Education, Scotland (School and Placing Information) (Hansard, 27 October 1982)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
I call the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).

§ Mr. McQuarrie
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Before our debate was interrupted I had allowed the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) to intervene. I am prepared now to take the rest of this intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is in order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Very well.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said that many local authorities, including Conservative authorities—he referred especially to the Grampian region—accepted zoning and would be happy to continue the operation. I can say as the Member who represents Aberdeenshire, East that I have received hundreds of representations from parents who wish to have parental choice and for their children to go to the school of their choice.

§ Mr. Maxton
How many?

§ Mr. McQuarrie
If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wishes to come to my office, I shall show him the letters. I have had hundreds of applications from parents who want to send their children to schools that are not zoned by the local authority. I am glad to say that in many respects the Grampian regional council has adhered to the principle.

§ Mr. Foulkes
I am very tolerant at this time of night and during this debate to allow such an intervention. You are even more tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing such a long intervention. However, I shall deal with it. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East was indulging in hyperbole when he talked of hundreds of letters.

§ Mr. Maxton
May we see them?

§ Mr. Foulkes
I repeat the challenge. I hope that the letters will be available so that we may see them. I am sceptical about the claim. I am not a resident of the Grampian region, but I was educated there. I went to a local school and I did not encounter such problems in Keith. I have had discussions with a chairman of the Grampian education committee and a director of education for the area. I was told that there was no need in Grampiam for any change in the arrangements for the transfer of children from primary to secondary education or for the intake of children into primary school. That was the view of educationists in Tayside.

§ Mr. Foulkes
That is an amazing Pavlovian reaction. As soon as I mention Tayside, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) leaps to his feet. I am happy to hear what he says.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
It is important to set the record straight. Tayside has always operated parents' choice. My children go to school in Tayside and my constituents are 1119 involved. There has been no change in what Tayside does since the passage of the Act. Parents' choice is still available. It is said that such choice is not practised in other parts of Scotland. The rest of Scotland is following Tayside's example.

§ Mr. Foulkes
That underlines what I was saying. Miss Carnegy—now Lady Carnegy—the director of education, and others in Tayside made it clear that there was no need for legislation in Tayside. It was made clear that there was no need for legislation in Grampian or in Strathclyde. That was said by elected Conservatives.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Shouting "Nonsense" from a sedentary position merely shows that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East is talking nonsense. I am clear about the position.
Local authorities are required to change the system although the system was adequate and provided choice. In Tayside, Grampian, Lothian and Strathclyde it was normal for children to attend their local school. If their parents wanted them to go to another school, they would request replacement and that would be considered by a transfer committee. In the majority of cases the transfer was granted. When it was refused the parents could appeal and there was a set arrangement which worked well.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, as an Edinburgh Member, is personally responsible because he was annoyed with one or two petty bourgeois cases in Edinburgh. Because the people involved were furious he pledged that the Government would introduce legislation and the parliamentary timetable had to be adjusted.
The Under-Secretary said that he would prefer to be discussing other matters. We have to discuss this matter only because the Government introduced the scheme. We should prefer to spend the time discussing other important Scottish education issues, such as expenditure cuts and how local education authorities and ordinary schools are suffering. Those are the matters that we should like to talk about, but instead the education authorities have to produce—if hon. Members have read the regulations—thousands of brochures about school uniforms, transport and a whole range of matters that 99 per cent. of parents know anyway. It all involves more expense. If the Conservatives have their way and more pupils have the opportunity of choosing a school—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and many of his colleagues in Edinburgh go out of their way to agitate, encourage and provoke parents—

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)
To make their own choice.

§ Mr. Foulkes
No, into being dissatisfied with one area. They incite dissatisfaction among parents, and go out of their way to undermine schools in parts of Edinburgh. We see the snobbery emerging from the Edinburgh bourgeoisie. I know that the Minister is annoyed. He wanted to go home and watch television, but it is his responsibility to deal with this matter.
As hon. Members said in the last debate, there is too much rubber stamping of Bills by the House. The House is overburdened with all kinds of private and public legislation, and some good matters raised by my hon. Friends are never properly considered, particularly those relating to Scotland.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
What about an Assembly?

§ Mr. Foulkes
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East makes a good point. If we had a Scottish Assembly those matters would be dealt with properly and in detail at a sensible time and place in Scotland.
One of the difficulties in dealing with these matters in Westminster is that other hon. Members may not have been able to make arrangements to be here, because of the crazy way in which the House operates its business. Halfway through a debate the other night we had to have an English Secretary of State moving an amendment that was replied to by an English spokesman which dealt with a Scottish matter, relating to the legal position as a result of the Plessey judgment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was here. There was no Scottish Minister or Law Officer to explain the legal position. Scottish legislation is either put through as part of English legislation—

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The Minister talks nonsense. He knows that it is put through as United Kingdom legislation, and when it is implemented the Government find out that it is inappropriate for Scotland. They then have to change the position. It may be run through as a codicil to an England and Wales Bill or it may be dealt with a year or two later.
If the people of Scotland had not been duped by Lord Home of the Hirsel into believing that the Tories would provide a reasonable alternative to devolution, we would have a Scottish Assembly and matters would be dealt with properly in Scotland.
The third point I want to make on the regulations is about appeals—

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
It is the fourth point.

§ Mr. Foulkes
All right—it is the fourth. The Minister clearly had a good level of education. No doubt he passed O-level arithmetic. He is, of course, an accountant, and we are all aware of the skills of such people.
My fourth point relates to the appeals procedure and the inappropriateness of such appeals being heard by sheriffs. In the old Lothian region education committee. I had experience of an appeal that was dealt with by a sheriff under the old procedure. Therefore, this is not something new. Sheriffs are now involved more, but they were also involved under the previous arrangements. It is entirely inappropriate that they should be involved. That view is supported by the case of Isobel Poole and many others.
I have often been accused of being in great danger of getting into trouble with the Scottish legal fraternity. Part of our job is to question the decisions of judges and sheriffs. We must look at the way they interpret the law to see whether it needs to be changed as a result. It is difficult to understand why some sheriffs reach the decisions they do.

§ Mr. O'Neill
In fairness, I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that in Scotland it is an open secret that when the legislation was being considered, the sheriffs—I do not know whether they belong to a trade union, but they are backed by a strong trade union—were most reluctant to get involved because they saw the mess that had been made of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred. What we have seen since then suggests that they would be better out of it.

§ Mr. Foulkes
I am grateful for that information of which I was not aware—[Interruption.] I always admit my ignorance. I wish the Minister would do the same, but that would keep him busy.
The sheriffs must realise their limitations. When they get together, it is like a meeting of the former pupils of Edinburgh Academy or some other fee-paying institution within the Scottish education system.
Even sheriffs who received a decent education can still get it wrong. One case concerned the sheriff of Kilmarnock, Mr. David Smith, whose judgment was appalling. I choose my words carefully. He said that in determining the maximum teaching capacity of a school, account should be taken not only of the properly equipped classroom but of other possible spaces such as cloakrooms and assembly halls. We shall no doubt reach the stage where they will take account of the toilets as possible teaching areas.
The judgment in that case was absolutely ridiculous and made a mockery of the system. We had reservations about the matter when we were discussing it, and were unhappy about the maximum capacity of a school. However, we understood that any sensible person interpreting it would take account of the usable space for operating a proper school—not packing the children into every nook and cranny. What worries us about the sheriffs is that they do not understand the system. In my opinion, we do not need all this panoply, but if we have to have it, the sheriffs should not be the final arbiters of matters such as the maximum capacity of schools.
I could go on at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have heard me do so on many occasions, and you are always the most indulgent of the Deputy Speakers. However, I know that others of my colleagues wish to speak, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I should not interrupt the hon. Member to encourage him, but he can go on for only as long as he is in order.

§ Mr. Foulkes
There was one matter that I wanted to raise, and it was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It refers to what I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East about circumstances before and after the legislation to which these regulations apply. In Strathclyde, the year before the legislation, there were 4,153 requests for transfers to schools other than the district schools. Now there are 4,658, so there has been no dramatic upsurge. The requests were dealt with under the old regulations adequately and sympathetically by the schools council in each case in the Strathclyde region. Strathclyde is a relatively good example. Even the Minister did not criticise the way it operated before. It shows that there was no need for any legislation. All the panoply now of the extra booklets is completely unnecessary.
We have spent some time this evening discussing these two regulations. As they have been brought before us, we have rightly taken the time of the House to give them proper consideration. As I said earlier, all matters related to Scottish education should be dealt with by a Scottish Assembly, but as long as they are dealt with here, we should give them proper and detailed scrutiny and consideration. However, whether the matter is dealt with here at Westminster or, more properly, by a Scottish Assembly, there are far more important problems in 1122 Scottish education than these. These regulations, particularly the one dealing with school and placing information, are the result of a peccadillo by the Minister and his Edinburgh colleagues—a promise that they made to one or two aggrieved parents. It is ridiculous that the time of this House is spent in discussing matters which are totally irrelevant to 99 . 9 per cent. of the people in Scottish schools, when there are many more important issues that we should be tackling.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)
I find it interesting, having listened carefully to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) had to say and the encouragement that he received from his hon. Friends, that on the Labour Benches we have the old boys from the public schools and on the Conservative Benches we have the old boys from the State schools.

§ Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Rutherglen)
I am an old boy, probably the oldest in the House, but I went to what I call a public school. I went to a school administered by Glasgow corporation.

§ Mr. Walker
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I expected it because I knew that he was the only Scottish Member on the Labour Benches who had attended and completed his education at a State school.

§ Mr. Maxton
I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I attended a State school from the age of five to 18.

§ Mr. Walker
The hon. Gentleman can explain to his colleagues why he subsequently taught at a fee-paying school when he is so opposed to all that is involved in fee-paying schools.
It seems to me, as it must to the people of Scotland, rather odd that we are discussing parents' choice—giving parents, as of right in law, the choice to say that they want their children to go to another school and, provided that that school can accept them, the children, as of right, can go there.
The regulations say that the schools must present evidence to the public of what they have done with public money spent on the education of the children. That is measured in examination results and is shown in the other activities that take place in the schools and which appear on reports. That is normal.
The Tayside region has one of the finest education setups in Scotland. I am delighted to represent part of that area because it is such a good education authority. The exam results are good and many parents select the schools to which they wish their children to go in order to get what they are looking for from education and that often involves the travelling of substantial distances because, as anyone who knows my constituency will know, it covers a large geographical area.

§ Mr. Walker
I shall give way in a moment.
I choose my words carefully. What parents are looking for for their children is often determined by factors such as a school's religious base, the availability of specialist opportunities in music, drama or some other area that the parents feel is important to their children. They can now do that as of right under the regulations.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) wished to intervene earlier but he seems to have lost his interest.

§ Mr. O'Neill
It is rarely that my good manners are held against me. I was trying to take up the hon. Gentleman on what determined a good examination record. The truth is that until the regulations take effect there will be no obligation on a Scottish local authority to produce that evidence. Therefore, for him to say that his local authority is better or worse than any other is nonsense because he has no objective evidence on which to make comparisons. There is no evidence to suggest that any judgments can be made about what are good or bad exam results. Until the regulations have been enacted by the local authority there will be no basis for comparisons.

§ Mr. Walker
That rather lengthy intervention has done more for my case than the hon. Gentleman intended. For a long time it has been possible in Scotland to obtain and evaluate examination results. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire may shake his head, but I have investigated the examination results of different establishments and compared them and therefore a judgment can be made. The very fact that the evidence has been available on Tayside shows what a good authority it is. That is the only point that I sought to make. The majority of my constituents would want the choice.

§ Mr. Walker
I am delighted to agree with the regulations and to conclude on that point.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (Berwick and East Lothian)
At one point the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) implied that I had a somewhat eccentric educational background. Of course, he is quite right, because my parents took advantage of a rather extreme form of parental choice and sent me to school in England at the age of seven. Indeed, I had the same educational problems as those that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) manifest. Perhaps it shows—I do not know.
The hon. Gentleman's point was interesting and perhaps proved the age-old adage that the grass is always greener on the other side. Those Opposition Members who have glimpsed the horrors of a privileged education wish to discourage it, whereas Conservative Members appear to want to condemn their children to it. As a parent of two young children who are nowhere near school age, I am interested in parental choice. My children live in the catchment area of a small rural primary school that is threatened with closure, not because of a lack of resident children in the area, but because a high proportion of people have taken advantage of the type of provisions outlined in the regulations and have sent their children to other primary schools, including schools on the English side of the border. That is a curious state of affairs.

§ Mr. Maxton
I think that the Minister did not hear that point about primary school children crossing the frontier into England. Perhaps my hon. Friend would repeat it to ensure that the Minister replies, because I did not think that it was allowed under this legislation.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I assure my hon. Friend that that is happening and that the Borders regional council is paying Northumberland county council for placing children in schools on the English side of the border. That is having a harmful effect on those in primary schools in 1124 the areas affected by that drain. Those taking advantage of it are those who can afford to pay the cost of transporting their children. That cost could be substantial. People must either have their own cars or be able to afford taxis or public transport—always assuming that adequate public transport exists, which in many rural areas it does not. We are therefore talking about an extremely—

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
It really is awful. All those privileged people—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
Order.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I hope that the Minister will contain himself. I do not know whether he has had a good meal—perhaps he has had something to drink—but he is certainly making a lot of noise, and the way in which he is performing brings no credit to his office. Of course, we have become used to such antics from Conservative Members because they are not answerable to the majority of people in Scotland, so they feel that they can disport themselves in that fashion.
I have made what I regard as a serious point and I hope that the Minister will regard it as such. The regulations may have a genuinely detrimental effect on local schools, particularly in rural areas. The way in which the regulations operate discriminates against people who do not have their own transport and cannot afford to take advantage of public transport if it exists.
I am sorry that hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom are getting restless. It is a great pity that we have to handle specifically Scottish regulations in this Parliament. I see the hon. Member for Devon, West (S ir P. Mills) nodding. should perhaps explain that this is not only an English Parliament. It is a Scottish Parliament and an English Parliament rolled into one. It is a bottleneck through which legislation for both nations must pass. It is a pity that the hon. Members for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and Devon, West, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and others are having to spend all this time here, but we have to suffer the other side of the coin, so it is only fair that on this occasion they should have to face the music.

§ Mr. David Myles (Banff)
I am puzzling over what the hon. Gentleman meant when he made his serious point. He seemed to be sayirg that all schools were more or less equal. He then went on to say that there was discrimination because some people could not go to one school rather than another. How can that be discrimination if all schools are more or less equal?

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I always have to give way to my pair, as I might suffer for it if I did not. In fact, I was not talking about discrimination between schools—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) will turn up his hearing aid, he may hear me this time. I was talking about discrimination between parents who can take advantage of the scheme because they have their own transport or can afford to pay for public transport, if it exists, and those who are not in a position to take advantage of the scheme.
It seems to me that the Government brought in this legislation in the first place entirely to suit their own prejudices against the previous administration of Lothian regional council. It is pretty irrelevant in most areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) 1125 explained very well—and he has wide experience of these matters as a former chairman of the Lothian region education committee.
I am profoundly unhappy about a wide range of factors in the regulations, including the publication of so-called basic information—namely, examination results—and the involvement of sheriffs, to which reference has already been made. The entire scheme and the regulations now before us are sheer gimmickry. We all want to see the extension of genuine parental choice, but this scheme denies more privileges than it creates. In the present circumstances, it is an unjustifiable misuse of scarce public funds.
I hope that the Minister will answer the numerous points that have been made. If he does, it will be out of character, but hope springs eternal. I hope that the House will reject the regulations.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Mr. Albert McQuarrie.

§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Aberdeenshire, East)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Has the hon. Gentleman already spoken during the debate?

§ Mr. McQuarrie
No, Sir. I made an intervention earlier. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not consider my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) to be a speech.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If it was an intervention, it was a long one. Is the hon. Gentleman about to make another intervention or a speech?

§ Mr. McQuarrie
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having tolerated my long intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, but I think it was justifiable. I shall limit my remarks now in order to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland an opportunity to reply to the many ridiculous Opposition comments.
The hon. Members for South Ayrshire and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) preached about the Scottish Assembly and all its advantages. However, I have not heard while I have been in the Chamber—I have been here for the whole of the debate—any mention of the supplementary provisions set out in article 13, paragraph 3 of the regulations, referring to the Gaelic language. If Opposition Members are so interested in Scottish affairs they should have had some consideration for parents who wish to transfer their children from a school which does not have the Gaelic language to a school in a Gaelic-speaking area. It is incredible that after all the talk from the Opposition Benches about parental control, they had nothing to say about the point raised by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), when he was trying to get the Gaelic language spoken in schools in Scotland. If Opposition Members are so determined to have zoning in schools it would have benefited them to comment on that aspect because there have been widespread discussions in Scotland about Gaelic-speaking areas. I take a particular interest in that subject because I believe that opportunities should be given—

§ Mr. McQuarrie
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) had an opportunity to speak. I must be brief in order to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the opportunity to reply.
It ill becomes the Opposition—

§ Mr. McQuarrie
It ill becomes the Opposition to preach that this statutory instrument operates against parental choice. The supplementary provisions should have been taken on board by the Opposition if they wished to criticise the Bill. When the regulations are agreed, I am sure that many areas will take advantage of Article 13(3).

§ Mr. Maxton
The hon. Gentleman is a little worried that I shall carry out my threat to vote on the meat staining issue.
To set the record straight, all my hon. Friends from Scotland present in the Chamber tonight voted for the measure when it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made sure that Gaelic was not taught in Scottish schools. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) should address his questions to him.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
It would be interesting to read the record to see how many Labour Members were present when the measure was talked out.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
I spoke against the measure. I did not want the whole of my constituency designated as a Gaelic-speaking area. Certain schools did not wish to teach Gaelic and certain parents did not wish it. But I have actively encouraged the schools that wished to teach Gaelic—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must repeat that the route being followed is the wrong one for this statutory instrument.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not doubt your knowledge of Scotland but you are not a Scot. If you have read the debates that the right hon. Member for Western Isles raised, you will appreciate the strong feeling of parents on the question of choosing Gaelic or non-Gaelic speaking schools.
The instrument will give individual parents a choice. That is an important reason why it should be approved.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) for pointing out, among other things, how important the question of choice is to families. If there is a school within reasonable travelling distance that teaches Gaelic they may wish their child to be taught there, and the reverse might be true. A family next door to a school that teaches Gaelic may not wish their child to be taught there. My hon. Friend's point reveals the benefits of the instrument.
You have already been complimented for your patience in putting up yet again with a Scottish debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the last of the Session. We must treat with humour some of the Opposition's comments. If one took seriously every word uttered by the hon. Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home 1127 Robertson) when they say that they or the local education authority know better than the parents, it would be an exceedingly sad day for our democratic institutions.

§ Mr. Fletcher
We feel strongly about the statutory instrument and are happy to accept the challenge to a debate.

§ Mr. Fletcher
The information regulations are an essential part of the package of what has become known as the parents' charter. As far as is practicable, parents should be able to choose the school that they wish their child to attend.

§ Mr. Maxton
No one is arguing about that.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I am glad we agree about that, but that is not apparent from any of the Opposition's actions.
There is nothing theoretical about the parents' charter and parental choice in education. It is not enough to say that we shall give parents the right to choose the school that their children should attend. That must be backed up with the best of information for parents, from which they can make that choice. For that underlying and important reason the statutory instrument has been brought before the House.
Apart from the fact that perhaps a minority of parents will want to go to the trouble of finding out what other schools in their area may have to offer, there is a wider aspect to parental choice that is of greater importance.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The Minister is living in another world.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his ears instead of his mouth for a few moments.

§ Mr. Foulkes
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make that remark when he shouted, laughed and barracked all the way through speeches made by Opposition Members?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. I think that it was a Scottish phrase. I did not fully understand it.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I was suggesting that there was a wider aspect with regard to parental choice. Most parents would probably be content to send their children to the local neighbourhood school. It would be sad if that were otherwise. However, that fact does not remove one iota of importance from the document because it is just as important to give information about the local school to parents who, in all likelihood, wish to send their children there, as it is to give information about a wider area to parents who may, for whatever individual family reasons, wish to take advantage of the provision whereby they might send their children not to the local school but elsewhere.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I shall not give way.
It is important that parents, whatever decision they make about a school, should be provided with as much information as possible about the local schools and other schools in the area so that they can make an intelligent and informed choice about their children's education.
Furthermore, it is important, as we wish more parents to become involved in decisions about their children's education, that those parents should be involved in the 1128 primary choice of a school. That is why we are anxious that information should be distributed in a proper and organised form to parents so that they can make the choice between the local school and another school in the area.
Many schools already publish information. Hon. Members have referred to that. There is nothing in the regulations that will stop the good practice in which many schools indulge at present. We are making it perfectly clear that schools and education authorities will be obliged to provide parents with information so that they can make their choice.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) did not seem to disagree in principle with the Government's objectives although, like some other Opposition Members, he objected to the inclusion of examination results. If Opposition Members believe that parents should have information about schools' social activities, sporting activities and syllabuses, how c an they deny parents some information about academic progress and examination results achieved by the schools in be area? There is no suggestion that that should be done in a discriminatory fashion. However, that information can show the number of children who have been entered for O-grades and highers in Scotland, and the number of passes that have been achieved.
What could be more straightforward than that? The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire thought that we were merely sticking to the Scottish examinations board on that part of the information. Guidance circular 10/80 says that it might be desired to publish the results of students taking other examinations. Schools have discretion to decide how best—

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is now 10 o'clock precisely and we have been listening to this ministerial drivel for too long, I should like to move formally that my Scottish Parliament Bill be read a Second time. We are—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is by no stretch of the imagination a point of order.

§ Mr. Fletcher
As I was saying, schools are free to use other forms of examination, the results of which they may print in their prospectuses.

§ Mr. O'Neill
The Minister has not said why it is not referred to in the regulations. If examination results are as important as he maintains, adequate provision ought to have been made to cover all the examinations for which Scottish students are being presented. The SED fell down on this matter. The Minister is making a rather unfortunate and inept job of protecting either himself or his officials. Someone somewhere did not take account of the fact that examinations other than SCE examinations are presented for in Scottish schools.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I repeat, that matter was covered in a guidance circular. That was well understood by the schools, if not by the hon. Gentleman. It is for that perfectly sensible reason that we have included examination results in the information that is to be made available to parents.

§ Mr. Fletcher
No, I shall not give way. It is important to give the House some idea of the number of parents who have exercised their right of choice in this first year of the regulations.

§ Mr. Maxton
The Minister is frightened.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I give the hon. Member for Cathcart the same advice that I gave to the hon. Member for South Ayshire. He speaks and intervenes regularly. I do not complain about that. Just occasionally, he should listen with his ears rather than with his tongue.

§ Mr. Foulkes
The Minister is not answering.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I am trying to advise Opposition Members, who make such an issue about giving parents information, about how parents have responded to the freedom of choice and movement that they did not previously have to the same extent. Since the regulations were introduced this year there have been more than 10,000 applications by parents to choose a school other than a local neighbourhood one.

§ Mr. Foulkes
How does that compare with previous years?

§ Mr. Fletcher
More than 10,000 is a significant figure. That is not the end of it as the figure is based on returns by the education authorities to the Scottish Office.
What is even more significant and what may double that figure or make it even greater is the fact that many local authorities, acting in the spirit of the legislation, are allowing parents to take their children to a school and to be admitted without going through the procedure that is laid down in legislation. No statistical returns are available for that group. I am not worried about that. It means that the spirit of the legislation is being implemented by local authorities in a way that strikes right to the heart of its purpose. Informal admission on request is sensible, even if it defeats the statisticians' desire to provide the House with information about the total number of applications for a change of school. I find that heartening and encouraging. I hope that Opposition Members feel the same. It cannot be said that the numbers I have given represent a tiny minority. We know about 10,000, and that may have been doubled or more than doubled by informal requests—

§ Mr. Fletcher
I shall not give way until I have provided the hon. Gentleman with some information. The total number of transfers this year is 140,000. There have been 10,000, 20,000 or more informal requests for school transfers. That is a significant number. We have little information about previous years. We knew that complaints had been made, but we did not know much about the successful transfers.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that the information required would embarrass the bad schools—to use his simple language—at the expense of the so-called good 1130 schools. That is a terrible attitude for any hon. Member to take when considering parental choice. His alternative suggestion was that parents should be held back from making a choice, and that they should be embarrassed about their children's education rather than the local administration. How better can we test the quality of schools than to give people the freedom of choice over which school their children should attend? If that criterion is applied, at least we know that the school suits the parents.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is always in a hurry to ask more questions before his points have been answered, referred to a decision in the sheriff court in Kilmarnock. He raised an interesting matter, to which I am happy to refer. Requests for places in a popular school were refused by the education authority on the grounds that there would have to be significant expenditure on accommodation. However, when arguing the case it cut the ground from under its feet by saying that if the pupils were admitted it would not spend anything, but would continue with the existing arrangements such as using the school hall stage as a teaching area. With that evidence, I contend that the sheriff had no alternative but to decide that if that were the present practice, and if no significant expenditure would arise, the school should admit the child. I do not wish to debate the merits of the case, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the fact that the schools were already using areas for teaching that were not proper classrooms suggests that the sheriff had little choice but to say, "Continue as you are."

§ Mr. Foulkes
I recall the Minister arguing in Edinburgh that the local authority should take advantage of falling rolls to stop using unsatisfactory accommodation such as cloakrooms and hall stages. The trouble with the current legislation is that schools cannot do that because pupils arriving from other areas keep the schools overcrowded. The body best equipped to make such decisions is the education committee, or even the Secretary of State, but sheriffs have no knowledge or inside information to allow them to make such decisions.

§ Mr. Fletcher
In all the circumstances of this case, which I described in some detail, the sheriff's conclusion was logical. Under the previous Lothian region administration, few people who wished to exercise their choice of school in Edinburgh had much confidence in the justice of the decisions made by the transfer committee.
The Conservative Party believes that parents must have the maximum possible choice in the education of their children. I hope that that is accepted. Under the regulations parents will be provided with the maximum information upon which to make that choice. Arguments against that are absurd and hollow and contradict the suggestion that Labour Members agree in principle that, under a Labour Government, individuals would have a say in their own affairs.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but, after listening to that non-reply by the sub-Minister, I believe that someone should point out to him that yet again he has shown that he knows almost nothing about Scottish schools, for which he is supposed to bear ministerial responsibility.
No Labour Member would argue against the principles of parental or pupil choice or the freedom of information. I have played some part in the campaign within Scotland and elsewhere for a freedom of information Act. It is a pity that the Government and the Minister did not back up their fine words with better legislation for freedom of information and for parental, pupil and teacher rights of access to information. Instead they brought forward the regulations, most of which are a waste of paper. Again, we must wonder about the priorities of this corrupt Parliament in debating the matter at the fag end of the parliamentary Session. It seems that the Minister is applying double standards. Civil servants and Ministers must have nothing else to do—they are ministering over the worst cuts in the history of Scottish education—than to state in black and white that parents should get the name and address of the school which their children attend. They must think that the parents and children of Scotland are thick in the head if they need legislation to tell them to get the name and address of the school which their children attend, or the name and address of the head teacher. Why not go one stage further and tell parents in secondary legislation that they should get the name and address of the form teacher as well? It is ridiculous that these provisions should be set out in secondary legislation.

§ Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this an intervention or a speech?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman had been present at the time, he would have heard me call the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to make a speech.

§ Mr. Canavan
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of the hooligans on the Conservative Benches cannot appreciate a good speech when they hear one occasionally.
Paragraph 2(g) of schedule 1, under the heading "Basic information" refers to arrangements for assessing pupils' progress and reporting this to parents". This is another example of the Government's hypocrisy. When the Education (Scotland) Act 1981—the primary legislation—was passing through the House we tabled amendments in Committee which would have made it obligatory on the education authority or on the part of the Minister, or both, to give access to parents and to pupils to the records that are kept in schools. I hear complaints from some parents and pupils who are concerned, especially in these days of mass unemployment which has been created by the Minister and the other rogues who are included in the Government, who have deliberately created mass unemployment in Scotland—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying in his language. He should not refer to Ministers as rogues.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Even if they are?

§ Mr. Canavan
The Minister has certainly been guilty of rogue misbehaviour in the way in which he has 1132 deliberately created mass unemployment and deprived young people in Scotland of the opportunity to receive good training and education as well as the opportunity to work when their statutory period of education is finished.
There is the fear in some pupils' minds, and in their parents' minds, too, that there might be something in the school records—it may have been put in them with good intentions but could result in putting a black mark against the pupil—that could be carried on after the pupil has left school and could interfere with his or her employment opportunities in later life. That is not something which should be disregarded. If there is any case for statutory access to information, access to school records is essential so that if mistakes have been made they can be corrected. Even if the initial information was correct, there should be the opportunity for access. There may have been a change for the better in the pupil's conduct which makes him or her potentially a better citizen or a better employee.
Why should young people have the fear in their minds that because of some petty misdemeanour committed in adolescence their record may be held against them and may inhibit their employment opportunities? Access to school records should have been included in the schedule.
There should also be statutory access to a teacher's record by the individual teacher.
One well documented case is that of a teacher in my constituency who for years applied unsuccessfully for promotion. For years he was never even short-listed for promotion. He wondered why he was not interviewed or even considered. He discovered that information on an education authority file alleged that he had been involved in a political demonstration in Glasgow, was arrested and detained for the weekend and was unable to fulfil his teaching duties on the Monday morning. That false information came to light almost by accident and interfered with his employment and career prospects.
If the Government were not so hypocritical but were genuine about access to information, they would legislate so that individual parents, pupils and teachers had access to such information about themselves. They should have the right to see in black and white what Big Brother has against them. The Government do not believe in that. We are approaching 1984 and the Government are behaving like Big Brother. They are Stalinist in their dictatorship of education in Scotland without having a mandate from the people of Scotland.
The regulations say that access to information should apply to school policy on discipline, school rules; enforcement of attendance". The double standards and hypocrisy of the Government are incredible, even to those of us who have witnessed them in the past three-and-a-half years on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
That applies especially to the Under-Secretary, whose credibility is non-existent. He of all people is introducing secondary legislation which makes it compulsory for education authorities or schools to provide information on school policy and discipline, although he voted against our amendments to the Bill. We tabled amendments to give parents the right of access to information on a school's attitude to corporal punishment. We tabled amendments to give information on the frequency of corporal punishment.
For example, some schools might try to phase out corporal punishment. Some enlightened education 1133 authorities such as Strathclyde and Lothian have taken the initiative. The Minister was afraid to take that initiative to get rid of corporal punishment. The Minister shakes his head, but he voted in Committee against an amendment to ban corporal punishment for handicapped children. He voted in favour of corporal punishment for handicapped children. That proves how twisted he is. He is now laughing. The Minister may joke about it. He probably thinks that meting out punishment to disabled children is a big laugh.
Despite the facade of the statutory instrument, parents should be reminded that the Minister voted against our amendment to give parents access to information and the right to say to the education authority that they do not want their child to be subjected to corporal punishment.
The Minister proclaims the importance of parental choice and right, but he will not even fulfil the wishes of the European Court of Human Rights despite the fact that he is a member of a Government who are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and despite the European Court's finding on the legal rights of parents as to whether their children should be subjected to the barbaric practice of corporal punishment. The Minister is not willing to give parents that right, although he puts himself forward as the great champion of parental rights. He is not fit to hold office, and he should resign.
Paragraph 2(q) of schedule 1 shows the Tory Party's obsession with examination results. They should put their own examination results on the table to let us see whether they are of sufficient educational calibre to be Ministers in charge of Scottish or any education. If I were giving examination marks for their abilities as Ministers, they would be well below the E category of O-level for ministerial capability. I should not even pass them under the old 11-plus system. They are a discredit to their position when they put forward examination results as the main item for assessing a school's educational value and a child's educational attainment.
The Opposition have nothing against information. We have consistently argued in favour of more information being given to parents about the assessment of their children and of the range of school activities. To single out examinations and say: The number of pupils from the school who attain each band of award in examinations conducted by the Scottish Examination Board, shown separately for each subject and for each stage of secondary education, in the most recent school year for which those numbers are available to the school. must be given is incredible. It is like putting a statutory obligation on the school to list its place in the football league, rugby league or chess competition. Why should one aspect of education be singled out for such treatment?
While on the matter of sport, there are far too many schools in Scotland that do not give pupils the right to decide what sport they would like to play. There are far too many schools particularly in the part of Scotland that the Minister misrepresents who virtually forbid children from playing one of the most popular ball games in Scotland—Association Football—and force them to play Rugby Union. I have nothing against Rugby Union, but if we believe in pupil and parental choice and breadth of curriculum that choice should be available in schools.
If the Government see fit to introduce legislation about examinations, it would be logical to introduce legislation for pupil choice in the whole curriculum.
1134 During the passage of the Bill the Minister and his minions voted against an amendment that would have given senior school pupils, and the parents of those pupils not mature enough to make up their own minds, the right to opt for a particular course or subject. But throughout Committee the Minister voted against any meaningful freedom of choice for parents or pupils. That is why these regulations are a waste of Government paper and public expenditure.
I can honestly say that hardly any of my constituents see this as an education priority in the Central region of Scotland—[Interruption.] The Minister will at least give me credit for representing my constituents. I think that I increased my majority by slightly more than he did at the last general election. I also believe that I speak with a greater mandate from the constituents of West Stirlingshire than the mandate that the Minister received from the constituents of Edinburgh, North.
Although this rubbish is almost completely irrelevant to the people in my area—

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
The hon. Gentleman does not know.

§ Mr. Canavan
I do know. Unlike some Conservative Members, my children attend local education authority schools. I visit as many of the schools in my constituency as I can, and I think that I know more about what is going on than the Minister.
Although this rubbish might be irrelevant to my constituents, it could have a detrimental effect in certain urban areas. Some parents who would otherwise be happy for their children to attend local education authority schools will, because of legislation such as this, now might be tempted to say "There might be a better school elsewhere, and given that Parliament is debating this nonsense I should perhaps look around for another school". The danger is that pupils might be taken away from the local school in some urban areas, and the local school could thereby be impoverished. That is the genuine fear of some hon. Members from urban areas.
Here we are at the fag end of one of the worst parliamentary Sessions in the history of this Parliament. It has proven yet again that the Minister and the majority of Members of this Parliament are absolutely out of touch with Scottish education, and insensitive to the needs of Scottish children and the majority of Scottish parents.
Therefore, for the fourth time today, I formally move, That the Scottish Parliament Bill be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to describe this Parliament as a corrupt Parliament?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I did not hear the hon. Member do that, but if he did so it certainly would not be in order. Did the hon. Member do that? If he did, I must ask him to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Canavan
We shall have to check it in Hansard tomorrow.