ASSISTED PLACES AT GRANT-AIDED AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (Hansard, 8 June 1981)

§ Mr. Millan
I beg to move amendment No. 61, in line 21, leave out clause 5.
This is the clause that deals with the assisted places scheme. I want to put two things on record at this moment, to use that hackneyed cliché phrase. First, we are utterly opposed to the assisted places scheme. I shall not repeat that the next Labour Government will abolish the scheme. All those who enter into the scheme should understand that it will have a limited duration.
Whereas we dealt with grant-aided schools generously in retrospect by giving them considerable notice that we intended to abandon the grant-aid to these schools over a period of five years, I do not think that a future Labour Government will be able to deal with the assisted places scheme in that same generous way. Therefore, the scheme has a limited life. It is opposed not only by us but by every facet of educational opinion in Scotland. It is contrary to Scottish educational tradition and it has no place in our Scottish educational system.
My second point is that if it had not been for a sensible change of mind by the Government on another matter we should still be discussing this at considerable length. I am glad to put it on record that the Government have decided to abandon the objectionable proposal announced by the Under-Secretary earlier in our proceedings that in another place the Government would introduce a provision that would have the effect of repealing section 88 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which gives protection from dismissal for teachers. There was an unsatisfactory debate about that, and at the end of the debate the Minister announced that the Government would introduce a provision in the other place.
For various reasons the Government have seen sense since then. They have said that they will not do that, which 221 saves me the necessity of making a speech about that and also enables me to do no more than to reiterate what I have already said on the assisted places scheme, without elaborating, as I should dearly love to do, the reasons why we find the scheme so objectionable.

§ Mr. R. McTaggart (Glasgow, Central)
I particularly welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) I am aware that the assisted places scheme has aroused strong opposition throughout Scotland.
The clause illustrates only too clearly the Government's double standards in education. Money spent for the majority of pupils in Scotland is being slashed while public money is being poured into the private sector. Professor Nigel Grant, of Glasgow university, wrote in The Scotsman of 5 October 1980: The present Administration seems to see education purely in terms of personal advantage, hence the appalling plan to cream off the brightest pupils into fee-paying schools (at public expense) and reduce the rest to the role of educational soup-kitchens. Professor Grant is very experienced in his field. The clause says that the scheme is being introduced For the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to do so to benefit from education at grant-aided and independent schools", but the lie has been exposed. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on 15 December last year, reported at column 70 of Hansard, the Minister told him that parents whose children currently attended fee-paying schools would be able to apply for an assisted place. That is a disgraceful abuse of the scheme and it makes nonsense of the Government's claim that it exists for parents who cannot afford to send their children to these schools.
All Conservative Members will probably have constituents who they will claim are making immense sacrifices for their children's education. If that is so, the Government's best course is to support regional authorities such as Lothian region, which, despite Government pressure, are still determined to try to provide services for children in need and to provide a good education for them. The people who are really making sacrifices for their children are those parents who send their children to a comprehensive school. As a direct result of Government policies they have to meet the rising cost of school uniforms, shoes, school meals, and so on.
The Bill is irrelevant to the real problems in Scottish education. One has only to visit any school to see the antagonism and hostility of the pupils towards the education system. Yet at a time when we need to make education more socially relevant, when we are on the threshold of the microchip era, and when schools need facilities to train our children and teach them the techniques of the future, the sinking morale of teachers and the withdrawal of cash from authorities has had an adverse effect. Many of the issues have been bypassed. Unfortunately, the Government are obsessed with the numbers game, which means that as school rolls fall there must be a corresponding reduction in resources.
The Government's policies mean that we deny school leavers—our future, in fact—the relevant skills to enable them to build a stronger, more reliable industrial base in Scotland. Given that education is our future, industrial and 222 otherwise, and that we depend so much on it, I do not think that with a Bill such as this we have a very good future. Indeed, our future is bleak.

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) seems to know that the Government are introducing microcomputers into every secondary school in the country, which is a most important venture.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) commented on section 88. Our decision is another example of the reasonable attitude that the Government have adopted at all stages of consideration of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman also commented on the assisted places scheme. That is just another example of Conservative help for low-income families, which is denied by the Labour Party. We persist in this, with the assisted places scheme and the sale of council houses, for the benefit of such families.

§ Mr. Canavan
The Minister is fond of telling us that the assisted places scheme is simply a transfer of money that is already going to the grant-aided schools over a five-year period, which means a transfer of about £3½ million over five years. Therefore, in the coming year there will be £700,000 for the scheme, and the grant-in-aid will gradually be phased out.
8.45 am
What happens if, one day, the Minister wants to spend even more public money on this useless, disgusting scheme? Will he have to ask the House for permission, or will he simply do it by ministerial edict? His reference to section 88 shows no sign at all of a reasonable attitude on his part. Otherwise my hon. Friends and I would not have had to stay here all night to wring this concession out of a rotten Government. This is a victory for the Labour Benches, ensuring that section 88 stays on the statute book unamended.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
It should be recorded that other hon. Members than those representing the Labour Party have been present all night and have contributed to this major victory. My only question is whether it will be the Minister or his PPS who resigns.