HC Deb 17 March 1981 vol 1 cc245-68 6.44 pm
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

As this is the first time that I have spoken since your elevation to the Chair, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on being there? Having spent a long night on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill with you in the Chair, I am sure that you will carry out your new task with considerable distinction.

I am not sure whether I welcome the fact that, with so many important matters before it, the House tonight has nothing on which to vote or on which to make decisions, but I welcome the opportunity to raise an important issue in Scotland concerning colleges of education. There may be no obvious connection between the debate on the Third world and this debate, which some of our English colleagues may consider parochial, but there is a connection between the educational assistance that we can give the Third world and our education system throughout the United Kingdom. The more that we run it down, the less able we shall be to provide the services for education, health and so that the Third world desperately needs.

The debate must be placed within the general context of education in Scotland and the Government's expenditure cuts across the board. We are facing a cut of £65 million in an education budget that has already been severely cut. Either 6,000 teachers will be threatened with redundancy, or 6,000 who may like to have taken up teaching posts will no longer be able to do so. Our universities will not be able to provide certain courses. Staff will be declared redundant. We are at risk of losing one university altogether—Stirling. It is linked to one of the colleges that the Government are proposing to close—Callendar Park college of education. The closure will have a disastrous effect on the economy and education programme in the Central region of Scotland.

In August last year, the Government proposed that Hamilton and Callendar Park colleges of education should be closed. They also proposed that Craiglockhart should be merged with another college. I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State is to reply. The college is situated in his constituency of Edinburgh, Pentlands. When the proposal was made, the college with which it was to be merged was not identified. Craiglockhart trains Roman Catholic teachers. The Government undertook that it should continue to do so.

Opposition to the proposals has continued since that time. It is on three major grounds—the way in which the process was undertaken and has since been handled, the educational deprivation that will result and the fact that the Government wrongly claim that financial savings will result.

In 1976, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) was Secretary of State, the Labour Government suggested in a consultative document—and I emphasise the word "consultative"—that two colleges should be closed and a further two merged. Opposition came from Labour and Conservative Members. They asked for a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee and spoke in an Adjournment debate on the subject. They organised meetings outside the House. At that time I happened to be chairman of the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland. and the association was one of the leaders in mounting the campaign. I attended the Scottish conference of the Conservative Party where a fringe meeting was organised. I chaired a meeting at the conference and flanking me on the platform were the present hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who then represented my constituency, and the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotlan—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher}—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

The hon. Gentleman should refresh his memory. I assure him that I have never had the pleasure of being present at a meeting chaired by him.

Mr. Maxton

If the hon. Gentleman was not present, I shall withdraw his name, but certainly the other hon. Members were present, as were the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—and one of the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). They were all there on the platform speaking with me against the proposals put forward in a consultative document.

On another occasion I stood on the picket line outside New St. Andrew's House to lobby my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton about these proposals. Standing on that picket line beside me was the present Secretary of State for Scotland. Time after time we had speeches from Tory Members and we heard all about their objections. Nothing has changed. I could make my whole speech using quotations from speeches made at that time by the right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have referred. I shall use only one quotation: I am not arguing that for the time being we have to cut down the number of teachers—I know we have. Cut down the number of the new teachers in training. We accept for the time being that has to be done, but the argument is about how do you go about it. The scheme that looks best on paper because it is tidy and neat is not always the best one in practice. It takes a long time to build up the reputation of a college—it can be destroyed easily. Again, where those colleges are doing a very good job, let us keep them in being. I think sometimes it is better not to merge or destroy colleges, but to say 'All right, we will keep them all going, because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train in them and still live at home.' So it makes better human sense the way we are going about it than I believe the Government scheme does. That is not very clearly expressed, it is a little woolly, but the person expressing those sentiments is the present Prime Minister when speaking against the previous Government's proposals for colleges of education in a party political broadcast in Scotland on behalf of the Conservative Party on 4 May 1977. What she said then was absolutely right. If we close down educational establishments that are doing a good job we cannot expect them to take off again later. If she was right then, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland and all the other Conservative Members who spoke so vociferously with me in support of the 10-college system in Scotland were right then, what has changed so dramatically? I cannot see that anything has changed dramatically.

We still have declining primary school rolls. That was known in 1977 when Conservative Members welcomed the decision made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland not to close the colleges. They said then that my right hon. Friend was right. It was agreed that school rolls were falling and forecasts could be made through to the end of the decade in terms of secondary schools. That sort of judgment could be made in 1977.

If there has been a change in the demographic arguments, it is to the reverse effect. In 1977, although the Government were predicting that there would be a rise in the birth rate in Scotland, that had not started to happen. By 1980–81 it had started to happen. In Scotland there is an increasing child population at the infant stage. So the demographic argument which my right hon. Friend accepted when he was in office and when he kept the colleges open has, if anything, more weight now.

The need which my right hon. Friend identified and accepted for 10 colleges, was accepted by the then Opposition. The arguments have not changed since then, so why are the Government making these proposals? I know of no convincing argument why they should. Those 10 colleges are desperately needed in the educational system. Everyone will accept that if there are fewer children in the schools, fewer teachers are needed, but it is not necessarily true that a strict ratio reduction in the number of teachers is required. We should take this opportunity to improve the quality of education by reducing the pupil-teacher ratios in our schools. That is a perfectly reasonable aim. The Government may say that they do not want to spend any more money, but by spending the same amount of money they could get vast improvements. We should use this opportunity not to train more teachers than we require but to train a few more so that we can improve the quality of education across the whole country, particularly in areas of urban deprivation where the educational needs are so great.

If we have reducing school rolls we cannot cut the number of teachers in a strict ratio. For example, if there are 20 children who wish to take 0-level maths in one class and, over three or four years, that number falls to 15, it does not follow that one maths teacher can be dismissed. That makes no sense. It takes more teachers than the Government are prepared to concede to take care of the reduction in school rolls. We need 10 colleges just to make sure that we have enough teachers to improve and maintain the education service during a period of falling school rolls.

The Government are saying that the function of colleges of education is to provide a pre-training service for teachers. But colleges of education are concerned with other matters as well. They are concerned with providing in-service courses for existing teachers. Most people would accept that at a time of rapidly changing technology and a changing society generally the need for teachers to maintain their levels of knowledge, to change their areas of knowledge, to be able to adapt to a changing society is imperative if we are to maintain an education service. That requires colleges of education to provide the in-service training that is necessary. This is only possible on an area and regional basis with the existing colleges. It cannot be done as easily and it certainly cannot be done as cheaply if we start to close down certain colleges. So we need the colleges of education to maintain in-service training just to keep the teachers aware of what is going on.

In Scotland we have had some five or six major educational reports over the past five or six years. We have had the Munn and Dunning report, dealing with the curricula in secondary schools in the third and fourth years and the examination system in Scotland, and proposing radical changes in the way in which assessments of our schoolchildren should be made. We have had the Pack report, which dealt with the question of truancy and indiscipline in Scottish schools and suggested various means by which the system could be improved. We have had the Warnock report, which covered the whole of the United Kingdom but which had to be taken into account in Scotland, dealing with the needs of children who have educational problems or who are educationally subnormal. Every one of those reports, and others, has suggested that there is a need for in-service training of teachers at present in service if the reports are to be properly implemented. In other words, they say that teachers need training in order to implement those reports.

But what are the Government proposing to do? In two major population areas of Scotland, in terms of Callendar Park in the Central region, and Hamilton college in Lanarkshire, they are proposing to close down the two colleges that could provide that sort of in-service training. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) present. I hope that he will make a speech on the effects of this on his constituency and on the general area of Lanarkshire. I should like to make a few remarks as well.

The fact is that over the past 15 years Callendar Park—to take the Central region first—has built up a reputation for providing primary school teachers and doing in-service work in that area. It is worth pointing out that the Central region, unlike other parts of Scotland, is not one of declining population; the population is increasing because of the petrochemical complexes in that area. If Callendar Park closes, teachers who wish to do in-service work and students who wish to go to a college of education to train as teachers will have to travel very considerable distances. That is, of course, if they are doing direct in-service work in the colleges. They will have to travel either to Glasgow or to Edinburgh to do that. There will be problems in terms of both expense, either to themselves or to the local authority, and of time. Teachers might go to Callendar Park, four or five miles down the road, if they can go at 4 o'clock or half-past 4 and, since it only takes five or 10 minutes, be home by 6 o'clock. But if they have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to do it they are less likely to go. The result will be that the general level of in-service training will drop.

My second point concerns the development of what is called school-based in-service training—which was part of my right hon. Friend's proposals. In other words, lecturers go out to the schools and help teachers to develop their courses. If Hamilton college and Callendar Park are closed, those lecturers will have to travel greater distances and the result will be either greater cost or a considerably poorer service than those two areas, Lanarkshire and the Central region, have grown to expect over the past few years.

There is, therefore, an expense factor in this, and there will be enormous educational deprivation in areas which already lack the educational services which other parts of the country have. This is particularly true in the Lanarkshire area, which was for a long time one of the most educationally deprived areas in Scotland. Yet now it is to lose the college that has helped to bring that educational service up to an acceptable level. It has provided more teachers, not just in the primary school area, but in terms of mathematics and physics. It will lose that, and the result could be a decline in educational standards in an area of very high population.

I think that I have probably said enough. I see that there are some of my hon. Friends present who will also wish to say something. What I would like to say is that the Government have mishandled this matter from the very beginning. They did not issue a consultative document and they never have, despite promises to do so. They said there would be consultation on the question of the means and the timing, yet the Minister in charge of education in Scotland told us, though not very clearly, in the Scottish Grand Committee that the colleges were to close at the end of June. There was no consultation at all about timing. More clearly, he told students from Hamilton college of education at an informal meeting that the college would be closing in June and that they should forget about all their protests because he was going to close it anyway. So where was the consultation about the closure? The Government mishandled this. They said that they would give us costings. They did so, after four months of pressure. The costings were examined by the Scottish Select Committee. I do not wish to give any facts before the report of the Select Committee, but I think that the evidence produced was inadequate—in fact, the Government did not produce any evidence for Callendar Park; that had to come later. They made various errors in their costings, which Hamilton college has proved to be wrong. Some statistics were so incorrect that it is surprising they were given in the first place. The Government have been defeated on every educational and social argument about these closures.

I therefore hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister who will reply tonight, even though he is not the Minister in charge of education in Scotland, will tell the House and the people of Scotland—who feel very strongly about this issue—that at long last the Government have changed their minds and will not proceed with the closure of these two colleges.

7.9 pm

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

This debate is a bonus, I suppose, inasmuch as that at last we are having a debate on the Floor of the House on the Government's intention to close two colleges of education in Scotland and to merge another with some unknown institution. I should like to say at once that this is not a substitute for the sort of debate that the Government should have accorded to this important subject.

This is not the first debate on the subject that has taken place in the House, although it is the first in this Chamber, because in December of last year this matter was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee on a motion tabled by the Opposition, and not by the Government, to debate in Opposition time a matter that is crucial to large numbers of people throughout Scotland.

The culmination of the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee was not a triumph for the Government, with their paper majority in the House covering the discrepancy in numbers in Scottish constituencies. We saw on that occasion the humiliation of the Government, with every Government Back Bencher and Front Bencher failing to vote for the Government's tawdry policy. it was a mute, silent group that was defeated by 40 votes to nil in the Scottish Grand Committee, it having debated an issue crucial to the Scottish people.

We should debate the colleges of education, not on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), but in Government time, on a Government motion. The rules of the House provide that at the end of this debate we shall not be able to have a vote. We need to know how many supporters the Government have on this issue. It would be easy to quote speech after speech by Conservative Members in 1977 against almost precisely the same proposals that are now being made by the Government. That would prove nothing other than the double standards practised by Conservative supporters. The Government were humiliatingly defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee and they were obliged morally, if not by the rules of order, to introduce a motion to be debated on the Floor of the House to enable us to flush out the Government's supporters.

The Government have precious few supporters in Scotland. Until this evening only the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) had come out pubicly in support of the Government's policies. the Conservative parties in East Kilbride and Hamilton have expressed their disagreement with the Government's policy towards the Hamilton college of education. Conservative councillors in the districts surrounding the college and Conservative councillors in the Strathclyde regional council have all expressed their disagreement with the Government on this issue.

I am led to believe that even this week Conservative trade unionists in Lanarkshire have asked the Government to reconsider their view on the fate of the college. Throughout the community councillors, Churches, youth organisations and community organisations have been unanimous in their condemnation of the Government's proposals. They are calling upon the Government to change their mind.

The Government have no friends. Conservative Members do not keep counsel even with themselves. That is perhaps why they remained silent in December when there was a Division in the Scottish Grand Committee. Friendless and isolated Ministers continue with a policy that seems destined to cause education damage even at the expense of increased public expenditure, which it seems will be the net result of the exercise.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has entered the Chamber. He has been courageous in taking a critical stand on the Government's policy. Such courage should be the subject of congratulation, especially during this week. The hon. Gentleman and I have argued passionately, yet moderately, in the cause of Hamilton college of education. Until this evening I have managed, despite the anger that is felt throughout my constituency, to retain that degree of moderation in the faint and almost vain hope that the Government will begin to accept the sense of the arguments that have been advanced by Conservative Back Benchers, by their own supporters throughout the country and by every organisation that has submitted evidence.

There are times when such a bipartisan and moderate approach is no longer relevant. At such times we have to bell the Government's cat and tell the people of Scotland precisely what damage the Government are causing. The Government seem blind to the state of public opinion in Central Scotland. The effect of the closure of Hamilton college of education will be considerable. Many of the views expressed by Conservative Members in 1977 when they were in Opposition apply equally today.

The education service in Lanarkshire suffers from considerable deprivation. I accept that the concept of deprivation is one that is not easily grasped by everyone. Sometimes "deprivation" is used by sociologists and social scientists to describe a host of conditions, many of which do not apply in Lanarkshire. I do not consider Lanarkshire to be a slum area, an area that is down at heel, or an area without prospects. However, if we consider the education prospects of the children of Lanarkshire, it is clear that classical features of deprivation exist.

Lanarkshire has the worst pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland, and the worst staffing ratios of any of the regions in Scotland and of most parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the major schools in Lanarkshire—some of them with considerable education qualities—still have not achieved the minimum Red Book standards laid down by the Scottish Education Department.

There are still problems in science, mathematics and technical subjects. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that such subjects are crucial to Britain's economic recovery, especially in areas of high unemployment such as Lanarkshire. There are still critical and chronic shortages of teachers in those subjects. The lesson of the past 20 years is that only when Hamilton college of education appeared on the scene, and teachers were trained locally and stayed locally, was anything done to improve the chronic teacher shortage. The years of improvement since 1966 are apparently to be swept away in some dogmatic move by the Government to rid the countryside of a number of education establishments.

I should have argued that the closure is being carried out in the dogmatic pursuit of the Government's monetarist policies, had it not been proved conclusively by the lecturers of Hamilton college of education that it will cost the Exchequer at lot of money to close the college. It is a perversion of the Government's economic policies that the college is to be sacrificed to meet the ambitions of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibilities for education and industry. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that if he reduces the number of education opportunities and education institutions he will adhere to the Government's overall objective of reducing public sector expenditure.

In Lanarkshire the effect of the closure will be considerable, and all the years of improvement will be swept away by the elimination of a valuable and vital education resource that has made a major contribution to increasing education standards in the area. When the college was established, local people went to it to be trained. For the first time a significant number stayed in the area after being trained. The Minister has produced no evidence to suggest that once the role of the college is taken over by a college of education in the West End of Glasgow, which is about 10 or 12 miles from Hamilton, Lanarkshire will have the supply of teachers that it so desperately needs.

The Government have not remained totally intransigent on Hamilton college of education during the debate since August. I am not so churlish as to say that the Minister has stood steadfast against all the arguments advanced against the Government's policy, but with each concession that the Minister or the Secretary of State has made to the argument put forward by the Lanarkshire people the argument for the abolition of the college has grown weaker. We now have a catalogue of agreement by the Minister that a considerable number of the functions of Hamilton college of education are to remain in the province of educational establishment in the area.

One of the remarkable things about today's debate, taking place in the March following the unilateral decision last August, is that in that time the Government have established the fact that so many of the functions of the college will continue to be carried out by a college of education in the area. In the name of public savings the Government will sweep away an institution that has done good, and in its place will remain all of the functions that Hamilton college carries out today, but without that vital local link which was so essential in the past, and which has made a contribution to improving Lanarkshire's teaching standards.

On a rare occasion of some note the Secretary of State for Scotland himself answered a question on 18 January from that sole supporter of the Government, the hon. Member for Argyll. Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll was being rewarded for his unique loyalty to the Government's policy by that answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland. In his incredible answer the right hon. Gentleman outlined to the hon. Member for Argyll—who required reminding—the commitments that had been given to maintain the in-service training capabilities of Hamilton college.

The right hon. Gentleman said that at both Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges there would continue to be outstations of the parent college—whatever the parent college might be after the Government's closure decision had been carried out. Accommodation for the outstations could, and, the answer implied, would, be in the existing buildings of the colleges and—the eternal Catch 22 situation—that the details would have to be worked out and consultation would take place to enable the colleges to decide what form of execution was best suited to the circumstances.

The Minister has given a commitment to retain the technical education features of the work of Hamilton college. There is a commitment to maintain in-service training, which already accounts for a sizeable proportion of the work. At the same time, despite the commitment that will be carried out by another college 12 miles on the other side of Glasgow, the Government intend to abolish the institution that made all the demands necessary, and which was itself capable of delivering them to the area of Lanarkshire served by the college.

It makes no sense, politically, economically or educationally, to axe Hamilton college of education and, at the same time, move the bulk of its work to a college on the other side of Glasgow, with all the added cost involved, as well as the psychlogical disadvantages to the recruitment of teachers from Lanarkshire and for Lanarkshire.

I remain confused about why the Government are so recklessly pursuing a policy that does not stand up to examination. The policy has received no support from the education experts that the Government are obliged, and often willing, to consult, and whose advice they usually seek in cases where educational problems are to be dealt with. The General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is statutorily charged with the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on education matters, has made its view clear on the vital nature of the role of Hamilton College in the future of Lanarkshire's education, yet the Government have chosen to ignore that advice.

The Government do not seem to have any friends or supporters or back-up for the view that they have taken. Why are we still being told at this late stage that there is no alternative to closing this college, which is demonstrably needed by the people of an area of such clear and measured educational deprivation? The Under-Secretary told us the last time that we debated this subject that the Government have supporters, but they are all silent. All those who keep sitting on their hands are supporters of the Government. Some of those who keep their hands above the table support the Government in this exercise of educational vandalism. That is the sort of thesis that is difficult to prove. Anyone who believes that has not benefited from the Scottish education system. If during the coming months the Government can find any authority or organisation, or any person of standing, that supports the view that they are correct and should be supported, the case that we have put forward will be weakened. To date they have not found such support. No one has said that he is in favour of the Government's decision.

Two weeks ago the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs considered the economic consequences of the closure of Hamilton college of education and Callendar Park. The Committee did so following a letter that I wrote pointing out the enormous discrepancies between the figures supplied by the Minister responsible for education and industry and the figures worked out in detail by Hamilton college lecturing staff. It is not proper for us to debate the deliberations of the Select Committee. As I am not a member of the Select Committee I do not wish to encroach on them, but the evidence was public before the Select Committee considered the issue. To any objective outsider there was no doubt that the Minister's inadequate and delayed documentation did not stand up to scrutiny. The figures that he produced contained nothing like the detail of those worked out by the lecturing staff of Hamilton college.

The Minister's view has been made clear since the deliberations of the Committee. The Minister with responsibility for education said that it was immaterial whether the college's figures were correct. It did not matter whether it would cost money now to close the college, or whether it would cost money for ever to close the college. What mattered, apparently, in the Government's judgment were the crude figures of the numbers of teachers required. That was the dominant aspect that would determine the Government's view on the need for additional colleges of education.

I shall not make a meal, as I could, of the contradictions between the present approach and the approach by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the defence of Craigie college in 1977. The record stands quite clear. The Secretary of State for Scotland's speech in 1977 is on the record. The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee in December last year is also on the record. The contradictions are there for history to judge precisely on which side of the fence he has come down and which viewpoint should be accepted as his real opinion, as distinct from the opinion which at the time it was convenient for him to put forward.

It is a perversion of basic economics to say that it is legitimate to close colleges irrespective of their cost or their educational impact on an area, simply to satisfy crude estimates—which so often in the past have proved to be inaccurate—of the number of teachers who will be required in any specific subject. That is all the more so when the bulk of the work done by Hamilton college of education relates to post-teacher and in-service training, which will be crucial, irrespective of the number of pupils in schools today.

Economics of the sort that seem to be paraded by the Scottish Office team is almost like an economics and education policy "Muppet Show", with the Minister playing Miss Piggy to the Secretary of State's Kermit the Frog. That would be a joke if the consequences for the children of Lanarkshire were not so dire. I seriously wonder whether Ministers have considered the impact of their policies on the people who at the end of the day represent the crucial aspect of an education system.

Education systems were not established in order to employ lecturers, teachers or school janitors. Education exists for our children and for future generations of children. It is they who will suffer as a direct result of the Government's policy to close down the Scottish colleges of education without properly taking into account the effect that that will have on the Scottish education system or the way in which children will be educated in future.

The Government seem hell-bent on closing down the college of education in my constituency irrespective of the cost to the Exchequer, irrespective of the cost to the children of Lanarkshire in education terms and irrespective of the cost to the community as a whole. There is still time for the Government to change their mind. There is still time for Ministers to look at the facts, to listen to opinions and to listen to the voices of their own supporters. Even at this late stage they should recognise that those facts and views are against them. There is still time for the Government to make a U-turn, which would be welcomed throughout Lanarkshire as well as by a large section of the Scottish population.

We have a different Minister at the Dispatch Box this evening—one who previously rejoiced in his liberal reputation. He defended a college in 1977. I therefore hope that we shall at last have a fresh mind on the subject, so that for the first time we can see the possibility of a change in policy. I hope that it will be a policy that can receive the general acclaimation of the Scottish people, otherwise the Government will face near certain condemnation if they continue with the policy with which they have stuck up to now.

7.33 pm
Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I intervene only briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on initiating this debate and on his speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on his speech.

I do not intend to go over more than a small part of the ground because I do not wish the Government to say, on a future occasion, that this debate, unsatisfactory as it is bound to be, is sufficient to deal adequately with the problem of the closure of the colleges and that they must therefore maintain the view that they will not provide time for the matter to be properly discussed.

The matter has been raised at short notice. The Minister responsible for Scottish education is not present. He has been engaged in other matters. Another Minister is to answer the debate. I do not complain about that. He has simply been given the job, and he could not do it any worse than his hon. Friend has done it Upstairs and in other places. As he is not the Minister responsible for Scottich education we do not expect him to know all the details.

This has not been a real debate, because there have been no contributions from the Conservative Benches. That is slightly surprising, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has been present during the whole of the debate. He has not opened his mouth, even though we know that on an earlier occasion he expressed great concern about what the Government were doing and did not feel that they had put up an adequate case for their closure proposals. In particular, he was worried about the financial consequences.

There has been some development in that regard since the Scottish Grand Committee debate, which was a complete fiasco, in that the Government did not vote for their proposals. The Minister has attempted to produce a number of costings to demonstrate that the closure of colleges would save money. Without going into detail, I may say that I found most of the figures that he produced completely unconvincing.

Of course, the lecturers and others in the colleges concerned have produced their own costings, which demonstrate that far from achieving savings the closure of colleges would cost the Government additional money. The way in which the Government have handled this matter and the various compromises they have reached about keeping the locations going, and so on, suggest that the lecturers may well have the right answer and that any savings are likely to be minimal. In fact, they may be completely non-existent. Among other things, we may be faced with additional expenditure.

I hope that the Select Committee will produce a report on that matter. However, I mention the costings for one reason alone, which is the extraordinary statements that have been made by the Minister who is in charge of Scottish education. He has implied that costings do not matter, and that even if they prove that it would cost more money, the Government are determined to go ahead with the closures.

In the first instance, one of the few plausible arguments for the closures was the need to save Government money because of the rundown in the number of pupils and, therefore, the need for fewer teachers than we have had in the past. Now the Government's view is that it does not really matter. They do not care what anybody says. They do not care whether it will cost more money. They do not care about the disorganisation. They do not care about Scottish public opinion. They will close the colleges anyway, regardless of what anybody says or does. I cannot imagine a more discredited way of handling this situation. It should be added to the discredited way in which the Government handled the original "non-consultations", the lack of a consultation document, the way in which they did not announce the closure proposals to the House of Commons, and the way in which they dealt with the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

There is now utter confusion about what will happen over the next few months, even if the Government continue with their proposals. For example, Craiglockhart is in the Minister's constituency. The original proposition was that everything was to be moved from Craiglockhart and the college was to be merged with one of the east coast colleges. That was taken to be Moray House. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, because it has been impossible to get firm information.

The latest situation seems to be that Craiglockhart will stay where it is—in other words, it will not be moved from its present location—and the East of Scotland college with which it was to be merged turns out to be Notre Dame, which is in the West of Scotland. We are completely in the dark about the basis on which such a merger is to take place, who is to do what and where, what the board of governor will be, what the arrangements for courses will be, and all the rest.

If the Minister thinks that all the staff at Notre Dame are happy about the prospect of a merger he could not be more wrong. Within the last few days I received a letter complaining about the complete lack of information to staff. It also complained about certain arrangements which, in the view of many staff members at Notre Dame, would not be in the interests either of Notre Dame or Craiglockhart. More important, those arrangements did not seem to be in the interests of Roman Catholic education in Scotland or the supply of an adequate number of teachers to deal with Roman Catholic education in Scotland.

The point is that what started out as one proposition has gone rapidly through various stages to become an entirely different proposition. At the end of the day, if there is to be a presence at Craiglockhart and some kind of arrangement with Notre Dame, it is difficult to see why the existing arrangement should be disturbed at all. It would be far simpler and more satisfactory if Craiglockhart simply stayed as it was.

Exactly the same arguments apply to Hamilton and Callendar Park. My hon. Friends have spoken particularly about Hamilton and have shown that as the argument has gone on the Government have conceded that more and more is to continue to be located in Hamilton in the way of in-service training, the staff to deal with it, and a whole variety of other things. Nevertheless, there is to be some kind of merger. Indeed, it is not even a merger. The college is to be closed, but in the case of Hamilton there are to be some arrangements that are to take place with Jordanhill.

Again, there is utter confusion on this, just as there is with Callendar Park. We do not know the dates for the closures, or how they are to be carried out—if, indeed, they are carried out. We do not know what is to happen to the staff. In each case the college governors have refused to co-operate with the Government's proposals, while the Government have been tying themselves in knots with different versions of so-called concessions to try to prove that even if the colleges are closed they will carry on doing the same work as they are doing at present.

The whole situation has become farcical. It has happened because the Government made certain decisions without consultation and, indeed, in breach of specific promises to consult the interests concerned. The proposals have been greeted with utter hostility by the whole of educational opinion in Scotland. The Government have not put up a credible case for the proposals. The proposals were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee. From the day that they announced the proposals until now the Government have not succeeded in persuading one person in Scotland who was hostile to the proposals that they have done anything more than make a complete mess of something that could well have been left alone, with the reduction in numbers that everyone agrees must inevitably take place as a result of the reduction in the school population spread over the whole of the 10-college system.

The matter had been decided three years previously, after considerable public discussion, consultation and debate, but the Government were determined not to leave well alone. Despite what happened on earlier occasions and despite the protestations and speeches made by the Secretary of State himself and by most of his hon. Friends on those earlier occasions, the Government made the announcement. They have been in confusion ever since. This has done the Government's standing and their reputation for honesty and integrity no good, and it has done Scottish education no good. It has caused a great deal of unnecessary worry and loss of morale when there is already a tremendous loss of morale in Scottish education.

The situation is not helped, incidentally, by the appalling figures published in the public expenditure White Paper last week about the reductions proposed by the Government in the numbers of teachers in the schools over the next few years. To all those difficulties and problems, the Government added a completely unnecessary irritation and annoyance to the whole education sector in Scotland. They have not yet extricated themselves from their self-inflicted difficulties, and they have done tremendous damage to Scottish education.

Even at this late stage I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to his right hon. Friend that the most satisfactory solution to the whole problem and the most satisfactory way in which the Government can extricate themselves from the imbroglio in which they have involved themselves is to withdraw the proposals. They should allow the 10-college system to continue at the reduced level that everyone agrees must happen over the next few years because of the reduction of population, and allow the colleges to get back to the job that they ought to be doing with some vestige of morale, namely, training teachers to teach our children adequately in our schools. So far, the Government have merely caused immense damage. The damage is not completely irreversible if they will now adopt the common-sense solution, which is to withdraw the proposals and allow the 10-college system to continue.

7.46 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on using this opportunity to debate this subject. He began his contribution by referring to the reductions in expenditure on education in Scotland and implied that they were having a disastrous effect on the Scottish educational framework. If the hon. Gentleman wished to make a balanced contribution to the debate he might have pointed out that, notwithstanding the reduction in resources, as a result of the reduction in pupil numbers, the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland has not merely been maintained but is better than it has ever been, and that will continue during the year to come.

Mr. Millan

What the hon. Gentleman said is untrue. The public expenditure White Paper published last week shows a substantial deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio over the next few years.

Mr. Rifkind

The hon. Gentleman had better await consideration of the White Paper, but nothing that he said in any way alters the basic fact that at the present time and in the year to come the resources made available to the education service will maintain and indeed improve the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland. It is right that that should be pointed out.

Mr. Maxton

rose—

Mr. Rifkind

No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the debate which took place in the Scottish Grand Committee. He made considerable play of the fact that the Scottish Conservative Party is a minority party. After his recent experience at the Scottish Labour Party conference in Perth, at which he turned out to be a small minority in the Scottish Labour Party, and where his point of view was not shared by his colleagues, I should have thought that he would be the last person to make a play of the position of minorities.

The important point, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, is that the decision in the Scottish Grand Committee was not a vote on the merits of the Government's policy. The Opposition are perfectly well aware that the Scottish Grand Committee does not vote on the merits of policies. The vote that the Opposition chose to promote was on the technical question, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committtee have considered the matter of the colleges of education in Scotland. Merely because the Opposition sought to use a technical procedure in order to express their view that does not mean that Government supporters are obliged to continue in the same way. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) will allow me to finish this point. He should not deplore the fact that the Government have not provided time for a debate on this subject on the Floor of the House. It is within the Opposition's power to have a debate on any subject that they wish and to vote on it. If they have not done so, it would seem that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not give the matter the priority that he would wish it to have.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Rutherglen)

First, as these are the Government's proposals, some of us might just think it right and proper for the Government to bring them to the House so that we may discuss them adequately. On the matter of voting in the Scottish Grand Committee, for the benefit of those who are, perhaps, less interested, in procedural tactics, will he tell us why, some years ago, even the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and people of that kind were brought to the Scottish Grand Committee? Was that just a little technical exercise, or did it really mean something when all those people were brought in from all over the place to vote against us on that occasion?

Mr. Rifkind

My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is the best person to explain why he attended the Committee on that occasion. The Government of the day—of which the right hon. Member for Rutherglen was a distinguished member—emphasised at the time that any vote in the Scottish Grand Committee was of a merely technical nature. They were quite right to emphasise that, and it is rather strange that today Labour Members seem to give such a vote a much greater importance.

The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised the subject of Craiglockhart college, a college in my own constituency, and he made various comments about the question of a merger between Craiglockhart college and another college. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statement originally made on the question of Craiglockhart said only that the Government believed that it was appropriate to have a merger of Craiglockhart college with another college, while retaining a Catholic teacher training presence in the East of Scotland. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman maintaining his total hostility to the Government's proposals, I cannot but remember his own remark during the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in 1977, when he said: it is utterly absurd"— not just absurd but utterly absurd— to pretend that the entire supply of Roman Catholic teachers in the East of Scotland depends on the continuation of Craiglockhart as a separate college."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee; 15 February 1977, c. 58.] If that was the right hon. Gentleman's view in 1977, I presume that it is still his view in 1980. He did not draw that comment to the attention of the House when he spoke in this debate.

Mr. Millan

Will the Minister say something more about Craiglockhart?

Mr. Rifkind

I understand that there are constructive discussions going on at the moment. It is right and proper that we should not at this stage wish to prejudice the outcome of those discussions. I believe that Craiglockhart college has responded in a very constructive way and has entered into detailed discussions with my right hon. Friend and with the Scottish Education Department. I hope that they will lead to a result that will be acceptable to the college as well as to the Government.

Mr. Millan

With respect, that is telling us nothing. Is Craiglockhart to be maintained at a separate location? Is it to be merged with Notre Dame? This has been going on for about nine months now. There is no point in the Minister's saying that there are discussions going on. What is happening? He ought to know as he is the constituency Member. Why does he not tell us?

Mr. Rifkind

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when in the past he had ministerial responsibility and was engaged in what are inevitably delicate and sensitive discussions, he did not usually announce to the House the details of those discussions and negotiations while they were continuing.

The Government's original statement remains entirely valid, namely, that what they are proposing and intend to see established is the merger of Craiglockhart college with another college, while retaining a Catholic teacher training presence in the East of Scotland. That was the Government's statement at the beginning of these matters and nothing that has happened has changed that position.

Mr. Maxton

If there is to be a merger with Notre Dame and there is to be a Roman Catholic presence maintained in the East of Scotland—which means, presumably, the present Craiglockhart college—the only saving that will be made in that process is that one governing board will disappear, and a few pence each month will be saved by not having to buy tea and buns for the governors of the college of education in Craiglockhart.

Mr. Rifkind

I advise the hon. Member for Cathcart to await the outcome of the negotiations. Obviously, when they have been concluded my right hon. Friend will, of course, ensure that all the details of what is proposed are made known. That might be a more appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to give us the benefit of his comments.

The whole basis of the argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart and by the right hon. Member for Craigton was, in essence, that nothing has changed since 1977. If, therefore, it was then considered inappropriate to change the system and structure of colleges of education what has changed since in order to make it acceptable today? That is a perfectly fair question and there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to it. It has been given in the past but I must use this opportunity to emphasise it.

At the time in 1977 when the right hon. Member for Craigton proposed closures of colleges of education there was capacity in Scotland for 14,450 places. The previous Labour Government—in which the right hon. Gentleman was the Secretary of State for Scotland—issued a consultative paper in which they said that the appropriate capacity for the colleges of education in Scotland would be a figure of approximately 11,900. That was the figure which they believed could maintain the viability of the existing college structure in Scotland—a total student intake of 11,900.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon Member for Cathcart know perfectly well that at the present time the college student population in Scotland is approximately 7,300. The figure has fallen dramatically, even over the last three to four years, since these matters were considered by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, even compared with the figure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, we have now some 4,000 places surplus to requirement. The basis on which the right hon. Gentleman put forward a consultative document on the colleges and their appropriate capacity is no longer relevant, given the substantial decline as the result of the fall in student numbers.

Mr. Millan

I do not want to go into details. I simply say to the Minister that what he is saying is nonsense, and it is not believed by one person involved in education in Scotland. There is nothing that has happened over the last few years with regard to pupil numbers in the schools that is any different; in fact, the position is almost exactly what we said it would be in the original consultative paper in 1977. Of course, there has been a very considerable falling off, but it is all in line with the projection that we made at that time. Nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing that the Minister has said about numbers is any different from what was said in the original consultative paper in 1977. All that has changed is that the Government have decided, for purposes which are still completely obscure, to close a number of colleges. The birth rate is actually going up at the present time.

Mr. Rifkind

The right hon. Gentleman's intervention has added nothing to the debate, I regret to say, because he has not been able to dispute the fact—it is an obvious fact, not capable of disputation—that the student population in the colleges at present is 4,000 less than the level that the right hon. Gentleman said would be appropriate for the existing structure of colleges in Scotland. [Interruption.] I accept that hon. Members will not themselves feel able to agree with that fact.

Mr. Millan

It is not a fact.

Mr. Rifkind

The fact remains that there is substantial surplus capacity in the colleges at present.

Mr. Millan

The Minister is confusing overall capacity with the numbers of students in the college at any particular time. I simply repeat that the figures as they have emerged over the last few years are exactly as projected in the papers that we produced at the time. There has been no change and there has been no dispute about that. The Minister cannot get out of the present position by confusing the numbers at any particular time with the overall capacity of the colleges. That is a long-term matter; it is not a matter of dealing with the student population in any particular year. It was always recognised that the figures would go down well beyond even the reduced capacity, but they will, of course, go up again in future years. What the Government are now doing is to remove capacity altogether.

Mr. Rifkind

The right hon. Gentleman makes regular interventions in these matters, but he still cannot divorce us from the simple fact that there are far more places in the existing college structure than there are students. The Government have to take cognisance of that. Indeed, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said in 1977: if we do not contract the system to deal with the new situation in terms of pupil population and the rest, we shall be doing considerable damage to the students and to the teachers themselves" —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee; 15 February 1977, c. 8.] That is the position that the Government face at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not said that questions of cost are irrelevant, as the hon. Member for Hamilton indicated. What he has said is that the primary consideration is that the teacher training college structure should be related to the number of students and the need for teachers to be trained. That is the primary consideration.

Although questions of cost are relevant and are quite properly matters for debate, to suggest that somehow it has been indicated by my hon. Friend that he is not remotely interested in questions of cost, or whether it would be a gain or a loss in terms of the Government's financial position, is to put the facts quite beyond recognition.

Mr. George Robertson

First, when did the Under-Secretary say that? Secondly, can the Minister contradict what I heard as an observer in the Scottish Grand Committee when the Minister was asked whether the outcome of the costings exercise would make any difference? He replied "No". If the Select Committee concludes that the closure of the colleges will result in a financial loss, will the Government change their mind? That would be the only proof of the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Rifkind

At every opportunity my hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that the Government's prime consideration is that the structure of teacher training in Scotland has a far greater capacity than is required. That is the primary reason why the contraction is appropriate.

I have nothing to add to the remarks made on 13 January about in-service training by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay).

On the important question of the various differences of detail between the position suggested by the Scottish Education Department and that suggested by Hamilton and—

Mr. Robertson

I should like to ask the Minister a question before he leaves the subject of in-service training. Indeed, the Minister has glossed over that subject with a few words. The Minister certainly gives us brisker speeches and blathers less than do some of his other hon. Friends. However, his response does not do justice to the importance of the in-service component. I pointed out that since the Government had committed themselves to such a large degree of coverage for in-service training there could be little sense in closing down a college that acts not only as a base for in-service training but as its kernel. The in-service training that represents at least 40 per cent. of the college's work will have to be carried out at a considerable distance from Lanarkshire.

Mr. Rifkind

The hon. Gentleman should express his satisfaction that the Government's response will ensure that the in-service requirements of the area that he represents will be fully met even after Hamilton has ceased to be a separate college. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has implied that the Government's response to in-service training is so similar to the existing provision in Hamilton college that the college should riot be closed. If the hon. Gentleman believes that my right hon. Friend's reply of 13 January amounts to a satisfactory response to the needs of in-service training, he should welcome it and not condemn it.

A basic point was raised about the differences of detail—some of which are important—in the views of the Scottish Office on financial and other relevant issues and those expressed by Callendar Park college and Hamilton college. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would be in the interests of all concerned if the colleges were prepared to enter into formal discussions with the Scottish Office in order to discuss those matters.

Obviously, if there are differences of view on important points of detail, such as the teaching staff and the financial aspects involved, those subjects can best be dealt with by holding meetings with all those concerned. So far, the colleges have not been prepared to enter into such discussions, but I hope that they will consider doing so in the interests of their staff and their pupils. I shall pass on the points raised by the right hon. Member for Craigton to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has specific responsibility for such matters.

8.3 pm

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

I am sorry that I was not here earlier. However, it was not entirely my fault. I am a member of the Committee on the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill and I was detained in the Committee Room upstairs. Despite repeated requests from Labour Members to adjourn the Committee so that we could participate in this most important debate, which concerns Scottish education, Scottish students, teachers and school children, the Minister refused to adjourn the Committee. Indeed, I have given up my dinner to attend this debate.

In a sense, I was not surprised that the UnderSecretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher)—who is supposed to be in charge of Scottish education, should refuse to adjourn the Committee and reply to this debate. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. On this issue—as on many other Scottish issues affecting education, industry and unemployment—his record is disgraceful. The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—has been brought from the substitutes' bench to the Front Bench. He is standing in for his hon. Friend.

The issue at stake is dear to the heart of Scottish education and to the hearts of all who are concerned with preserving and improving it. In addition the credibility of this shabby Government and of those Ministers who have been involved in this decision is at stake.

It is more than a year since I and my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) met the Minister. Indeed, he is now hiding somewhere in the building and is ashamed to show his face in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman realises that he cannot defend the indefensible. In February 1980 my hon. Friends and I and the representatives of students and staff at Callendar Park college met the Under-Secretary at New St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh. He gave us a verbal assurance that no college would be closed down and that no decision would be taken on restructuring the college system until a consultative document had been published. That was a firm assurance. Indeed, the hon. Member repeated it in writing in a letter to Mr. Tom Rae, the principal of Callendar Park college. The Under-Secretary wrote: I repeat the assurance that, at this point in time, we have no proposals before us for the closure of colleges. If, in the light of the information to be examined, we conclude that there is a case for some re-structuring, our findings will be incorporated in a consultative document and we shall consult all concerned before any final decisions are reached. The letter was signed by the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North. At the time some of my hon. Friends and I thought that the Under-Secretary may have made a slip of the tongue when he gave that cast-iron verbal assurance about the publication of a consultative document. However, it could not have been a slip of the tongue, because the Under-Secretary later repeated the assurance in writing. Indeed, he also signed his name at the bottom of the letter.

It is almost incredible that the Government should stoop so low that Ministers can put their signatures to written documents giving firm promises and send them to Members of Parliament and to important people such as principals of colleges of education and can then, only months later, break those firm promises.

What is at stake is not simply the interests of Scottish education, which obviously must be top priority. What is at stake is the credibility of the Government, and especially the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North—who, if he were an honourable person, would have resigned. Whether or not he was forced into it by constraints from the Treasury, how on earth can we ever believe anything that he says, by word of mouth or in writing? Anything that he says in meetings with hon. Members, anywhere, we cannot believe, because he is not a man of his word. He is a man who broke his word. He broke his word to hon. Members. He broke his word to the principal of Callendar Park college—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. It is not parliamentary practice for the hon. Member to impugn the honour of the Minister by saying that he had broken his word.

Mr. Canavan

He told untruths, if that is a parliamentary expression. He certainly put in writing things that amounted to a clear-cut promise—a promise that he did not deliver and a promise that he clearly broke a few months after putting his name at the bottom of that letter. I leave it for hon. Members and people outside to judge whether or not the Minister is a man of integrity. I know what most people in Scotland think about him.

No consultative document was published, for the simple reason that no adequate consultations took place. The Minister claims tht he had to come to a decision quickly and that it was better to come to a decision quickly rather than have long-drawn-out consultations. We are talking about the livelihood of people who have devoted many years to Scottish education. We are talking about the livelihood of the staff in the colleges of education, particularly Hamilton and Callendar Park. We are talking about the livelihood of all the ancillary staff employed in Hamilton and Callendar Park, in particular. We are also talking about future job opportunities for young teachers.

Most important of all, we are talking about the educational opportunities that should be made available and should be improved for this and future generations of Scottish school children. That was part of the reason why the Minister seemed so reluctant—indeed, afraid—to enter into meaningful consultative procedure. He knew that the decision that he wanted to reach—indeed, the decision that may even have been taken at that time—was unjustifiable.

There is no educational justification, no moral justification, no econimic justification and no demographic justification for closing down these colleges. As to the absence of any moral justification, I refer to my previous remarks about the credibility of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and the fact that he has the brass neck to continue as a Minister of the Crown having signed the document that he sent to the principal of Callendar Park. I do not know what confidence anyone outside can now have in a Minister of the Crown who behaves in that manner.

There is no moral justification for going ahead with these closures in view of the commitment given to Mr. Tom Rae and the principals of the other colleges concerned. There is no educational justification. The Government ask what is the sense in training teachers for unemployment. I do not want to train teachers for unemployment. The Government say that local education authorities in Scotland employ too many teachers. They seem to be bringing pressure to bear on local education authorities to sack about 6,500 teachers. I hope that local education authorities resist that with all their might. I hope that the teaching unions resist it with all their might. It is one of the biggest myths that the Government have produced that there are no jobs for young people coming out of Hamilton, Callendar park, Craiglockhart, or any of the other colleges. There should be jobs.

The Government may boast that the teacher/pupil ratio in Scotland is the best since that statistic was invented. Much of the credit must rest with the Labour Government, who, despite tremendous economic difficulties, managed to bring about an improvement in the ratio. But the ratio is a global statistic that tends to hide deficiencies in staffing in some schools and in some areas—subject areas and deprived areas. There is still plenty of room for improvement in the staffing standards in many of our schools.

Hon. Members were earlier debating upstairs, in the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, the Warnock Committee's report. If the report is ever to be implemented, it is not good enough for the Government merely to lay down a legislative framework. They have to back up that legislative framework with adequate resources. The most valuable educational resource is a teacher. If we are positively to discriminate in favour of handicapped children, some physically handicapped, some mentally handicapped, and some perhaps both physically and mentally handicapped, this is very much related to teacher training—the training of teachers in general subjects and the training of specialist teachers who are devoted to the education of those children.

Instead of trying to encourage the colleges to train more teachers, whether specialist teachers or general teachers, the only response of this Government seems to be to axe two of the colleges of education in Scotland and try to pressurise Craiglockhart into merging with another college. There is an absense not only of educational justification but of any financial or economic justification. The Government have failed to produce credible figures showing the saving of public money. Even if there was a saving, which I doubt, how on earth can the Government afford to give out £3½ million to private fee-paying schools—an amount that could go towards more useful aspects of education, such as teacher training to help the education of those children to whom I have referred?

There is also a lack of justification on demographic grounds. Both the Hamilton college of education and Callandar Park college of education are situated in growth areas. It is no use the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers informing the House that the school children population of Scotland is likely to fall, that there will be fewerpupils in our schools, teachers and fewer students teachers, and that that these colleges should therefore be closed.

I take as an example the catchment area of Callendar Park, which includes my constituency. According to the Government's projections, the growth of population in that area will be 15.3 per cent. between 1978 and 1996 and the population of children under 4 years of age between 1978 and 1991 is expected to increase by over 37 per cent. Yet the Government propose to go ahead and close down a college of education in that growth area. By doing so they are proposing to cut the educational opportunities for today's children and the children who will be born in the next 10 years.

Not long ago I received an appeal from the staff and students of Callendar Park college addressed to all Members of Parliament. It mentioned some of the matters that I have referred to in my speech, including the broken promise of the Scottish Minister for Education., the disadvantaged children in Scotland, the areas of multiple deprivation and said that in Scotland the ratio of population to institutions offering teacher training was at present one per 480,000. The corresponding figure for England and Wales is one per 400.000. That statistic is disturbing, because Scotland has a greater proportion of rural areas and less densely-populated areas than England and Wales. Scotland should, therefore, have more colleges of education per head of population. If the closures take place, the proportion in Scotland will be one institution per 660,000 population.

The information that I received from the Callendar Park college contained further information about international comparative studies, pointing out that Scotland has the lowest provision of nursery education in the EEC, and the lowest rate of post-16 schooling in the United Kingdom, and the second lowest in the EEC, and so on.

When I read all the information that was sent to me my first impulse was to forward it to the Secretary of State for Scotland and appeal to him. However, many Labour Members are fed up with bringing matters to his attention and to the attention of his minions in the Scottish Office. All that we get is a kind of stereotyped Civil Service reply, with the Minister's autograph at the bottom. Many of my constituents are utterly disgusted when they see replies that come from the Scottish Office.

In this case, I was so disgusted that the Minister had broken his promise on the previous occasion that I thought that I should go to the very top. I reported the Minister to his boss, the Prime Minister. I wrote to her on 16 February, enclosing the petition from the students and staff of Callendar Park college. I did so for two reasons—first, because she is the useless head of this useless Government and, therefore, the boss of the Ministers at the Scottish Office, and surely the boss should know what subordinates are up to in failing to deliver their promises. I also wrote to her because her credibility is at stake in this whole sorry saga.

Not long ago, the Prime Minister—she was then Leader of the Opposition—came to Scotland and made a party political broadcast. I believe that my hon. Friend he Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned this in his speech. Unfortunately, I did not hear my hon. Friend's speech because I was upstairs in Committee considering the Education (Scotland) No. 2 Bill. I managed to get a transcript from the BBC, which I shall read to the House, because I should not like to misquote the Prime Minister. The interviewer was a man called George Birrell—he must be Scotland's answer to Robin Day. He said: 'Our conversation covered a wide range of topics affecting Scotland. Towards the end I asked Mrs. Thatcher specifically about the threat to axe up to four of Scotland's teacher training colleges.' The Prime Minister replied: 'I'm not arguing that for the time being we have to cut down the number of teachers—I know we have. Cut down the number of new teachers in training. We accept that for the time being that has to be done, but the argument is about how do you go about it. The scheme that looks best on paper because it's tidy and neat, isn't always the best one in practice. It takes a long time to build up the reputation of a college—it can be destroyed easily. Again where those colleges are doing a very good job', let's keep them in being. I think sometimes it's better not to merge or to destroy colleges, but to say all right we'll keep them all going, because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train at them and still live at home. So it makes better human sense the way we're going about it than I believe the government scheme does.' That was in 1977. I reminded the Prime Minister of her fine words at that time in the letter that I sent her last month. I also told her about the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and the promise that he failed to keep. Indeed, the credibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland is also at stake here, because he stood on a picket line along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart in 1977 to fight the proposals that were then put forward to close certain colleges of education.

I told the Prime Minister all that, but I am afraid that her reply was bitterly disappointing. She tried to justify her statement by saying: Circumstances have changed considerably in the four years since I commented on the last Government's proposals to close colleges in Scotland. At that time the forecast was that the student population of teacher training colleges would fall to its lowest level of about 8,000 in 1979–80 and rise to about 12,000 by the end of the decade. The current forecast is that the number will continue to fall to less than 7,000 by 1983, and will not rise above 8,000 before the end of the 1980s. This is a very different situation, and I really do not consider it justifiable to retain as many as 10 separate colleges of educaton in Scotland, with all the disadvantages that involves in the spread of staffing and other resources. I am entirely in agreement with the Secretary of State's proposals and I am in no doubt that there will be ample capacity in the contracted system for the students who will need places. Hon. Members can judge for themselves. I have quoted what the Prime Minister said four years ago and what she said last week. I am beginning to wonder whether anyone in this Government has any credibility. When the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister responsible for education in Scotland behave in that way what will people outside this Chamber think? No wonder some of them think that Members of Parliament in particular, and politicians in general, are people whose promises should never be believed, because they fail to keep their promises. The Government are feeding the growth of hostility among the population, particularly as a result of their lack of credibility in connection with the college of education system.

The Prime Minister fails to say in her letter that the drop in the forecasts of the numbers of students in the colleges of education is the direct result of the impositions which the Government have placed on the colleges. The Government dictate the number of students which colleges are allowed to take. Many colleges would like to take more students and they may even have the necessary staff and accommodation. The Government are using the excuse of a recession which is made worse by last week's Budget, the public expenditure cuts and further cuts which will be on their way unless we get rid of the Government as soon as possible.

The Government are putting the whole of Scottish education in a financial straitjacket. They are destroying the opportunities, not only of the staffs and the students, but of Scottish children who will be born to future generations.

The Government seem hell-bent on one of the biggest acts of educational vandalism in the history of Scottish education. They have failed to have adequate consultation with the people most involved. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late date. One of the colleges—Craiglockhart—is in his constituency. I have no doubt that he has conversed with the people involved.

Even if Craiglockhart is saved and a solution is found which is acceptable to the Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic population, the Minister must also look again at Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges. Let us come to a sensible and reasonable solution. The best way to preserve what is good in our teacher training system is to continue with the 10-college system.

I hope that the Minister will report back to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and remind them that if they go ahead later this year and close the colleges they will be seen to be destroying a valuable part of Scottish education. They will also be destroying any vestige of credibility which this incredible and discredited Government may still have.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o' clock.