HC Deb 12 February 1976 vol 905 cc787-98

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind (Edinburgh, Pentlands)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the motion for the Adjournment the subject of Government policy towards grant-aided schools in Scotland. No one will doubt that this is a matter of the gravest concern, not merely to the parents, pupils and teachers in the schools, themselves, but to all those interested in the quality of education throughout Scotland.

For some years the Labour Party has had the reputation, in education matters, of being more concerned with ideology than with the actual practical effects of its policy on parents, teachers and children. Sadly, this is nowhere more apparent than in regard to grant-aided schools in Scotland and independent schools in England and Wales.

I do not wish tonight to concentrate on the general merits of the Government's policy. We have gone over these matters previously, and I doubt whether the Minister will be swayed on the matter this evening. That is not because I do not believe that he is flexible; I am happy to concede in the presence of those hon. Members who are present tonight that the Minister is the epitome of sweet reasonableness. However, I suspect that on this matter he has received his directions from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there should be no quarter, no compromise and no questioning of the fundamental principles of the Government's policy.

I would rather concentrate on certain of the detailed consequences of the Government's policy and how the policy has evolved over the past few months. We have, first, the question of exactly what the Government's policy is or can be considered to be at present. When it was first announced that the Government intended to withdraw the grant from the grant-aided schools, it was stated without qualification that when the grant-aided schools ceased to be grant-aided the Government would not demand that they should opt for a particular status. The schools could opt for independent status or could become local authority schools in the area in which they were situated. It was stressed by Ministers and others that the schools could opt to become local authority schools or go independent if they so wished.

I remind the Minister that his predecessor in office, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), said that "They"—that is, the grant-aided schools— will certainly have the right to choose which is the best course for them."—[Official Report, 23rd January 1975 ;Vol. 884, c. 1899.] The choice would be between independence and local authority status.

Equally, the Secretary of State for Scotland said: My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools".—[Official Report, 11th March 1975 ;Vol. 887, c. 278.] Indeed, some days later, in a letter dated 14th March 1975, from the Scottish Education Department to the Merchant Company in Edinburgh, it was stated that: It is the Government's hope that the schools will be prepared to adopt the role of comprehensive schools integrated with the public system of education". In other words, it was made clear that it the schools wished to opt for local authority status, not only were the Government willing but they were enthusiastic that the schools should so opt.

We have seen how, in the event, the vast majority of the schools—rightly, in my view—have chosen to opt for independent status rather than to be swallowed up in the Government-sponsored State system which they feel does not meet their requirements. But we have one school in Edinburgh—Mary Erskine School—which has requested to be integrated into the local authority system in the city of Edinburgh and the Lothian Region. Not only did the school wish to be integrated with the local authority; the local authority was anxious that it should be integrated, and made strong representations to the Government that this should be permitted.

Despite the wishes of the school and of the local authority, and despite the clear commitment by the Government to allow schools to opt for integration into the local authority, on two occasions the Government vetoed any proposals that would enable the school to do so. When Opposition Members have criticised the Government about this they have been accused of playing party politics and putting forward a Conservative dogma, and of attacking a Government who were trying to meet the real requirements and education needs of the city of Edinburgh and the Lothian Region.

These are serious charges. Normally, it might be difficult for the Government or the Opposition to prove or disprove the basis of them, but it is not difficult in the present case. The request for this school to be allowed to integrate into the local authority did not come merely from Conservative councillors in the Edinburgh local authority; it came from an education committee controlled by the Labour Party, its chairman being a member of the Labour Party. The proposal that the school should be allowed to integrate had the unanimous support of all political parties in the Lothian Region. It was the view not only of all political parties but of all those involved in determining the education needs of the people of Edinburgh that it was in the interests both of the private sector and of the local authority sector that this integration should be allowed to take place.

If there is any doubt about this, I refer the Minister to some remarks by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who asked, on 21st January: Does my hon. Friend accept that the result of the decision will be no endowment of the fees of the remaining Merchant Company schools, and that there is a serious fear among the Labour movement in Edinburgh that more than 1,000 pupils will drop out of these schools and come into the State system next autumn?"—[Official Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 898, c. 1335.] If there is alarmist talk, it is not merely from the Opposition Benches; it comes from Government supporters as well.

Perhaps the most eloquent remark about the Government's decision to veto this integration of Mary Erskine School came from the Chairman of the Lothian Region Education Committee, who is a member of the Labour Party and a Labour councillor—Councillor George Foulkes. He described the veto by the Secretary of State as "pathetic, callous and impudent." That is strong language. I can assure the Minister of the true Socialist credentials of the gentleman who used those words, because he was my Labour opponent at the last General Election. Although I do not always agree with Councillor Foulkes' views on many political matters, the Minister must concede that there is all-party agreement that the Secretary of State was pathetic, callous, and impudent to all those concerned with education in the capital city of Scotland.

I ask the Minister to answer one simple question: are the Government still of the view that those grant-aided schools which want to integrate into the local authority system should be allowed to do so? If so, how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that view with the veto by the Secretary of State? If that is no longer the policy, when did the change take place, and why?

The second matter to which I refer relates to the effects on parents with modest means of these schools going independent. The Minister will accept that if these schools go independent fees will have to rise once the grant has been withdrawn, and many parents with modest means will find great difficulty in paying the fees.

It is interesting to contrast the Government's attitude in Scotland with their attitude towards the same type of school in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said, on 27th October, that if the fees rise because the schools go independent, parents who cannot afford them under the existing arrangements will get the benefit of the remission of fees scheme".—[Official Report, 27th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 1191–2] That scheme does not apply in Scotland, but in England it will ensure that parents of modest means are helped. This is a fundamental matter of principle. If the Government accept the principle for England and Wales, why do they not accept it for Scotland?

The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, said, on 23rd January 1975: Nor are we treating grant-aided schools in Scotland any more harshly than they are being treated in England and Wales."—[Official Report, 23rd January 1975; Vol. 884, c. 1900.] If that is true, the Government must make a concession so that parents of modest means receive some help towards payment of increased fees.

On 11th March last year the Secretary of State for Scotland, asked whether help would be given, pointed out that the fees remission scheme did not exist in Scotland, and went on: Whether anything can be done on these lines as the grant is tapered off will be subject to discussion."—[Official Report, 11th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 280.] Has there been any discussion of these matters? If not, when will it begin? What form will it take? Will the Minister accept that, since the principle of helping these parents south of the border has been conceded, similar steps should be taken by the Government to help parents of similar means in Scotland when, as is inevitable, the fees rise because of the Government's own policy of withdrawing the grant?

My third question is short and simple. When is it intended to bring forward the draft Regulations under which the grant will be gradually withdrawn over the next few years? Will copies be made available in advance to the grant-aided schools? They should be able to consider them so that their views can be taken into account when the House prays against them, as it certainly will, so that they can be fully discussed.

My final point relates to the disappointing reply that I received to my Written Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he will meet parents and teachers at grant-aided and local authority schools in Scotland to discuss with them the effect of the Government's policy towards grant-aided schools". The reply, in the name of the Minister who is before me tonight, was a simple, blunt, No, Sir."—[Official Report, 11th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 208.] The Question did not ask him to concede any political point or to meet one group rather than another, but simply to hear the views of those in both sectors on the Government's policy.

Yesterday, the Minister took grave exception to the accusation of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that the Government's policy was motivated by spite, ideology and lack of interest. If his anger at that charge was justified, I am sure he will agree that his concern could best be demonstrated by reconsidering that blunt, thoughtless and insensitive decision to refuse even to meet these people and discuss the effects of the Government's policy.

Whatever our differing views on priorities, we are all agreed that it is important to safeguard the educational interests of all children in the community and to realise that, in the unusual situation in Edinburgh—where there is a slightly unexpected identity of views between the Labour majority on the council and the Conservative Opposition, and between the local authority schools and the grant-aided schools ; where all four parties are in agreement on the main issues—there is an unusual and onerous burden on the Government to adopt a more flexible and reasonable position.

I hope that the Minister will not only answer my detailed questions but will discuss with his right hon. Friend the views that have been expressed, in order to see whether a more reasonable and honourable approach can be adopted to a matter of the gravest concern to many thousands of parents, pupils and teachers throughout Scotland.

11.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone)

The hon. Gentleman's views on grant-aided schools, and on Mary Erskine School in particular, are becoming well known in the House. For the past four months he has repeatedly raised the issue at Question Time. I am not in the habit of giving advice to Conservatives, but I tell the hon. Gentleman that if he keeps pursuing the same issue about one school week after week and month after month the constituents of Edinburgh, Pentlands will be seriously asking themselves whether he is the hon. Member for Pentlands or for Mary Erskine. The only inference I can draw is that the hon. Gentleman must be very happy with the Labour Government's policy in Scotland when he has only the issue of Mary Erskine School to raise month after month.

The hon. Gentleman repeated the accusations we have heard so often in the past few weeks that our decision not to allow extra capital investment to the Lothian Region to acquire the Mary Erskine School proves that we have given up, or never seriously intended to implement, our idea of the grant-aided schools integrating with the public system of education. That is far from being the case. As we see it, integration means the integration of pupils, not of bricks and mortar. By offering one of its three school buildings, the Merchant Company would acquire capital—about £2.75 million—which would enable it to limit the rise in the fees of the other two schools and thus enable more pupils to remain in selective schools than might otherwise be the case under the Government's policy, however reprehensible that policy might seem to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Rifkind

Will the Minister concede that in the examples of Government statements that I gave—and there are many other examples—the Government pledged that if schools wished to opt for independent status or local authority status it would be a matter for the schools themselves, where the school and the local authority wanted it? Why have the Government now changed their policy?

Mr. McElhone

It is not a question of changing our policy. No one is against the schools going independent. There is a freedom of choice in education. If they want to go independent, so be it, but the real difficulty for 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of pupils in Scotland is that there is no choice. The people in favour of grant-aided schools and those who run them are entitled to pursue their aim. I do not doubt their sincerity, although I disagree with them, but they are not entitled to describe what they are trying to do as integration. The whole exercise at Mary Erskine School is to enable the two other schools under the control of the Merchant Company to keep their fees at a reasonable level to sustain this type of education in Edinburgh.

The Government's decision not to grant extra capital investment to Lothian Region to acquire the Mary Erskine School was not based on any theory of integration. I should like to put on record why I reject the accusations made tonight by the hon. Member and by the Chairman of the Lothian Region against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose long service in this House has reflected a tremendous interest in education, for the greater good of all the pupils in Scotland.

The Government's decision reflected the fact that the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the prospective need for school places in Edinburgh resulting from the policy on grant-aided schools was so great as to justify the purchase of this very expensive school. It would cost £2.75 million, plus £600,000 for conversion.

I wish to deal with the question of the fall-out of pupils. On this, the hon. Member for Pentlands referred to comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend referred to the fact that 1,000 pupils would fall out of the grant-aided system this year. I replied to my hon. Friend on that point. The delegation from the Lothian Region came to see me and pointed out that there would be 1,000 young people on the streets if we did not allow them to acquire the Mary Erskine School. That figure is not correct. The Lothian Region intends to phase out the primary sector of the school, and that brings the number down to 600 pupils. I took the trouble to check what is called the "scatter graph" in the Lothian Region Department of Education. It showed that these pupils did not come just from West Edinburgh, where I am told the problem lies; they came from the catchment areas of 13 schools within Edinburgh. In fact, 91 of the pupils actually came from outside Edinburgh. My investigations, along with those of the inspectors of schools, show that the pressure will be on only three schools if the Mary Erskine School closes. I do not believe that it will close. Instead of 1,000 pupils being under stress, the approximate figure, as we have it from the Lothian Region, is 225.

We come to the figures for the fall-out of pupils in the period from January 1974 to September 1975. These are 406 for the primary pupils and 201 for the secondary. That is a fair number, but it is not a landslide. The education authority says that it is able to cope so far but that if the number accelerates there will be difficulties, in the sense that some schools will be overcrowded and some children will not be able to go to the schools nearest their homes. I recognise these difficulties, but they have existed in many parts of Scotland. At present, when resources are scarce, there is no quick solution to the problems.

If capital investment in education could be increased by £3 million it is far from clear that Edinburgh would have first claim on the extra resources. We have to get our priorities right. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has closed the door. We have said that we are not yet satisfied that in a period of financial constraint we should spend £3 million. But if the pressure in West Edinburgh should build up to create what we regard as a serious problem, of course we would be prepared to consider the matter again. That is only reasonable.

Hon. Members opposite have asked about the Regulations relating to grant. These are in preparation and they will be made as soon as possible—probably within the next few weeks—since I know that some of the schools at least will shortly he actively engaged in preparing their estimates for the coming financial year and they are naturally anxious to see the terms of the Regulations. However, I do not think there will be any surprises in them. The existing Regulations date from 1959 and they have been amended three times, so we are going to proceed this time not with a further amendment but by making entirely fresh Regulations, revoking all the previous ones. The opportunity will be taken to tidy them up in various ways.

The only really new matter will be that which the schools already know about—the phasing out of the grant over six years, beginning in the next schools' financial year. The effect will be that the grant for the next financial year will be six-sevenths of the grant for the present financial year, five-sevenths in the year after that, and so on, so that it is extinguished entirely at the end of six years.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands asked whether we intend to consult the schools about the Regulations before they are made. I do not think that will be necessary. There was extensive consultation with all the schools at meetings last year, after the Government's policy had been announced.

Hon. Members opposite have alleged that by phasing out the grant, the Government are threatening to destroy schools that have a high reputation and to achieve equality by levelling down. Nothing could be further from the truth

Mr. Rifkind

Before the hon. Gentleman deals with that important point, will he say whether the Government will make provision, as in England and Wales, to help parents of modest means when their children's schools go independent? Does he stick to the Secretary of State's commitment to discuss this problem to see whether anything can be done to help?

Mr. McElhone

I hope to be able to refer to that matter later. It is not our intention to have a levelling down. Some of the grant-aided secondary schools are good schools, but there are good schools too in the public sector.

Fees remission does not extend to Scotland, but in certain grant-aided schools, including Morrison College, at Crieff, local authorities subsidise pupils. I understand that that does not happen in Edinburgh, but I think there would be no objection to this happening for a certain period of time. It is not our intention that it should be for a long period. We want to phase in those schools wishing to go comprehensive, and those that want to remain selective must pay for it.

Mr. Rifkind

Will the Minister confirm that he is saying that for an interim period the Government might not be averse to a local authority so assisting parents of modest means whose children's schools opt to go independent?

Mr. McElhone

I say that with some caution. I am open to correction. I was not aware that the hon. Member would be raising this point. It could be considered for a short period. Local authorities might be able to help these parents, but only for a temporary, transitional period. It is a matter I would like to discuss with local authorities. Our commitment is only to discuss, not to agree.

We are flexible. The hon. Member for Pentlands has paid tribute to my own flexibility in the short time that I have held this office. I thank him for initiating this debate. It has given me the opportunity of clearing up a few points which have not got across in the House or in the Press.

Though he disagrees with us, I can tell the hon. Member that we wish to build a strong system of comprehensive education. We do not object to children being educated in the selective sector, as long as the independent schools are prepared to pay for it—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock 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 Twelve midnight.