HC Deb 27 March 1986 vol 94 cc1143-50 2.58 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report, and especially the college education part of it. What I say will almost be the last gasp of the House before the Easter recess, but of course the Minister will have the last gasp. There has already been a debate on the subject in the Scottish Grand Committee, but I am sure the Minister will agree that things have moved on since then, and, as we are almost at the close of submissions in the consultation period, this is an appropriate time for the Minister to comment on the report.

The importance of the issue for the Opposition is examplified by the fact that we have in the House my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). They are two of our Front Bench spokesmen in the Scottish team. I am worried about the colleges of education and about recommendations 913 and 914 in the report. I support some of the other recommendations, but we are not dealing with those today.

I cannot understand why the report contains a gratuitous recommendation about the colleges of education. According to the report, it is with some reluctance that its authors make that recommendation. I wish that they had allowed their reluctance to overcome them and not come up with any recommendations. They were not asked to consider making such a recommendation. That was not included specifically in their remit, and the recommendation is somewhat gratuitous.

There have been two reviews of the colleges of education in Scotland within the past decade. There was one in 1977, and a second one in 1980. The uncertainty that has hung over the colleges over the past decade has been unhelpful, and to raise further uncertainty is doubly unhelpful.

Some have suggested that the vice-chairman of STEAC, Mr. Tom Bone, might have influenced the recommendation to which I have referred to safeguard the position of Jordanhill college of education. I hope that that is not the case. I must say, however, that I did wonder where the recommendation had come from and how it had arisen again.

In reality, the substantial question mark that hangs over the colleges should not be there at all. Instead, the question mark should be hanging over the committee's recommendations and its projections of pupil numbers and, secondly, the consequent effect on the number of students and teachers in the colleges.

I received today the Scottish Education Department's statistical bulletin, which contradicts what has been advanced by STEAC. I hope the Minister will confirm that the bulletin shows that in 1984 there were 438,000 primary pupils in Scotland, and projects that in 1987 there will be 334,000. I acknowledge that that is a downturn, but by the end of the century there will be 484,000, on a conservative estimate, if one might use the term.

It is probably safer and more sensible to consider the high variant. It is relatively easy to close colleges of education, but it is difficult to open them or to make available additional places. In considering the high variant, we see that numbers rise steadily until the year 2000, when we shall return to the 1979–80 level. It should be said that the previous review took place after 1979–80.

The SED's statistics contradict those which STEAC has put forward. Equally spectacularly, the General Teaching Council, which is the Secretary of State's adviser on the supply of teachers, disagreed recently with the STEAC report and its recommendations and said that the colleges should remain open. The council is an extremely powerful body. All relevant statistics are available to it and its membership embraces the entire breadth of education knowledge. Represented on it are local authorities, the colleges of education and many other organisations. With no disrespect to STEAC, one or two business men and one or two educationists do not have the same depth of knowledge as the members of the council.

The STEAC report presupposes no improvement in the quality of education, no improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio and no in-service training. I hope that the next Government, who we know will be a Labour Government, will want to see an improvement in the quality of education. That will be difficult to achieve if the colleges of education do not exist. I am arguing that the seven colleges must stay open. If there is a temporary downturn in teacher numbers in the next year or two, that can be accommodated, especially in the larger colleges, by a downturn in the intake. We must take account of the upsurge in demand that will take place in the ensuing years.

I wish to concentrate my remarks on the Craigie college of education, which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence. The college serves the whole of Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway and is our community college. I do not concentrate on Craigie because I have no concern for the other colleges. Indeed, I have concern for them all, and some of the arguments that can be advanced in support of the other six colleges are those that apply to Craigie. I shall concentrate on Craigie because I know it well and because there are six arguments which relate to it and which the representatives of Craigie advanced forcefully to the Minister. I am sure the Minister will agree that they produced an excellent and forceful submission.

The first is a geographical argument which applies equally to a number of the other colleges, particularly Aberdeen. There is a concentration of teacher education in Scotland. It is becoming highly centralised compared with England and Wales, and the Craigie submission has a map to show that. Craigie serves Dumfries and Galloway and Strathclyde, along with Jordanhill and St. Andrew's colleges. Those two regions have a population equivalent to Wales. But whereas Wales has 11 institutions with pre-service training spread throughout the country, west Scotland, equivalent in size and population, has only three. If the recommendations went ahead, there could be more centralisation in Scotland.

I today received a letter from the Minister, answering some points that I had raised, in which he says that if any of the closures go ahead, outstations could be provided.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

The Minister has said that before.

Mr. Foulkes

Exactly. My hon. Friend used to teach at Hamilton, and he knows only too well. The evidence of Craiglockhart, Hamilton and Callendar Park is not encouraging. Outstation provision remains in only two, and it is in one or two rented classrooms, with only a handful of staff.

A local college knows the schools, and the schools know the college. The link between the school and college is important. The majority of the output of Craigie college finds employment in south-west Scotland. The Craigie product has a high reputation. STEAC mentions the importance of continuing education, and that would be helped by having a college, not an outstation, with all the range of expertise, support and advice that only a college can offer.

The second argument in favour of Craigie is its good employment record. That is not easy in these days of high unemployment, as the Minister knows. The Craigie product is known in the south-west of Scotland as being of a high standard. In January 1984, 82 per cent. of the output was employed, compared with between 16 and 46 per cent. in other colleges. In January 1985 it was 73 per cent., and in January 1986 it was up to 92 per cent. Craigie-trained teachers are a high quality product.

The third argument, which is one which I do not advance, but it has been put forward by STEAC, the Public Accounts Committee and others, relates to cost-effectiveness and efficiency. I am not sure that it is the most important argument, but as it has been argued I shall counter it. The cost per student at Craigie is the lowest of all—£3,421 per student, as we see from page 153 of the report. If Craigie were to be closed—I am not saying that the Minister would contemplate it—students would have to go to Glasgow to be trained and there would be the extra cost of travel from Stranraer, Dumfries and Ayrshire up to Glasgow. There would also be the problem of the extra cost of accommodation in Glasgow, which, as my hon. Friends know, is already greatly strained, as Glasgow has two universities and other colleges.

Fourthly, nothing could provide a stronger case than the efficient use of accommodation in Craigie. Half of Craigie college is used by 400 students from Ayr college—formerly Ayr technical college. Out of the total complement of 800 students at Craigie, that leaves, as even the Minister will be able to work out, 400. The teacher training complement is currently 340, and with the daily community use that brings Craigie up to 800 people regularly using that college—up to its complement—so there is no question that Craigie is not being used to capacity.

The fifth argument is service to the community. The other day the whole theatre at Craigie college was packed with people from all parties, including the Minister's, and all walks of life supporting the college and what it does for the community. People from the Open University, the social work department and community education all said how useful Craigie is to the community.

I am grateful to the Minister for replying to a question today and for mentioning all the representations that he has received. Many of them come from Ayrshire, including from the presbytery there. Robert Burns would not dare to stand against the recommendations of the presbytery of Ayr, and the presbytery of Ayr unanimously supports the retention of Craigie college.

The final argument concerns the partnership between college and university, which STEAC also says is important. For the past 40 years Craigie college has had a superb partnership with the University of Strathclyde. It is significant that the principal and academic board of Strathclyde university have praised Craigie, and have made submissions to the Minister to ignore the STEAC recommendations and keep Craigie serving the west of Scotland.

Those are the specific arguments for Craigie, and many of them apply equally to the other colleges. I am in favour of all seven staying open. But if one final argument was needed to convince the Minister and the Secretary of State about the foolishness of closing any college, it would be that they should look at those which have already been closed by the Minister or his predecessor. In a written answer to me on 3 February the Minister confirmed—[Interruption.] I must say, I do not like that barracking from my own Front Bench.

In a written answer to me on 3 February the Minister confirmed that there are still no firm proposals for the long-term use of Callendar Park college of education, which was closed about five years ago. No revenue at all has accrued to the Government from that. Moreover, we all recall the scandal of the sale of the Hamilton college buildings at a knockdown price by the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). They were sold to a somewhat dubious character who is also involved in a pretty sinister campaign for law and order, with which the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is connected. To sell Hamilton college to a sort of Mary Whitehouse in trousers was not a sensible step. I hope that the Minister will get his inspectors to look at what is going on in that private institution. It would bear very careful scrutiny.

It is much better to keep the colleges, which are a vital part of Scottish education, serving their communities in the variety of ways that I have outlined. During the next few weeks the Minister and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the various recommendations. The Minister said that one or two supported the STEAC recommendations. I cannot think who they are. I suppose that one might be Jordanhill college, but there cannot be many of them. I see that the Minister is nodding, so that must be the only one.

Educational and community interests, as well as many other people, are overwhelmingly against the closure of any of the seven colleges. I think that I speak on behalf of all Members of Parliament for the south-west of Scotland, and on behalf of councillors and the community as a whole, when I say that there will be a monumental outcry if Craigie is not kept open. Surely the Minister and even this Government believe that Scottish education is a vital part of Scottish life.

3.13 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on raising this important matter in such a timely fashion, as we are just coming to the end of the consultation period. He has given the Minister fair notice that it is an anxious issue, which is likely to arouse strong feelings before it runs its course. It is, therefore, important that we should have a chance to consider it, albeit briefly today.

It is an anxious issue because an aura of uncertainty has surrounded the colleges of education for a long time. The Minister will be aware that during the past decade the student population has fallen by about 53 per cent., which represents a substantial drop. There has been a rather sad record of closures. The history of Hamilton and Callendar Park underlines some of the difficulties that can arise.

I have considerable admiration for the work put in by Donald MacCallum and his colleagues on the STEAC report. It is on the whole a lively and largely optimistic report. The last passages on the colleges of education were sparingly phrased and skeletal in their arguments. The conclusion was not buttressed by substantial argument. I found that part of the report unconvincing.

Paragraph 5.39 of the report contained the key factor on which the committee based its recommendations. The assumption was that there would be a peak in the number of students in pre-service training of about 5,000. Everyone who has looked even casually at the arguments will know that the Scottish Education Department has taken a more optimistic view of the number of places which are likely to be needed. In 1984–85, the estimate was 5,250, but the estimate for 1985–86 was 7,380. That figure came out in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee.

In the same period, the number of places for primary school training, which is particularly important to Craigie, the esimated rise was from 1,780 to 3,500. That underlines what we already suspected—that the statistical base on which the recommendation was made is not made out. That is the kindest way of putting it.

The Minister suggested at Scottish Question Time yesterday that the report was well considered. I do not dissent from that as a generalisation, but, on the face of it, that cannot be applied to the particular passage to which I referred.

We must also take into account the need for growth in in-service training. The SED predicted a small decrease in the number of other users of colleges which I do not accept. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that to talk, for example, of the development of outstations is not entirely satisfactory. I thought that outstations had something to do with sheep-rearing in Western Australia. It is not a satisfactory answer in terms of being a substitute for the in-depth service that a college of education can give to a community.

I recognise the need for up-to-date information. The Public Accounts Committee said that forcefully. The Minister talked about the computerised analysis of available accommodation and course requirements. Somebody is obviously trying to make him literate, since they cannot make him numerate. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the view that the case for closure has not been made out. Much depends upon what is fed into a computer and who assesses the results. We are anxious that not too much weight is given to Treasury evidence but that proper weight is given to education priorities when reaching a final decision.

We do not deny the case for rationalisation. There will be changes in staff-pupil ratios. There may be a case for a more efficient use of resources and courses. I hope that the case for further closures will not be accepted when there is no substantial argument for making those closures.

We must put an end to the uncertainty, but we do not want to be rushed into a narrow, book-keeping approach to the exercise when so much is at stake.

3.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on his success in securing this debate on the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council and its implications for Scottish colleges of education. As the hon. Member recognised, in one sense the debate is peculiarly timely because it is the last official day for comments to be submitted on the STEAC report.

On the other hand it is untimely for me and for Opposition Members, as it is extremely difficult for me to comment. We cannot take any decisions on the report until we have fully analysed the representations received. However, I congratulate the hon. Member on putting forward his case, particularly his case for Craigie college. It is unfortunate that he spoilt the objective tenor of his remarks by his wholly unjustified remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher).

I remind the House of the policy which was confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland during the debate on STEAC in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh in January. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley also referred to that debate. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the consultation period would continue until Easter and that no decisions would be taken until views had been received during that period. We have received a large number of views. We have received a petition from the Scottish members of the National Union of Students. The first signature on the petition was that of the leader of the Opposition. No doubt the House will wish him well in his studies as a Scottish undergraduate.

We are not rigid about the closing date for representations. I recognise there may be some comments that will be received during the Easter period. We have received about a hundred representations and indeed, at the rate at which comments have been received—I have not yet checked on this morning's post—we shall receive well over a hundred specifically about the colleges of education. However, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley will recognise that my answer concerns the most up-to-date information. I will of course report to the House on the decisions taken in relation to STEAC.

Mr. Foulkes

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am aware I have taken up much of the time of the debate. He has confirmed the information in his original written answer but will he bring it up to date and confirm to the House that the vast majority of representations in relation to the recommendation of STEAC on colleges of education are against its recommendations and in favour of keeping all seven colleges open?

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member will recognise that there are 23 recommendations in the STEAC report. Some of them are important and are widely accepted. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley will recognise that the report, in general, has been well received. I confirm to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley that it is true that the majority of the representations we have received in relation to the recommendations on the colleges of education have been opposed to the STEAC recommendations.

STEAC recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the number of colleges of education to three nondenominational institutes plus one Roman Catholic college. Hon. Members who represent the official Opposition have given us their views on that. The Liberals and the Social Democratic party did not express their views yesterday and are not present today. It would be helpful if I told the House I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North East (Mr. Henderson) for informing me that at the Educational Institute of Scotland council the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) confirmed the alliance view that the majority of Scottish colleges of education should be retained. Perhaps I should add that at least for the Conservative party and doubtless for the Labour party, if not the Liberals, four out of seven constitutes a majority.

I cannot confirm when decisions will be taken on the recommendations until we have considered the various representations received.

I must say to Opposition members that we are not committed to responding to all the recommendations at the same time because many of the recommendations of the STEAC report are not controversial. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and the Doon Valley listed a number of questions about the future of colleges of education and particularly Craigie college. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame North (Mr. Corrie) during Scottish questions yesterday, and it is, of course, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I confirm to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that, in considering Craigie, as with the other colleges, we shall take into account all the relevant factors and ensure that decisions are appropriate on educational grounds, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Garscadden, as well as cost-effective.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley emphasised most the point about numbers and surplus capacity. It is common ground that there is surplus capacity. In its report, STEAC said in paragraph 5.34:

While we accept that there will be a growth in numbers in primary schools at least and that some reversal of the trend in student numbers in the colleges of education during the next decade will be required, we do not foresee the stage being reached again when all seven colleges of education will be filled to capacity with trainee teachers, teachers on in-service courses and students on other non-teacher-training courses. Equally, it is recognised that some of the capacity figures that have been quoted in the past, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are less sophisticated than we would wish. I accept the general point that both hon. Members made that, in taking decisions on the need to effect rationalisation, it is important that we have information available to us that relates actual accommodation to the particular requirements of the current range of courses offered by the colleges. For that reason, my Department, in conjunction with the colleges is carrying out a computerised analysis of available accommodation and course requirements. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to that.

Let me expand on that point. Over the past two months or so, my Department has met each of the colleges to discuss initial computer prints showing accommodation usage. The initial prints are a working tool only, but in the light of comments made they will be amended to show as realistically as possible the position in each college. The computer model will allow us to test the effect of future population changes. The results of that exercise will be available to inform our decisions on the STEAC report.

I agree with both hon. Members that it is important that decisions are reached on sensible educational grounds. STEAC took the view that there should be rationalisation of courses of secondary teacher training to avoid small numbers of students being spread too thinly over a wide range of specialist subjects. I confirm to the House that, pending the outcome of consultations on STEAC, it would be premature to contemplate radical changes. Therefore, rationalisation in connection with intakes for the session 1986–87 is being carried out without prejudice to the longer-term position.

Mr. Foulkes

The Minister referred to the computerised analysis of availability of accommodation and course requirements, but that does not take account of geographical factors. Scotland represents one third of the land area of the United Kingdom. I hope that at least if the computer does not take account of that, the Minister will.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman took the very words out of my mouth. I was about to say that the up-to-date information on capacity and on the projections of student numbers is vital. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Government will of course take fully into account geographical and other factors, and the importance of in-service training to which both hon. Members referred.

No doubt the House or perhaps the Scottish Grand Committee will return to the subject when the Government have reached their decisions. For the moment, I confirm to the House that I shall study carefully and in detail the points that both hon. Members put to me during the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Three o'clock pursuant to resolution of the House [25 March].