press reports about the attitude of the N.U.S.U.K. and the S.U.S. I doubt whether either of those bodies, which seem at the moment to have many other preoccupations, knows very much about the matter. At local level, all that I have seen is a letter shown to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, who has been extremely helpful throughout this business. It drew attention to the C.A.F.D. report and supported the call for an inquiry. It was unsigned and undated and purported to come from the executive committee of the college S.R.C.

I turn now to the complaints of the hon. Gentleman and of C.A.F.D. about the rôles played by the principal and the governors and about the failure to give proper explanations to Mr. Carter of the reasons for non-renewal of his contract and to take proper account of the representations made by him and on his behalf against that decision. The principal of a college of education is, in the words of the 1967 regulations, responsible to the governing body for the whole organisation and discipline of the college". It is a heavy task, and this must be taken into account when considering the principal's rôle in staff selection and appointment. With such a responsibility, it is no more than fair that she should have a say, and an important say, and I have no doubt that the governors recognise this.

The hon. Member referred to the different view of Mr. Carter held by his head of department. In such cases, the governors' task is indeed difficult, but it is to deal with exactly this kind of situation that they are there. I am in no doubt that they are better able to reach a judgment than any outside agency, a fact which was recognised in the 1967 regulations.

In considering how effectively the governors can discharge this responsibility, it is important to remember who they actually are. Under the regulations, the composition of the governors is : five elected members of education committees ; one director of education ; five teachers and head teachers, elected by the profession ; one representative from the University of Glasgow ; two churchmen ; four members of the college teaching staff, including the principal and vice-principal ; three nominees of the Secretary of State. Is the hon. Member saying that these people acted irresponsibly and were not aware of what was going on?

The C.A.F.D. report and the hon. Member both suggested that this group was a supine body in thrall to a strong-minded principal. That is an insult to people who give their service freely and who include some of the outstanding educationists and other figures in Scotland. The issue could well be seen as whether the Secretary of State should accept the views of a self-appointed body whose membership does not appear to include anyone with very much first-hand knowledge of the Scottish teacher-training system, or rely on a broadly-based governing body with clear terms of reference and specific duties and responsibilities assigned to it by him.

There is much more that I should like to have said, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to deal with this matter. There has been no protest from the academic organisations and the teachers' organisations and the staff association. The governing body is fully representative and is responsible to the Secretary of State and we have full confidence in it. The——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.