Scotland (Education) (Hansard, 26 November 1986)

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the crisis in Scottish education as a result of the Government's rejection of the Main report and the subsequent ballot of members of the Educational Institute of Scotland. I promise to be brief. This is a genuine emergency about the gravest crisis to face Scottish education in its history. Shortly after the present Secretary of State for Scotland was appointed he agreed to set up a so-called independent inquiry into the salaries and conditions of teachers. That was a rather belated response to the longest and most bitter dispute in Scottish education. Nevertheless, there were great hopes and expectations that the setting up of the Main committee of inquiry would lead to a successful solution. When Sir Peter Main and his committee published the report a few weeks ago, there were many comments about shortcomings, misgivings and reservations. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State's response was such a disgrace that it almost finished any chance of the Main report ever being implemented and a successful solution to the dispute being found.

The Secretary of State rejected one of the principal recommendations of the Main report on the timescale of the salary proposals. If he had his way, some Scottish teachers would lose literally thousands of pounds. The largest teachers' union in Scotland, the EIS, responded by holding a special general meeting. It unanimously decided to reject what has come to be called "the Rifkind package". It decided to ballot all of its members. Just an hour ago, the result of the ballot was announced. There was an 89 per cent. return: 84 per cent., or 28,257 teachers, voted no. That represents more than half the day school 276 teachers in Scottish education. Whatever the other trade unions decide, the majority of Scottish day school teachers have rejected the Secretary of State's package.

Now there is a threat of further disruption in our schools. We must bear in mind the fact that some children have not experienced educational normality for two years or more. Therefore, undoubtedly the Secretary of State has plunged Scottish education into this state of deep crisis. He has ultimate responsibility for Scottish education. He is or should be accountable to Parliament. I believe that he should resign forthwith for failing to deliver and for abrogating his responsibilities to Scottish teachers, parents and schoolchildren. At the very least, the House should debate this important matter.