HC Deb 29 January 1979 vol 961 cc1030-6
Mr. Rossi

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the closure, for an indefinite period of time, of certain schools, of which schools in the London borough of Haringey are an example.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams)

I am sure that all Members of the House will share my concern and join me in deploring action which leads to the closure of the schools. It is particularly regrettable when schools are put out of action for any length of time, and I hope that the public service workers will reflect on the repercussions that such actions will inevitably have on the education of the children in these areas.

My most recent information about the effects of industrial action on education services is that Haringey, Sunderland and Newcastle upon Tyne face all-out strikes by public service workers. In Haringey all schools were closed last week. The authority has been able to arrange for examinations to be held in alternative buildings, and I understand that this week two special schools have reopened.

Mr. Rossi

I thank the Secretary of State for her concern, but is she aware that the closure is due to the action of the local education authority? Is she further aware of the jeopardy in which the education of some 37,000 school-children in Haringey has been placed by the local education authority's action, of the risk to those taking O-level and A-level examinations this summer, and of the hardship caused to working parents and single-parent families who cannot make other arrangements for their children? Will the right hon. Lady make it clear to the authority that head teachers have a right to open up their schools, and will she ensure that the local authority facilitates rather than obstructs that being done?

Mrs. Williams

I sympathise with some of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I think that it would be helpful if the House were given a little more information on this point. It was on 15 January that Haringey education authority received a letter written jointly by the secretaries of the education staff branches of the General and Municipal Workers' Union and of the National Union of Public Employees to say that their members at educational establishments would be going on strike from Monday 22 January for an unspecified period. The authority, having received this notice, then wrote letters to all parents last Friday week asking them to make arrangements to keep their children at home until further notice. That was done because the authority reached the conclusion that the schools would have to be closed in the light of a letter of advice sent to all its members by the National Association of Head Teachers, which said that teachers should not take over the duties undertaken by members of any other unions. That letter was sent out for Monday 22 January.

I strongly believe that wherever possible authorities should keep schools open, though, of course, it is legitimate to say that people should not undertake the work normally done by members of officially striking unions.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the last bit of advice that she offered to the country? Is she not now following the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in calling upon people to cross picket lines? Does she agree that in this exceedingly well run and efficiently administered London borough the authority was absolutely right to take into consideration the fact that caretaking staff were on strike, as were staffs who were producing meals and providing various other services that under no circumstances should be performed by the teaching staff? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole question of giving advice, on the basis that schools anywhere in the country can be opened only if, as my right hon. Friend is suggesting, teachers do the work of those who are now in dispute?

Mrs. Williams

My hon. Friend is not well informed about the attitudes of the NUPE, the GMWU and the Transport and General Workers' Union, which have all publicly made it clear that children and teachers are free to cross picket lines. Therefore, what I am say- ing is in line with the advice of the unions to their members. I am merely adding that it seems legitimate for these unions to say that people should not undertake the jobs normally carried out by their own members. They have said, and it seems absolutely right, that children and teachers can continue to attend school, and in my view they should do so.

Mr. Tebbit

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is a disgrace that the only children in the borough of Hornsey who are now receiving education are those of parents such as the parents of the right hon. Lady who were rich enough and willing to pay for private education? Does she not think that she has an obligation to get out there and lead those teachers through the picket lines, as the Prime Minister said ought to be done, and get those kids the education that they deserve, even if their parents are not as rich as hers?

Mrs. Williams

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am not clear who the parents are supposed to be whose children appear to be attending schools that are unaffected by the strike—

Mr. Tebbit

I am talking about you.

Mrs. Williams

I see. I should have known that the hon. Gentleman was going back 40 years. He will be glad to know that I attended an LCC primary school, which, I recall, was called Christchurch Road Primary, in the area of the Inner London Education Authority. I trust that in future he will get his information right and not rely on what appears in some organs of the popular press.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is mis-informed. There is no borough called Hornsey that is a local education authority. Further, I have already made it clear that the unions have rightly agreed that teachers and children shall be free to cross picket lines. In addition, I have said clearly that children should be encouraged to attend school as far as that is possible, and I am strongly in favour of authorities ensuring as far as possible that they do so, as long as that does not involve any danger to the children.

Mr. MacGregor

As a parent with a child at one of the Haringey schools, may I bring the Secretary of State back to the position of the local education authority? Does she recognise that the authority is telling teachers not to enter the schools at all and is not, therefore, heeding the advice of the National Union of Teachers? Is she aware that the nub of the problem, therefore, is what the local education authority is doing? Is she also aware that there are teachers in Haringey who would wish to enter the schools to keep them running if that embargo were removed? Will she now instruct the education authority to remove it?

Mrs. Williams

As I have pointed out, the problem in the case of Haringey is that the caretakers have traditionally locked and unlocked schools and that the National Association of Head Teachers has advised its members not to undertake any work normally undertaken by care-takers.

However, I note the real concern shown by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and I want to add to what I have already said. I believe that, for example, the stand taken by the Inner London Education Authority, which is that schools should be kept open as far as possible, and that, for example, failure to supply a school meals service is not a good reason for closing a school, is a stand I endorse and support.

Mr. Carlisle

Since the Secretary of State will agree that time lost in education can never be recovered and may affect the prospects of children throughout the rest of their lives, since she herself has condemned the action as the wholly unjustified use of a strike weapon which would cause the closing of schools, and particularly since there is a statutory duty on the local education authority, the parents and herself to see that children are properly educated, will she now advise local education authorities that where caretakers are not prepared to open schools the authorities should make arrangements for others to do so, so that there is as little disruption as possible in the education of our children?

Mrs. Williams

These matters are currently under discussion and I do not want to say any more about them at the moment. I understand that the courts have normally not upheld the duty on local authorities in instances of what they regard as force majeure. I do not think that they would take that view when the strike is official. I have already made it quite clear that schools should as far as possible be kept open. However, I reiterate that it is a question of making sure that the strike is limited only to those who are directly involved in official action.

Mr. Heffer

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not whether NUT members can cross picket lines or anything else, but the wages and conditions of school caretakers? Does she further agree that those people, who are exceedingly low paid, have a very good case? Will she for once come out on the side of those workers instead of appearing to be on the other side of the argument, like many of her right hon. and hon. Friends?

Mrs. Williams

I agree that the position of low-paid workers is disturbing and that many people find it difficult to make ends meet, but I must make it absolutely clear that I do not believe that a runaway return to free collective bargaining will do anything for low-paid workers.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I propose to call three more hon. Members who have been standing up.

Mr. Beith

Is the Secretary of State aware that many schools throughout the country are open because their caretakers are not prepared to jeopardise children's education by seeking redress of their grievances in this way, or because their teachers do not see why they should not unlock doors? Will she commend both these groups of people?

Mrs. Williams

I am very much aware that a number of school caretakers who do not belong to this union have opened schools. I should add to what was said by the hon. Gentleman that my information is that there are exaggerated accounts in most of the press about schools being closed. It is perhaps worth pointing out that in the North-East many schools have reopened today because of the removal of the barrier on supplies of fuel and food.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith

The right hon. Lady referred to advice sought from and given by the union. Did the authorities, before coming to this decision, take any legal advice on their statutory duties? If so, what was the effect of it? If not, why not?

Mrs. Williams

The legal advice is absolutely clear. Under section 8 of the Education Act 1944—authorities are aware of this provision, because we have been in touch with them—a local education authority has the duty to secure that there are sufficient schools available in its area for providing primary and secondary education. However, I wish to make it clear that up to now the courts have held in other cases that this excludes the public at large from enforcing that duty and that normally a breach of duty would not be found in the case of force majeure.

Mr. Mates

Does the Secretary of State recall that it was in answer to my question last Tuesday about intimidation at schools in Hampshire that the Prime Minister said that picket lines should be crossed where they exist? Do we understand that both the right hon. Lady and the Prime Minister are prepared to have our schoolchildren confronted by pickets at the gates of schools that have been closed because of intimidation?

Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is no use standing at the Dispatch Box and telling the National Union of Teachers and others to cross picket lines when they are not in control of what is happening on the ground, and when schools have been closed because of naked and blatant intimidation by pickets?

Mrs. Williams

On the first part of the question, there are no picket lines in Haringey. That is not the nature of the problem.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the House on 22 January. He made it clear that there is no question of children not being able to cross picket lines where they exist. That is not the problem in Haringey. We know of no picket lines there at all.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should be well aware that we have made it absolutely clear that both children and teachers are free to cross picket lines. That has been agreed with the union. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any case where children are being prevented from crossing by intimidation—a phrase that he used very loosely—and will give me the information, I shall ensure that it is pursued immediately.

Mr. Carlisle

I must press the Minister further on the statutory position. She said that there was a statutory duty on local education authorities to make sure that schools were available. In those circumstances, irrespective of whether individual parents may have the right to sue the local education authority, in view of the statutory duty imposed on local education authorities, I repeat the question: will the right hon. Lady now advise those authorities that where caretakers are not prepared to open schools the authorities should make other arrangements to see that they are opened, so that the children's education is not affected?

Mrs. Williams

I am not prepared to go beyond what I have already said, for the very good reason that it would be wholly counter-productive for me to do so.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is essential that we get the facts right in regard to Haringey. The Minister should understand that the schools are locked, in agreement with the local authority—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot continue the argument now. We are about to have another statement on the current situation. I have no doubt that what has arisen also applies to the next statement.