§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
11.27 pm§ Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)I should like the Minister to indicate tonight the Government's future policy towards the 16–18 years age group. The Scottish Education Department published its consultative paper dealing with the post-school education of this age group in Scotland last October. I believe that the Minister will now have received the various submissions that he asked should be made by the end of the year.
The Minister is uniquely placed in this matter because the areas of his responsibility in the Scottish Office cover not only education but industry and employment. This combination should lend itself to sensing the interaction that undoubtedly exists in these important fields. Unfortunately, the consultative paper declared that Government policy was primarily to reduce public expenditure, even though in this age group the message of the document was clear: that the number of young people in that group in Scotland will grow substantially over the next couple of years before falling back to its present level by 1986–87. In spite of that, the Minister, in presenting the document last autumn, indicated that there was no prospect of any additional resources to implement the suggestions in the document.
The Minister has travelled to the United States and, I believe, Japan, seeking investment opportunities for Scotland. He must recognise that our market potential and domestic stability are important factors, but I am sure that the economies of those two countries would also emphasise to him that a well-educated and skilled work force is equally 1602 essential, not least for indigenous industries. That was why the consultative document seems highly disappointing. It makes little or no reference to the role that education and training can play in economic development and, just as important, in meeting the social challenges that our country will be facing in the 1980s.
Since the general election there have been 40,000 redundancies in Scotland. This seems to me to emphasise the considerable need that is developing for the expansion of education and training facilities. The consultative paper reminds us that about 50 per cent. of the age group in question receive no post-school education. Undoubtedly, many young people who are in employment and receiving no full-time or part-time education rely on the workplace as their main education centre.
The figure of 14 per cent. unemployed young people is given in the report, but there are few suggestions as to how this alarming percentage can be reduced in the years ahead. The problem of the unqualified, unwanted and unskilled youngster must be a dominant cause for concern to the Government. The pool of jobs available for unskilled and unqualified youngsters has been drying up for some years. It is a problem that faces any modern Government, by the nature of the changes in technology.
Compared with the early 1950s, when the main unemployment problem was among adults, youth unemployment is now well above the average level of unemployment. Such schemes as the youth opportunities programme are helpful, but, in the nature of things, they are limited. The youth opportunities programme is designed only to meet the short-term problem facing a youngster. Many young people subsequently enter the employment market, after a brief spell with the programme. In the Strathclyde area matters seem to be reasonably on target, and by April we should fill the number of places available.
The Minister might indicate, in respect of the training workshops, that more use 1603 will be made of the various facilities that some of the industry training boards sponsor through various group training schemes, so that we maximise the availability of training potential.
Dealing wth those who are in employment, I hope that the consultative document will not lead to any dilution of the importance of the further education colleges as a sector of Scottish education. They have a distinctive part to play. All too often they have been overshadowed by the Scottish universities.
I am rather sceptical about the suggestions in the consultative document that young people over 16 should be creamed off from the secondary schools and obliged to go into further education colleges, which presumably would emerge as tertiary colleges. The further education colleges tend to be concentrated in the city and urban areas. I do not think that this would readily lend itself to any major reorganisation which appears to be envisaged in the consultative document.
Moreover, does this mean that the Minister envisages closing a lot of secondary schools in the years to come when, after the watershed year of 1982, the roll of the secondary school starts to fall, in order to create these tertiary colleges? What does the Minister expect from the Tertiary Education Council which was set up last year? I know that the council is looking at two areas. I trust that the Minister is asking it to act independently in tackling the various questions and that it is not expected only to come up with answers which the Government would like. I am glad that the council is looking at the potential of microelectronics. I hope that it will take to heart some of the points made in the recently published Finniston report "Engineering our Future". That report made a number of interesting points about funding polytechnics. We do not have polytechnics as such in Scotland.
Can the Minister say what the Government's policy is on central institutions, which are a unique feature of higher education within the United Kingdom? Will he consider making the Glasgow college of technology, which is in my constituency, a central institution, like Paisley college? Glasgow college makes a considerable contribution within West Central Scotland. From a funding point 1604 of view, it would lift some of the load from Strathclyde regional council if the college were to be brought into central funding. Does the Minister feel that, in the longer term, the local authorities can bear the cost of a developing further education sector?
For those still at school, I must express concern about some of the pronouncements that the Minister was making last week concerning the staffing situation. In the secondary schools it is only in the last three or four years that we have been able to overcome some of the chronic shortages of teaching staff which have plagued the West of Scotland since the war. Even now we still have shortages in our secondary schools, particularly in technical education—mathematics, business studies, physics, general science and even music. I hope that the Minister will not throw away some of the hard-won gains of the last few years.
More pertinently, the Minister is on record as saying that the local authorities should sack 2,000 primary schoolteachers. Is he prepared to challenge the points that the deputy general secretary of the EIS made last Friday in an article in the Glasgow Herald? The deputy general secretary insisted that the Scottish Education Department had not only frozen the minimum agreed staffing levels but wanted to push back those levels and the resources available.
From my experience and observation, it seems that all too often many of the remedial problems develop in the primary schools and subsequently overflow into the secondary schools. The colleges of further education are expected to repair the damage. If earlier action had been taken, such damage would not have occurred.
We have tried to encourage remedial work in our primary and secondary schools in recent years. Can the Minister assure me that his calculations make provision for the additional teaching assistance that we set out in circular 991 for areas of urban deprivation? Will he continue to support the extra teachers we obtained through urban aid?
The other week the Minister made a pronouncement on the future of the Scottish adult literacy unit, and yet we know that something like 9,000 adults were assisted by this unit in the three years 1605 from 1976 to 1979. I am sure he will agree that those figures represent only the tip of the iceberg. The problem of adult illiteracy has implications for those seeking jobs.
If the teaching force is reduced on the scale suggested by the Minister last week, it will have implications for the colleges of education, certainly at primary level. Bearing in mind the song and dance that was made when the Minister was an Opposition spokesman, I wonder whether he can now guarantee the continued existence of the present colleges of education, in which the Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him, has a particular interest.
Although he is not the Minister responsible for Scottish universities, I am quite certain that he keeps in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Has the Minister put any views to the Secretary of State at that Department about the future intake into Scottish universities? More particularly, has he discussed Strathclyde and Glasgow universities, where there is serious concern about the reduction in potential intake, bearing in mind that the age group that we are discussing is increasing and will continue to increase?
Since I would like the Minister to give me some answers on these points, I leave him with this message. I am well aware that the Government have been retreating from intervention over a wide area of economic and social activity. With his responsibilities, particularly in relation to employment, the Minister must recognise that the Government cannot afford to step back from a meaningful education and manpower policy. Some of the biggest changes that will face our society in the coming decade will arise among the white collar workers.
This has implications for the work being done in colleges of further education in Scotland and it also has major implications for the number of jobs that will be available, especially in the clerical, secretarial and administrative areas. It is essential that the Miniser has a decisive policy and that he is prepared to tackle some of the problems that are now emerging in the colleges of further education among the 16–18 age group.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate. He said at the start that this was a priority age group. I wholeheartedly agree with him. That is also very much the view of the Government in trying to make plans for the future provision of education in Scotland.
There is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a bulge now appearing—as the school population declines in the primary and secondary sections—in the 16–18 age group. That is why we felt that one of the first things we should do as a Government was to issue the consultative paper. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in our public expenditure considerations we are taking every possible step to ensure that public expenditure is not cut as far as the provision of facilities for young people in this age group is concerned. The problem of unqualified school leavers must be tackled constructively. The Government are anxious to do that and to be seen to be doing it in order to give encouragement to young people in that age group and to those involved with them.
Some of the questions raised by the hon. Member are matters which the Tertiary Education Council is considering on behalf of the Secretary of State. It is considering such matters as the rationalisation of resources and facilities and the co-ordination of education facilities in Scotland for the 16 to 18-year-old age group. The council is also involved in considering how best to bring together the resources of the central institutions, the further education colleges and the secondary schools. The declining school population gives us the opportunity to make better co-ordinated provision for young people.
The hon. Member mentioned my comments last week about overstaffing, in primary schools in particular. I was anxious to make the position public because overstaffing in one area of education prevents resources being used for other high priorities. Under the Labour Government, and under this Government, the pupil-teacher ratios have reached satisfactory levels. Mismanagement is involved if staff levels are exceeded to the extent which I outlined in my statement.
1607 Such overstaffing takes away resources from other critical areas of education, including microelectronics. There is provision for £300,000 to be made available to secondary schools for equipment and general facilities so that they can provide better training in that important new sphere. The provision will be stepped up as and where necessary, but resources are not unlimited. Overstaffing costs about £15 million. That is bad management and that is why I drew it to the attention of Scottish education authorities.
The paper makes it clear that within the post-compulsory education sector it is concerned mainly with those young people who do not intend to go on to higher education rather than with those who do. The scope of the paper is therefore fairly well defined. Even so, it provides plenty of material for discussion. It is not just a bland survey of the existing system with some nebulous conclusions at the end. It asks some sharp questions. It raises some controversial issues.
The Scottish consultative paper and the responses to it will make a useful contribution to the review of 16 to 18-year-olds. In order to make sure that full account is taken of the Scottish contribution in the Government's general review on 16–18 age group education and training, we set a deadline of 31 December 1979 for comments on "The First Two Years of Post-Compulsory Education in Scotland", although the consultative paper was not issued until 29 October last year. Some bodies, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Educational Institute of Scotland, were unable to finalise their comments by the end of 1979 and we have told them that they can have a bit longer. I hope that the last of the comments on the consultative paper will be with the Department by the end of this month or early in February.
The consultative paper has aroused a good deal of interest, as the hon. Member has acknowledged, and the comments received on it so far have been many and varied. The document includes some controversial suggestions, and the advice that we are getting on some aspects is conflicting. The document itself refrained from reaching conclusions. Rather, it concluded by posing a number of questions, which is right.
1608 The hon. Member will not expect me to state any firm conclusions of my own tonight. It will take some time to analyse the responses to the paper to try to reach a balanced view on which particular options, or combination of options, offer the best prospects of advance. However, there are one or two general points I want to emphasise.
First, we need to break away from some of the rigidities of structure to which we have grown accustomed but which effectively inhibit possible improvements in the range or quality of educational opportunities we can offer our young people. I believe that the hon. Member has some experience of educational establishments in Scotland and he will know what I mean. Second, we must prove perfectly capable of achieving improvements within available resources. The opportunity to do so is provided by the almost spectacular decline now occurring in the number of secondary school pupils. Third, there is surely scope for useful redeployment of resources in this area.
The consultative paper is directed particularly at the large proportion of young people who do not go on to higher education. Some of them leave school and continue their education on a full-time basis in further education colleges. Some of them find jobs in which they receive industrial training, sometimes combined with part-time further education.
But too many drop out of the educational system altogether, and never find their way back. We estimate that at any given point in time over 40 per cent. of the 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland are receiving no form of daytime education or training. This is not something that gives us any cause for satisfaction. Moreover, in present circumstances it is more important than ever to ensure that those who are receiving education, whether at school or elsewhere, are receiving an adequate preparation for working life.
The consultative paper makes it clear that too many young people are leaving school at the minimum leaving age, completely severing their connections with systematic education. It asks what can be done to induce more 16 to 18-year-olds to participate in post-compulsory education and training. But it states that the Government's primary objective is to reduce the burden of public expenditure and adds that no additional resources will 1609 be available to support expansionist policies in education. It think that this can be achieved because of the decline in the school population to which I have referred.
Increased participation does not necessarily mean building more further education colleges and recruiting hundreds of additional teaching staff. If the total staff and facilities at present available to schools and further education colleges were regarded as resources which could be pooled and redeployed to the best advantage, more young people could be given part-time or full-time educational opportunities without financial additional provision.
The consultative paper recognises that the present system is not adequately meeting the education and training needs of 16–18-year-olds and that the system cannot be allowed just to go on as it is at present. The paper challenges some of the existing arrangements and structures and the assumptions underlying them and suggests particular aspects—such as the different teaching qualifications for secondary school teachers and further education teachers—which, if changed, would enable existing facilities and teaching manpower to be used more flexibly. That is what the problem demands and that is why we are asking these questions in the consultative document.
§ Mr. CraigenWhat calculations have been worked out regarding the possible interchange of qualifications? It is a ticklish problem for the Government to take on.
§ Mr. FletcherThe hon. Gentleman asks what assumptions have been made. We have put the question to the educational establishment in Scotland—people who are essentially involved in this work. We are asking them to be flexible and to give us suggestions. We are not laying down the law. We are asking them for suggestions as to how some useful flexibility can be built into the system in the interests of the young people about whom the hon. 1610 Gentleman and I and many other people in Scotland are deeply concerned.
The decline in the secondary school population—from about 400,000 pupils at present to fewer than 300,000 in the next decade—will not simply enable education authorities to reorganise the provision they make for post-compulsory education but will compel them to do so. Reorganisation will be necessary not only to conserve resources but, more fundamentally for educational reasons, to ensure that pupils receive their education in an environment which is intellectually stimulating.
There comes a point when the established pattern of provision in a particular school is no longer acceptable. I was told of a visit which one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools paid to a school quite recently and discovered that its fifth form comprised 11 pupils—10 girls and one boy. This was a school not in a remote and sparsely populated area but in a built-up area of Strathclyde. This merely illustrates the point that, in face of declining school rolls, some rationalisation would be inevitable even if resources were plentiful. Our present economic difficulties merely reinforce the need to redeploy the staff and facilities that we already have.
We recognise that fundamental changes cannot be made overnight and that we cannot establish an instant network of tertiary or sixth form colleges. But education cannot stand still. At the present time, it is perhaps more important than ever that we take stock of our position and try to chart the way ahead. That is the whole objective of the consultative document.
§ 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 three minutes to Twelve o'clock