HC Deb 19 June 1973 vol 858 cc477-99
Mr. Carmichael

I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 72, line 8, leave out 'half' and insert 'two-thirds'.

We discussed this subject in a rather wider way in Committee. The object of the amendment is to try to weight matters rather more in favour of the elected representative of an education committee. The education committee does not have the final power under the Bill. The education committee is not the education authority. The education authority is the regional council or the island council. Therefore, whatever decisions are made by the education committee will always require to be accepted and acted upon, perhaps voted upon, by the education authority, which will be the regional council.

That, however, goes only part of the way. While the ultimate authority will be with the regional council, which will be entirely elected, clearly if the education committee continually makes recommendations to the regional council, the education authority, it will be very difficult continually to turn it down by voting, even though the representatives on the authority are elected.

Therefore, to be absolutely sure that the education committee is more representative of the elected representatives than the non-elected representatives, the balance should be rather better than that envisaged in subsection (2), which states: but at least half of the members appointed to the committee"— that is, the education committee— shall be members of the authority. We feel that this would, at the extreme, give the elected representatives on the authority who are delegated from the authority to the committee, a majority of only one.

The breakdown of the education committee is that at least two members shall represent religious opinion, in one case, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and, in the other case, the Church of Scotland. At least two members will represent teachers or educational interests in Scotland. We shall have a minimum of four non-elected representatives on the education committee, which would mean theoretically that we could have a committee as small as nine.

However, we know that in other education committees in Scotland at present there are considerably more than four non-elected members, at least in the larger authorities. This would mean that the majority of elected representatives relative to the total members of the committee would become smaller and smaller. In Glasgow at present, out of a committee of 37 there are eight non-elected representatives of churches and educational interests, according to the 1972–73 diary of Glasgow Corporation. If my memory serves me right, in Aberdeen there are nine non-elected members in a much smaller committee. The balance is certainly very much against the elected representatives, particularly when one realises that the existing education committees are statutory bodies with full powers except for finance.

The elected representatives should have a greater security and a greater representative aspect in the decisions made before matters are passed back to the education authority. It is probably true that the non-elected members, whether representative of church or educational interests, seldom take part in important decisions of the education committee which are considered highly political. Whether or not they take part in those votes, however—I have not checked on this matter very carefully because it is not very important—the fact is that they are allowed to take part in any decision. We organise our politics on a party system in Britain, and even more so in Scotland. Eight or nine non-elected representatives assuming that they all voted in one way, would mean that the people who were on the committee because they had stood for election and been approved by the electorate would, if they wished to vote the other way, need somehow to muster a majority greater than eight, in the case of Glasgow at present, in order to carry their point of view.

We have had a number of instances in the past seven or eight years when the majority of the controlling parties, both Conservative and Labour, has been extremely small. When the non-elected representatives had voting power they were able to exercise great influence either directly or indirectly. That is wrong and there should be a greater safeguard to give the elected representatives an overwhelming majority. I do not regard two-thirds as overwhelming in view of the breakdown of the voting figures in most cases and the fact that on the important and crucial issues voting will be on a party basis.

One way to overcome the problem, as was suggested in Committee, is that there should be no non-elected representatives but that the franchise should be open to everyone. The case was put strongly in respect of school teachers. We tried in dealing with the clauses imposing limitations or restrictions on those who can stand for election to make sure that teachers and other local authority employees were able to stand. We were defeated and therefore we must do something to make it clear that in the last analysis the elected representatives will carry the day.

We discussed at great length in Committee the question of representation of religious organisations. We met various religious representatives in our constituencies. I had an interesting discussion with one fairly powerful religious group which agreed that perhaps the correct way to treat religious representation would be for its influence to be felt in the community without its needing a special place. However, it still wanted a special place on the education committee, and that is how things stand. There will be at least two representatives from the religious organisations and at least two from teachers' organisations.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will look closely at this to see that the balance is not weighted on the wrong side. I hope that he will accept our suggestion that the proportion should be changed from half to two-thirds. That would be asking very little. Some of the education committees will certainly be much larger than nine so there would be no difficulty if there were four non-elected representatives because there would then need to be 12 on the committee instead of nine. The number would increase with each non-elected representative. That would be a fair system, and I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the idea.

Mr. Dalyell

I feel strongly on this issue—basically for one reason. One of the truths about education committees is that the elected members have a great deal more authority in dealing with officials. I am not one who thinks that officials are bad. I believe that Scotland is well served by educational officials. Nevertheless, one wants members on the committee who can cut some ice, and who have a position from which to deal with officials. The non-elected element probably feel diffident about trying to impose their will. They can be asked what is the basis of their power. The truth is that the rough and tumble of election gives some basis of power. It is like an old-fashioned annointment.

Anything that restricts the numbers of elected members is bad for democracy. On those grounds, I come out very strongly in favour of a higher elected element. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be right to decide to press the amendment to a vote. I hope the Government will reflect on the matter. I do not see why they should not give way. No one will crow. It is a matter of some importance.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Central)

I support the amendment, for the reasons already expressed. I see no justification for having a provision in the Bill—admittedly, not mandatory—allowing a local authority to appoint up to half the members of the education committee from non-elected elements. I see no justification with an important committee of this nature, for not having a substantial balance of elected members.

Clause 159, dealing with the social work committee, provides that at least two-thirds of its appointed members shall be members of the authority. The rule for social work should be the same as for education. It is true that the Bill provides for specific representation of outside interests on the education committee. I am not happy that we should have three persons representing religious interests, as a later amendment suggests, rather than the two for which the Bill now provides. But whatever we may think about that, it is recognised that there shall be outside interests on the education committee.

However, for good democratic reasons, and the kind of reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), there should be a substantial majority of elected members on the committee. The present drafting is wrong, and I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I support what has been said by the three hon. Members who have spoken. When we discussed this matter at considerable length in the Commission, I remember, there was a strong view within the Commission that perhaps it was wrong to have outside interests within the committees. Eventually we concluded that it was impractical to do otherwise for a variety of sound practical and political reasons.

I certainly go along with the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It was said in our discussions—and I recollect the view, expressed as it was with a great deal of force—that outside interests are always free to come to the elected member or to the authority, to state their views. It is not just a question of voting which is important, but a question of contact and the influence which breeds from contact.

I think the Opposition Front Bench proposal to alter the proportion as between 50 per cent. and two-thirds is perfectly fair and reasonable, and one that the Government should consider. No hon. Member on this side of the House would say that the Government had yielded, or crow if they do. It is a question of recognising the importance of responsibility in local government and the fact that the responsible elected element should and must be dominant.

Mr. Ross

If I speak now, I may even be able to persuade the tripartite Under-Secretary in charge of education. He is much more ready to be persuaded than many of his Scottish Office colleagues, which shows a confidence in himself and his judgment which we welcome.

Clause 57 gives the new authorities power to appoint committees. They are under no obligation to do so. They "may" appoint committees; it is up to them. But, if they do, at least two thirds of the members appointed to any such committee … shall be members of that authority". That means that two-thirds must be elected members, if the authority uses its discretionary rights.

But the situation is different when we come to education, which is probably one of the more important functions of the new regional authorities, and undoubtedly one of the more expensive. Anyone who has tried to deal with the rate support grant appreciates that the great bulk of it is related to education. We read in Clause 123 that Every education authority shall appoint a committee"— it must do so, whether it likes it or not. The Government are laying down in this new era of freedom for local authorities that it shall appoint a committee to which … all their functions as such authority shall stand referred. In regard to this function, more important than any other, the Government do not say that two-thirds must be elected members, as they do with any other committee. They say "at least half". This is a bit much. I do not cast any aspersions on the justice or otherwise of changes that have been made by the Government, but they have brought some of the difficulties on their own heads. If they had left religious representation alone they would not have got into what we call in Scotland "moger". They have also made a change in respect of teacher representation, which used to be discretionary but it now mandatory.

If we believe in the elective principle, it is unfair to penalise the local, elected representatives because of those changes. They are the people who will eventually carry all the responsibility. The people who elect them think that they are responsible. To suggest that we can put up with just half the members of an education committee being elected, with the rest being appointed in one way or another, is totally wrong.

I do not know whether I have got through to the Under-Secretary. There was a time when I called him the silent senator for Dumfries, but now he is in the places of power.

We are confronted with such an obvious wrong that I am sure the hon. Gentleman will rise immediately to put it right. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend should have a little confidence in at least one of the Scottish Office team. He has shown us in his handling of other Bills that he is prepared to be persuaded.

Mr. Monro

I should like to set out the position and then comment on the interventions, which I found helpful. There is extraordinarily little between us, as will emerge from what I say.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) moved the amendment, as usual, in a most helpful manner. He said that the amendment required two-thirds of the members of the education committee to be elected as opposed to at least one-half as the clause stands. Rightly, hon. Members have pointed out that under Clauses 57(3) and 159(6) other committees require two-thirds of their members to be elected representatives. In the past, education authorities have always been an exception.

Section 108 of the Local Government Act 1947 provides that at least a majority of the committee must be elected members, which is, in effect, much the same provision as the one we are talking about. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the stipulation in the clause is permissive and not mandatory, and this situation has been current for a long time.

The history began before 1929 when the education committee was a separate elected body which attracted the services of various categories of people with a particular interest and experience in education, including clergy of all denominations, who did not want to take part in local government generally. After 1929 it was considered desirable that the good service provided by non-elected members should continue, and it has continued ever since.

The important point is that the provision is permissive. In practice few education authorities have gone anywhere near having a 49 per cent. representation on the education committee of non-elected representatives.

If, as I hope, the House accepts a subsequent amendment, there will be five co-opted members of an education committee of which three will represent the churches and two the teachers—which I believe to be a move that is widely welcomed throughout the profession in Scotland. This would mean that in smaller authorities, where there are five co-opted representatives, there would be a minimum committee size of 15, and should that authority wish to have a parents' representative, a university representative or a representative from industry, for every extra co-opted member it would have to have on the committee two elected members. This would sometimes produce a much larger education committee than many people think desirable, to the extent that it might be necessary to call upon elected members to serve on the education committee to make up the numbers, whether or not the elected members wished to serve.

In this important issue of the establishment of education committees, I believe that the authorities will feel their way carefully. They will start with a substantial majority of elected representatives, having the satutory five co-opted members and perhaps a few more. I do not think that they are likely to put themselves in jeopardy of being voted down by co-opted members. I have served on local committees for some considerable time and I do not think that is a practical possibility. The elected representatives would always be quite certain that they had a substantial majority over all the co-opted members put together.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Miller

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not miss the very important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) has brought forward. The hon. Gentleman says that the elected members would always have a majority My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside was directing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the minority elected representation could be minimal. In other words, the majority party would have to have such a high proportion of the representation as to make minority representation almost impossible or at least extremely difficult. That is the point which my hon. Friend was making and to which the hon. Gentleman should direct his attention.

Mr. Monro

I should need to have a computer to work out the possibilities which the hon. Gentleman indicates. I understand the point which he is putting home to me—namely, that if there were five co-opted members and five or six members of one party there would have to be a substantial number of members representing the majority party in order to maintain overall majority. That point can be covered by the clause as it stands. The clause is entirely permissive as to the number of co-opted members over and above the five. It leaves an immense amount of scope for the majority party to arrange the selection of members so that it can still retain overall majority, including the five co-opted members.

Perhaps Opposition Members were feeling that the narrow majority of one or two was mandatory. In fact, it is not, The selection of the committee is entirely permissive. I do not think that majority parties in local government and able people from all parties are likely to make the mistake which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove indicates they might make. I like to feel that we are trying to give, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said when we were talking about finance on the last amendment, as much responsibility as we can to local authorities. This is an instance when we can rely on the local authorities to make the right selection in the best interests of education.

There is extraordinarily little between us and perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside might, on reflection, be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell

I specifically asked about the authority of non-elected members. That is a matter of importance.

Mr. Monro

I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about that. I have been on a local authority and I appreciate exactly the point which he is making. Perhaps there is more weight behind what an elected member says. However, that does not move me from my argument because the elected representatives which the hon. Member is talking about will have a substantial majority. I do not think that we want to remove the opportunity of having gifted people co-opted to an education committee. Such people will help to raise the standard of education in Scotland. The clause provides for a great deal of flexibility. There is an opportunity for local authorities to work the clause to their own advantage and with no danger to the majority party. That is why I do not feel that there is much between us on this.

Mr. Dalyell

If these gifted people exist, in the trade unions, industry or the universities, why do they not seek election? If they are as gifted as all that, someone will elect them to do something.

Mr. Monro

This is one of the mysteries of the human race. There are many gifted people in this country who do not seem to want to be Members of Parliament. Some of these people have a limited amount of time and would perhaps be prepared to put wholehearted effort into education but not to do the run of the mill work of housing, finance and so on. We should not cry down on these people. That is why we should maintain the flexibility in the clause. We should not restrain the local authorities by laying down the facts and figures in too much detail.

Mr. Carmichael

I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. He overlooked the fact that there will be plenty of scope in the educational set-up and the de

cisions made over the structure of education to bring in gifted people at all levels, when they will be more telling than on the education committee. On the education committee, which is concerned with the structure of education, the elected people should have a clear majority. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 175.

Division No. 166.] AYES [9.07 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Allen, Scholefield Golding, John Moyle, Roland
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Murray, Ronald King
Armstrong, Ernest Gourlay, Harry Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman Grant, George (Morpeth) O'Halloran, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Orme, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Padley, Walter
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hardy, Peter Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Bishop, E. S. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Pardoe, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Parker, John (Dagenham)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hattersley, Roy Pavitt, Laurie
Booth, Albert Heffer, Eric S. Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Boothroyd, Kiss B. (West Brom.) Horam, John Probert, Arthur
Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) Hunter, Adam Robertson, John (Paisley)
Buchan, Norman Janner, Greville Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Caliaghan, Rt. Hn. James John, Brynmor Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cant, R. B. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Rowlands, Ted
Carmichael, Neil Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) Sillars, James
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Silverman, Julius
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Skinner, Dennis
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Kaufman, Gerald Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Coleman, Donald Lambie, David Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Concannon, J. D. Lamborn, Harry Stallard, A. W.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Lamond, James Steel, David
Crawshaw, Richard Lawson, George Slonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Cronin, John Lestor, Miss Joan Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Dalyell, Tam Lomas, Kenneth Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Loughlin, Charles Tope, Graham
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McBride, Neil Torney, Tom
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) McElhone, Frank Tuck, Raphael
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Machin, George Varley, Eric G.
Deakins, Eric Mackenzie, Gregor Wainwright, Edwin
Dempsey, James Mackie, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Doig, Peter Mackintosh, John P. Wallace, George
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Maclennan, Robert Watkins, David
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Eadie, Alex McNamara, J. Kevin White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Whitehead, Phillip
Ellis, Tom Marquand, David Whitlock, William
English, Michael Mayhew, Christopher Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ewing, Harry Meacher, Michael Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Millan, Bruce Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ford, Ben Miller, Dr. M. S. Woof, Robert
Forrester, John Molloy, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fraser, John (Norwood) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper.
Gilbert, Dr. John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
NOES
Adley, Robert Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Nott, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall, Sir John (Wycombe) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Astor, John Hannam, John (Exeter) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Humphrey Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Parkinson, Cecil
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Haselhurst, Alan Pike, Miss Mervyn
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Havers, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hawkins, Paul Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hicks, Robert Proudfoot, Wilfred
Biggs-Davison, John Higgins, Terence L. Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Blaker, Peter Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Holland, Philip Redmond, Robert
Body, Richard Holt, Miss Mary Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Hornby, Richard Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bossom, Sir Clive Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bowden, Andrew Howell, David (Guildford) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hutchison, Michael Clark Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bryan, Sir Paul Iremonger, T. L. Rost, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Augus, N&M) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Scott, Nicholas
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Jessel, Toby Shelton, William (Clapham)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Sinclair, Sir George
Chichester-Clark, R. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Soref, Harold
Churchill, W. S. Jopling, Michael Speed, Keith
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Spence, John
Clegg, Walter King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Sproat, Iain
Cockeram, Eric King, Tom (Bridgwater) Stainton, Keith
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Stanbrook, Ivor
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Knight, Mrs. Jill Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Cormack, Patrick Knox, David Stokes, John
Costain, A. P. Lamont, Norman Sutcliffe, John
Lane, David Tapsell, Peter
Crouch, David Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Dalkeith, Earl of Longden, Sir Gilbert Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Dean, Paul McMaster, Stanley Tebbit, Norman
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. McNair-Wilson, Michael Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Dixon, Piers Maddan, Martin Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Madel, David Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Dykes, Hugh Marten, Neil Trew, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Mather, Carol Tugendhat, Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maude, Angus Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Waddington, David
Fidler, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Miscampbell, Norman Weatherill, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Moate, Roger Wiggin, Jerry
Fookes, Miss Janet Monks, Mrs. Connie Wilkinson, John
Fortescue, Tim Monro, Hector Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fowler, Norman Montgomery, Fergus Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gardner, Edward Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David Mudd, David Woodnutt, Mark
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Norfolk, C.) Murton, Oscar Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Neave, Airey Younger, Hn. George
Green, Alan Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Grylls, Michael Normanton, Tom Mr. Marcus Fox and
Gurden, Harold Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

9.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell)

I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 72, line 12, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

With this amendment, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 265, in line 14, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 22 and insert: 'be nominated by a meeting of representatives of the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regu- larly appointed places of worship within the area, one of whom shall be a member of the Church of Scotland, and the others of different denominations appropriate to the locality'. We may also discuss Government Amendment No. 101.

Mr. Campbell

The background to the two Government amendments, Nos. 100 and 101, is that in order to recognise the position of the Church of Scotland Government amendments were accepted by the Committee but with certain misgivings. There was a fairly strong body of opinion which felt that the provision as altered was too heavily loaded in favour of the big battalions. Every regional education committee would have a statutory Church of Scotland representative and a statutory Roman Catholic representative; but it lay at the discretion of the regional councils whether any of the minority churches—some of which will be of considerable significance in certain regions—should be represented at all.

In some ways the Government would have been glad to rely on the discretion of the future local authorities. Most if not all of the existing local authorities are well disposed to Church membership and appoint more than the statutory minimum, and we have no reason to believe that this will not happen in future. On the other hand we can understand the desire to have the security of at least a third statutory place which could be filled where appropriate by an appointee from a significant minority Church. The amendments now proposed therefore provide for a third statutory place and require the local authority when filling the third place—or in the islands areas, both the extra places—to have regard to the comparative strength of all the Churches in its area while at the same time bearing in mind that it has already provided for the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church. The effect of this is to allow the local authority to appoint a representative of a minority Church where there is a significant one, but not to compel it to do so where there is no such minority. We believe that this is the fairest provision that can be devised, and we believe that it will be generally acceptable to the Churches.

I now comment on Amendment No. 265, in which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his hon. Friends suggest an alternative arrangement for appointing Church representatives to the committee. This arrangement has a certain simplicity about it which commends it, but it suffers from two disadvantages to which I must draw attention because they are major disadvantages. In the first place, an arrangement of that sort would effectively withdraw the guarantee, given to all the Churches concerned in 1929, and secured under present legislation, that wherever the denominational schools were transferred to the system of public education, the Church concerned could have a place on the education committee. As I said in Committee, the only truly denominational schools still in existence are the Roman Catholic schools and that is why the Bill provides specifically for a Catholic nominee.

It would be possible for the proposed meeting to nominate a Catholic representative, but there would be no certainty of that being done. We are clear that it would be wrong to diminish this established right of representation, at any rate without the agreement of the parties concerned. There is no legal obligation in this, but in our view there is an absolute moral obligation given what has been the position since 1929. This point has been touched on in our conversations with the Church of Scotland, and it agrees that the position should be left as it is at present.

The second drawback is that an arrangement on these lines would put the Church of Scotland in a most invidious position. At most, or all, of the meetings of Churches held under present legislation to nominate Church representatives, the Church of Scotland inevitably deploys the main voting power. This would continue to be the case and it would, therefore, rest largely in the hands of the Church of Scotland as to whom should be nominated. At present this presents no problem because the Church of Scotland can nominate representatives of its own Church and in general does so except in a very few areas, such as the Highlands where the claims of the Free Church are very strong.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his idea, as put forward, would fail if he accepted the idea that the Churches nominate and that the general electorate chooses the nominee at the end of the day?

Mr. Campbell

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's view. He has expressed it in Committee. We regard this as a matter to be dealt with by the representatives of the Churches, as proposed, rather than to be made a wider matter as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

The Church of Scotland can nominate a second representative of its own Church at present, but this would not be open to it under the proposal in this amendment because the other two representatives would have to be taken from different denominations even in those areas where, on any reasonable view, it would be appropriate for the Church of Scotland to have two of the three places because of its large majority in the area. The amendment would virtually force the Church of Scotland to exercise patronage in every region and islands area and it would be in a position of judging in every case not only between other Protestant Churches but between the Protestant and Catholic Churches. It would put the Church of Scotland in a difficult position. I am certain that the Church of Scotland would not want to be placed in that position. That is the second disadvantage.

While recognising that the Liberal amendment has simplicity, it suffers from these drawbacks and I commend the two Government amendments which I believe provide the best solution for choosing the statutory representatives for each committee.

Mr. MacArthur

I will not detain the House for long. It is right that I should express on my own behalf and, I am certain, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, our warmest appreciation to my right hon. Friend for proposing these amendments. He has responded most generously to the comments made in Committee and I feel certain that the Church of Scotland and the other denominations in Scotland will be most grateful for his having given so much thought to the representations which they have made through us.

Mr. Grimond

This is a very sensitive matter. On the other hand, it is one on which I do not feel completely sure of my foothold. I am grateful, I think, to the Secretary of State. I understand that he has increased the number to three—and that, I think, is in accordance with something we wanted done. This is an exceptionally difficult matter, because the religious breakdown in Scotland differs from place to place. I find it almost impossible to draw up a scheme that will suit everyone.

To some extent I can talk only about the place I know. In Shetland, at my last count there were 14 denominations. They include the Bahai and the Assemblies of God. One of the smallest groups is the Catholics. I do not suffer from an anti-Catholic prejudice. On the contrary, both priests on Orkney and Shetland are great friends of mine. But the Catholics are a tiny congregation.

Am I right in saying that they will automatically have permanent representation. while the other 12 minority Churches, some of which are much bigger, will compete for one place? I do not know how common this is the Highlands. I am sure that it is not common in the West of Scotland.

I take the Secretary of State's objections. The basic objection is that he does not think that Christians can behave as Christians, which is a reasonable attitude. We all know that there is nothing more violent than the internecine fighting among denominations attempting to reach an agreement. We, being optimists—like all Liberals—and thinking better of human nature and, perhaps, Ministers of God, than the Secretary of State, thought that they might come to an agreement. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

The right hon. Gentleman must agree that this is a matter about which it is very difficult to draw up a scheme suitable for all parts of Scotland. We do not have complete confidence in our own arrangements. I am not even convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme will do this properly.

May I ask one question of fact? Subsection (3)(a)(ii) speaks of area of a region. I am not sure to what that refers. Probably there is no significance in it. As I understand it, this scheme will operate all over Scotland, and the effect will be that the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church will always be represented, while the other churches will compete, so to speak—

Mr. Gordon Campbell

I think that I can save time by pointing out that there is no automatic Catholic representation in the island authorities. That meets the point.

Mr. Grimond

It does, indeed. I thought that that might be the case. In the West of Scotland there will be automatic Catholic representation. For instance, in the South Hebrides, where there are a great many Catholics, they will have representation there, probably because there will be three representatives. This goes some way to meet our point. I still think that this is a difficult subject in respect of which to reach an agreement that will suit all denominations. I doubt whether we have heard the last of this.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his "flag lieutenant" if I may put it that way, for the painstaking way in which they have dealt with this extremely difficult problem. Many of us have received representations from various parts of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will be particularly grateful, because the predominant denomination in his area will be covered by the amendment. Other denominations in my area will equally be covered. I heartily support the amendment, and believe that in all the circumstances my right hon. Friend has done an excellent job.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

It would be wrong to let this amendment go through without at least one hon. Member saying that it does not have the wholehearted support of the House, or, indeed, the country. I shall not oppose it, although I did so in Committee, in a way. Members of the Committee will know my views. In my opinion the perfect solution is to have no outside representatives of any kind on any elected committee.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

My hon. Friend is not now propounding Labour Party policy.

Mr. Brown

I did not claim that I was. I merely say that I think I represent a fairly large body of outside opinion. I hope that most of the enlightened opinion is in the Labour Party, but if my hon. Friend is claiming the rights of conservatism and thinking for the Labour Party, that is his point of view.

All I am saying is that it is surely highlighted by the reasonable attempts of the Government to meet the situation—and I give them marks, if that is what people want—and by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who indicated the geographical variations that exist in religious communities. And I would think that the most effective way of giving expression to them is through the party democratic process. There is no need to spell out what I mean by that. Then, if there is a need to have some special religious set-up in terms of education, it can be done quite easily by establishing relationships between the local authority and the various denominations in whatever degree they exist in the area in which the local authority is operating. I know I am in a minority on this but I think it right that there should be some record of the fact that it is not a unanimous vote.

Mr. Sillars

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I do not think this should go through. I will not vote against it but I do not think it should go through as if what the Secretary of State has suggested as an amendment and the amended clause are accepted unanimously here. I do not think that it is good enough for him to come to the Box and argue, as he will do on the amended clause, that some bodies in Scotland have an exceptional right to representation on education authorities but that teachers do not have such a right.

We all know that teachers will stand for election within the teaching profession. That is the way it has been done up till now for teachers to get on to the education authorities. Surely this is a grave departure from the principles of Wheatley, on which we have tried to construct local government and this Bill, that people are responsible to the electors in the area for the way they make policy. It would stretch the imagination to say that the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and other Churches will not help make policy in educational circles.

I make the point strongly that while I do not object to Church organisations having representation on education committees and accept their reasons and understand why they press for this, I ask why they should be different from other groups in Scotland and not need to stand for election in their own forum of the Church or to face electors and answer questions on educational policy. I am not a churchgoer, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well. In fact, I am an atheist. How can I influence the representatives of the Church of Scotland or of the Roman Catholic Church taking policy decisions on my educational authority when they are not responsible to me, a ratepayer and an elector?

Surely it would go some way towards resolving that democratic problem if the Churches were forced to put forward more than one candidate and those candidates had to stand for election like anyone else in a policy-making forum.

I shall not seek to divide the House on this, but I think that it is a valid point of view, and so far the right hon. Gentleman has not answered it.

Mr. Maclennan

In the light of the representations I made to the Secretary of State following the very considerable lobbying on this point which I underwent from Churches and churchmen throughout the Highlands, I feel it right to express my satisfaction that he has taken this course. It is certainly true that in the Highland Region particularly this has been a matter of great sensitivity and difficulty. I believe that the arrangements which the Secretary of State has proposed will cause a broad degree of satisfaction, at least in that region.

Mr. Dempsey

Having listened to what has been said by the Secretary of State I would like, even if briefly, to say that I think that his approach to this subject was admirable. He was dealing with a subject which is very touchy to all concerned, especially to us in the West of Scotland. This is an area where one has to tread very carefully—gang canny. It is an extremely difficult situation because when religion becomes involved the atmosphere is always charged. Anyone who is religious has the greatest appreciation of the service which all the Churches give to all the community on behalf of religion in this country, and, if we believe in that, it is important that they should be allowed to play some part in education because religion begins in school, aside from home. I have been approached by all sorts of Churches and all sorts of denominations. I have met their representatives and discussed this matter with them.

We should ensure by this Bill that a provision in a previous Act should again be enacted. The Secretary of State is absolutely correct. After all, one of the Churches handed over all its schools and we gave our word, and one's word is always one's bond. I am proud to hear the Secretary of State say tonight that he feels that on balance the right thing to do is to ensure that the Churches, large and small, should be represented in education.

I honestly think that he has made an excellent provision in this Bill and it certainly meets with my full approval. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on handling a very thorny problem so very carefully and successfully.

Mr. Ross

Well, he has handled the problem he got himself into. This matter arose on the basis of a rumour that there were to be on the education committees no representatives from the religious bodies and the Roman Catholic Church was very concerned about it because the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of the 1918 Act transferred its schools to the local education committees. That is something which English Members do not appreciate. In Scotland we have no religious schools in the English sense. They all come under the local authorities. That, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will appreciate, has been of considerable benefit to the education of the Roman Catholic community—

Mr. Dempsey

Yes, I agree.

Mr. Ross

—because we do not have this argument about who pays for what. The ratepayers pay for their schools in the same way as they pay for the denominational schools and there is no problem.

There has not been controversy about this. I do not think I have heard anything about this matter whether from Shetland or Coatbridge or Provan or anywhere at all—until we got this Bill. In other words, everything was going on very well. When things are going on very well one need not change the law. The problem arose out of fears which proved unjustified. A victory was claimed and then in came everyone else saying, "We, too, must have the right to representation". I do not think the Government are to be congratulated on the way they have handled the matter, but they are to be congratulated on the way they had got themselves out of their difficulty. I will support the now necessary amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 72, line 22, at end insert: '(iii) one person, or, in the case of the education authority for an islands area, two persons, in the selection of whom the authority shall have regard (taking account of the representation of churches under sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above) to the comparative strength within their area of all the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regularly appointed places of worship there;'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Mr. Monro

I beg to move, Amendment No. 102, in page 72, line 32, after 'committee'. insert and of any subcommittee thereof;'.

Mr. Speaker

With this we can take also the Government amendments Nos. 103 to 106 and 150.

Mr. Monro

These are minor drafting amendments required to bring Clause 123 and Schedule 10 into line with Clause 159 and Schedule 20 and to improve Schedule 20. There is no change in the effect of the clause or of Schedule 10 and only a minor technical change in Schedule 20.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 103, in page 72, line 37, leave out 'and 9' and insert, ', 9 and 10'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Forward to