§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(d) persons (to be known as "community members") who are representatives of community groups, and who shall be elected jointly by members of the staff of the school and by parents of pupils in attendance at the school.'
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
§
No. 35, in page 2, leave out line 10 and insert
`in such numbers as are prescribed in Schedule 5 to this Act.'
§
No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
`(2) The prescribed number of parent members shall not exceed the total prescribed representation of other groups on the School Board.'.
§
No. 34, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The number of parent members shall equal the combined representation of other groups on every school Board'.
§ No. 39, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 15.
§ No. 38, in page 2, leave out line 18 and insert 'Schedule 5'.
§
No. 37, in page 2, line 27, leave out
`variation of regulations made under this section or'.
§
No. 10, in page 2, line 37, leave out from third 'a' to end of line 39 and insert
`parent member (under subsection (1)(a) above), and who is also eligible as a staff member (under subsection (1)(b) above) may be a candidate for election to the Board in one capacity only.'.
§ No. 27—a new schedule—
§
`MEMBERSHIP OF SCHOOL BOARDS
1. The composition of a school board will be linked to the size of the school measured by the number of pupils in attendance. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 below, the number of members in each category will be as shown in the following table:
1018
| Number of pupils | Parent Members | Staff Members | Co-opted Members | Total |
| 1– 10* | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| 101– 500 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 501–1000 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| 1001–1500 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 |
| over 1500 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 14 |
| * Not applicable to single teacher schools. |
2. The number of pupils will be assessed at the time of the school census each year.
3. Single teacher schools will be treated as a separate class with two parent members and two co-opted members.
4. Subject to section 2 of this Act, an education authority may draw up a scheme to make different provision for different schools and for different classes of schools than that provided for in this Schedule.
5. Such a scheme made under paragraph 4 above must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.'
§ Mr. McFallThe Opposition wish to highlight four main themes in these amendments: the community aspect of school boards, the parental majority, the composition of school boards, and parents who are also teachers.
Amendment No. 10 proposes that a parent shall be eligible for school board membership as either a parent or staff member. If individuals are not allowed to choose whether they stand as staff or parent members, we shall be disfranchising them, when there is no need to do that. Individuals should be allowed to stand in either capacity. A staff member could bring to the board a degree of experience that did not necessarily owe to their being a member of the staff but simply because they are a parent. The individual should be allowed to apply that experience to the benefit of the board.
We are advocating also that individuals should be elected to the board jointly by staff and parents. The school itself is part of the wider community and is not cut off from it in any way. Sadly, even the Bill's title incorporating the word "Board" relates to a 19th century concept, showing that the Government have not caught up with the reality of modern day schools and education. The wider community must be involved in the working of the school and should be allowed to make a contribution to it.
Over the past six months, I have received at least six HMI reports on different schools in my own constituency. Each and every one of those reports has a section headed "Community Development". Inspectors judge schools by the level of their involvement in the local community and also by the personality and thrust of the head teacher and the degree to which he or she engages the involvement of the wider community in the work of the school. As inspectors attach that degree of credence to that aspect, to the extent that no HMI report omits a reference to community development, we suggest that the community should be involved in the work of school boards and their decisions and deliberations.
We contend that there should be no parental majority on school boards, and we have an impeccable source for such a recommendation—the parents themselves in Scotland. There were 7,600 responses to the proposals, which was so overwhelming a response that the Minister allowed extra time for them to be considered. A major theme of those responses was that the concept of partnership is important. Time and time again, parents expressed the view that they wanted greater involvement and to take more decisions, but that they also wanted 1019 teachers and educationists to look after their children, not only other parents. Their main reason for thinking that way was because they are aware of the danger of a prejudiced minority group gaining power. They prefer instead to put their faith in teachers to do what is best for their children's future.
The subject of parental control touches on a number of other areas. A recent article in The Times Educational Supplement quotes Mr. Alistair Marquis, head of Bankton primary school, Livingstone, when addressing a recent conference. He warned that the danger of parent-dominated school boards was that they would retard progress in integrating children with special needs into ordinary primary schools. He said that such boards could dictate to head teachers on matters they did not understand and would obstruct sound educational development. There is no more sound an educational development than special needs schools. That head teacher was concerned about the concept of school boards as contained in the Government's proposals.
6.45 pm
I refer also to a letter published in the Glasgow Herald on 7 April in the wake of the controversy at Jordanhill school concerning the question of opting out. One of the parents involved, Mr. Clement, wrote that there were dangers in attempting to transfer the detailed management of schools to school boards dominated by parents. His message was that what teachers needed most from parents was support overall, and not just from a small number of them. That was the view of a parent who had experienced the process of parental involvement over those past crucial months in Jordanhill's history.
The Government's proposals will do nothing for the majority of parents. They are justified on the grounds that they will involve parents in the education of their children and will give real decision-making powers. I contend that, as in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass", the Government use words to mean exactly what they choose them to mean—neither more nor less. Despite the Government's rhetoric, their proposals will do nothing for parents. In justifying that remark, I refer the House to the Government's regulations for the composition of school boards and the domination of parents over all other groups.
A secondary school having between 500 and 1,000 pupils—which is typical of most secondary schools in my own region of Strathclyde, which is the largest in Scotland—will be allowed five parent members. Thus about 2,000 parents in a typical Strathclyde school will be represented by just five of their number, who will have the overwhelming majority on the school board. Those five members will account for just 0.25 per cent. of the total number of parents concerned, which must be a matter of primary concern to all concerned with education. We argue that the Government should allow the board's structure to be defined by Parliament. That can be arranged in a simple tabular form, as proposed in amendment No. 27. There, the number of parent members is equally matched by the combination of teachers and other interested parties. Such a composition will fairly reflect the common interest in the school's work—being shared by parents, teaching and non-teaching staff, and the local education authority. An absolute majority of parents would be detrimental to the proper consideration of important matters.
1020 In Committee, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to give this matter further thought. I ask him to do so on the basis that there is a need for stability in education today, so that the issues facing Scottish education may be properly addressed. In the wake of the teachers' dispute, stability is needed, especially with the introduction of innovations such as standard grade, the 16–18 action plan and the TVEI course. Other areas of importance include nursery and adult education. We need partnership and consensus, and the proposals in the amendments make sense. We ask the Minister to reinforce the comments he made in Committee and to think, and to think again, about these proposals.
§ Mr. McAllionI support the arguments put forward by forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on this group of amendments. In particular, I want to draw attention to schedule 5, which deals with the role of teachers on school boards.
Earlier today some hon. Members met representatives of teachers' unions, COSLA and parent bodies to discuss school boards. They made clear to us their unhappiness about the Bill, the composition of school boards and the relationship between parents, teachers and other interested bodies. In particular, the parents' representatives echoed the anxieties of many other bodies, such as the Church of Scotland, schools councils, other political parties and teachers' organisations, which were discussed in Committee. That is a measure of the divisiveness of the concept of parental majority on the school board.
The parents made it clear that they would like to see the Government trying to achieve a partnership between the home and the school through reform in the schools and through the involvement of more parents. The object of a partnership between parents and teachers and all the other groups associated with education is defeated by including within the Bill the divisive condition that there should be a parental majority on every school board who would thereby have a stranglehold on the board's activities.
The parents stressed the importance of trying to achieve a balance on the school board. For example, one drew attention to the tremendous difference between his experience in the local parent-teacher association and on the school council. The parent-teacher association was dominated by parents with only a few teachers involved and was described as a kind of inquisition of the teachers. It was not constructive or conducive of anything good for the school. The school council achieved a better balance between teachers and parents. There was more constructive debate and the school, parents, teachers and everybody else benefited. The parents wanted to achieve an even discussion within the school board system. They fear that the parental majority, upon which the Minister is insisting, will prevent school boards from achieving anything of any worth.
The parents to whom we spoke were also disappointed about the lack of staff representatives on the school hoard. My hon. Friend has already drawn attention to that fact. They realise that if there is to be a partnership more teachers will have to have representation on the school boards. Many school boards of schools with up to 1,000 pupils could have only one staff representative and that would be likely to frustrate goodwill.
The parents also wished to see other divisive elements removed from the Bill—for example, the right of the school board to veto the per capita expenditure proposals 1021 of the head teacher. They saw no need for that. They felt that a good head teacher—almost all head teachers are good—would be concerned to carry the school board with them so that there would be no necessity for the school board to have such a veto. The head teacher would consult the school board and take on board its views.
Another concern is that the parental majority so admired by the Minister involves only up to four parents. They could be a strong unrepresentative clique dominating the school board, and the mass of parents with children at such a school would have no means of influencing them.
In Committee, the Minister said that he could envisage circumstances when there would be no need for school boards to have an annual general meeting with the parents of the school if nothing had happened in the past year to justify holding such a meeting. If the Minister were serious, that would suggest that school boards would do nothing. However, parents consider that school boards should be accountable to the vast majority of parents who should be able at least once a year to meet the school board to discuss with it what has been going on in their name.
Similarly, the Bill allows education authorities to delegate powers to school boards with the agreement of the school board and the education authority. That means that delegation can take place without reference to parents. There is a provision in the Bill which allows the delegation of powers from an education authority to a school board and, where there is conflict between the two, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the parents must be balloted on whether a delegation of powers should be allowed. If there is agreement between the education authority and the school board, parents need never be referred to, and that is another omission from the Bill. Powers can be delegated to school boards without the parents ever being consulted.
Those are the issues with which this group of amendments attempts to deal.
The teachers' representatives made it clear that they want to see an increased representation for their people on the school boards. Recently I went to see my son playing for the school team in a cup final in Dundee. [Interruption.] St. Colomba's primary school in Dundee swept the board and took all four trophies. However, this is a serious point because such school teams could not exist without the tremendous efforts made by teachers. I was speaking to one of those dedicated teachers who gives his own time to school football teams. He told me that if the Government bring in school boards with only one staff representative, because the role of the teacher has been so downgraded under the Government, he is beginning to wonder whether all his years of effort have been worthwhile. That is the effect that the Government's divisive measures are having on staff representatives throughout Scotland. The Minister should take that on board and start thinking seriously about it.
The Government's proposal for a parental majority on school boards is a device whereby they can undermine the influence of education authorities and teachers in Scotland. We know that the Minister's concept of education in Scotland as he would like to see it is different from that which is current among the vast majority of Scottish people and from that held by teacher associations and education authorities. He cannot break down the 1022 resistance of education authorities or teacher associations, who will not give way because they have won the argument, and he is now trying to get round them by creating a school board with a parental majority which can create a kind of dictatorship of small cliques of parents who think like the Minister and who, like the Minister, want to see what the Bill has always been about. It has never been about parental involvement or improving the quality of education in our schools; it is about paving the way for the Bill that will come after this one—the Bill that will allow schools to opt out of local education authority control.
When we spoke to the parents at the meeting this afternoon, someone made the point that for a number of years this Minister and previous Scottish Ministers have been creating a climate in Scotland whereby parents will begin to want to opt out of local education authority control. They have been starving education authorities of the necessary funds with which to provide quality education. They have been creating the climate whereby people will say that they would be better off outside local education authority control.
Now the Government are creating the institutional mechanism by which that opting out of education authority control will be achieved—the school board system with a parental majority based on a small unrepresentative clique which thinks like the Minister. It is all about dividing Scottish education, breaking up the comprehensive system and creating a two-tier system of education in Scotland. For those reasons I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton.
§ Mr. Allan StewartWe have had what might be described as a hard-line speech from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It became fairly clear that he is against the whole concept of meaningful parental involvement in Scottish education.
It is a misapprehension held by the Opposition, and, I regret to say, by the Government, that there is some kind of continuum between school boards and opting out. As I said in Committee, I believe that the two concepts are fundamentally different, because this is about parental involvement—it is not about parental choice—while opting out, of course, is about parental choice.
7 pm
It is worth commenting that members of school boards will have the same accountability as hon. Members of the House; they will be subject to re-election by their constituents if people wish to stand against them. We are not subject to election if other people do not stand against us or do not put up candidates against us, but I am bound to say that that happy state of affairs is not very common.
It is also inherent in any system of parental involvement that unless the only form of involvement is a mass meeting of all parents one will have a system whereby a small number are elected.
My main point is to contradict the impression which the hon. Member for Dundee, East may have given to the House that parents are against a parental majority. I do not doubt for a moment that he accurately reflected the view of those to whom he referred, but it is clearly not the view of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which is a very representative body. [Interruption.] It just shows Opposition Members' ignorance of the existence of 1023 organisations which are interested in parental involvement in Scottish education. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council is accepted by all knowledgeable Members—that does not necessarily include all hon. Members present—as the representative body of parents on this issue.
I want to read a couple of sentences from a letter of 17 June, which l imagine was sent to all Scottish Members, in which the council stated:
SPTC wishes to re-emphasise its support for the parental majority on School Boards, whatever the actual numbers of parent, staff and co-opted members prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.I think that it is worth quoting the council's reasons for that. It says:School Boards will be essentially consultative bodies and simple numerical democracy demands that parents be in the majority.It goes on to make the valid point thatTeachers already have a powerful influence on what happens in schools via staff meetings and union representation. Parents need School Boards for consultation purposes far more than teachers.That is common sense and I hope that as these debates continue the other points raised by the council may be referred to by hon. Members. It is important for the House to recognise that parental opinion as represented through the council is clearly in favour of a parental majority on school boards.
§ Mr. Malcolm BruceThis group of amendments includes amendment No. 2, which stands in my name and makes the same fundamental point about parental majority as amendment No. 27, which I think that we may vote on and which I acknowledge develops the arguments quite constructively.
This group of amendments and this part of the Bill are in a sense for many people the core of what the Bill is about. I said in Committee, and I am happy to repeat now, that some elements of the powers that are being devolved in this Bill I am glad to see and support, but I do not believe that there is a demand and a wish that parents have an absolute majority. This feeling has been expressed by a wide variety of organisations—excluding the one which the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has just referred to.
Parents want a partnership, and these amendments seek to set up that partnership. These bodies are not consultative, as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council claims, but have real powers, which is something that the Government are boasting about. It is quite a different matter to suggest what should apply to a consultative body when we are talking about a body with defined executive powers, which the Minister would not wish to be otherwise. I therefore support these amendments and the principle behind them.
I find it rather extraordinary that, given that the Minister who is handling this Bill is also the Scottish Health Minister, he seems to have a rather different perception of different types of professionals. On other issues he seems happy to suggest that doctors and consultants are professionals whose views must be taken into account by the Government and the public. However, it would appear that teachers are professionals who must be brought to heel by the Government and the public. That seems to be a rather discriminatory view.
I find myself in a rather unusual situation and one that might even be a bit embarrassing, because in this area of parental power I support the Conservative party's Scottish 1024 manifesto and it is Government Members who are not doing so. The Conservative manifesto said that the Government would introduce increased powers for school councils. My own party's manifesto and policy have followed exactly that course. So I very much support increased powers for school councils. Had some of the powers in this Bill been applied to school councils set up on a partnership basis, they would, in my view, have been welcome and acceptable.
In reply to the charge levelled against me by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), may I say that if the Minister is prepared to accept my amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 27, that will sufficiently change the calibre of the Bill to make for a genuine partnership, and I would then be inclined to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, because I recognise that there are powers in this Bill that are worth passing on. The Minister had better accept that my views are not simply my own but have been expressed by parents throughout Scotland who do not believe that the parental majority is the right way to create the spirit of part nership in our education system that we certainly want, even if the Government do not.
I want to refer briefly, by way of illustration, to the figures produced by Education Alert and Lothian parents action group, which were made available yesterday. I do not know whether the Minister has a copy, but I suspect that he has. A random selection of parents in Grampian-Lothian predominantly, but with 20 per cent. from outside those two regions were asked:
Do you approve of parents having an overall majority?The answer of 77.8 per cent. was no. They were then asked:Do you think additional staff should be electedand 87.9 per cent. said yes.It seems to me, therefore, that a substantial body of opinion does not believe that parents should have an overall majority but thinks that teachers should have increased representation on the boards.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythI am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this survey, which he described as a random selection. I wonder whether he noticed that over 17 per cent. of the respondents were parents who were also teachers, which scarcely seems representative. He has quoted the survey carried out by a partisan group. Does he not recall the System 3 poll, which showed that 52 per cent. of the sample in Scotland supported the idea of school boards with a majority of parents?
§ Mr. BruceYes, I do. I have seen that and I remember that we had an extensive debate on it in Committee where the terms of the question were put in doubt by hon. Members. But I do not deny that it was published. The Minister said that this was a partisan group. The group would say that the only thing that is partisan about it is that its members are parents who care about their children's education.
If the Minister wishes to give some other explanation of what he means by that, I think that he should tell the House. Otherwise he has made a totally unwarranted and unjustifiable allegation. The Minister should be grateful for the work which the group has done. It has tried to find out the genuine views of parents. I do not suggest that the Minister should take it as a definitive result and abide by it, but he should not dismiss it so contemptuously because real concern has been expressed by a substantial majority.
1025 The Minister makes the point that over 17 per cent. are parents who happen to be teachers. That is an interesting comment from the Minister. He is suggesting to the House, and presumably to the public, that only parents who are not teachers have a right to say how their children should be educated and that we are not entitled to benefit from the contribution of parents who happen to be teachers. Even if we disregard parents who are teachers, an overwhelming majority of those who responded did not believe that parents should have a majority but wanted teachers to have greater representation. Therefore, that was a devious response by the Minister who knows that he is on weak ground and is trying to devalue legitimate arguments which were put to him to express a different view.
The issue is crucial. Knowing that we would soon be dealing with the Bill on Report, in the few weeks since the Committee finished, I have taken the trouble to ask parents and teachers in my constituency what they felt about the Bill. The Minister will be surprised to hear that I stressed certain positive concessions which he made. The recent exchange between him and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) confirms that opting out is not a component of the Bill but will require separate legislation, which most of us expect to be in the Queen's Speech for the next Session of Parliament.
Allowing for that, I was surprised at the vehemence with which many parents said to me that they did not believe that the Bill would improve the effective running of schools. Indeed, they were concerned about its implications. These views were expressed by individuals, by groups of parents whom I met at their request at two schools in my constituency within the last two weeks and at forums which were well attended by genuinely concerned, intelligent parents who had a real interest. They expressed grave reservations about the Bill in general. They said repeatedly that they could accept aspects of the Bill but not on the basis of parents having an absolute majority; they believed that there had to be partnership.
The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside is entitled to his views and he can speak for his constituents, but he is not entitled to try to score points off me on the balance of representation. He has been anxious to persuade the public and his constituents that he has influenced the Government substantially and that the Bill is now acceptable. That is a legitimate position for him to take, but his constituents will have to make their own judgment.
My constituents are telling me that they are less than convinced that the Bill is acceptable in its present format. That is why they believe that the amendments proposed today would improve it. I am serious when I say that the amendments would improve the Bill sufficiently for me to vote for the Third Reading, though not because I think that school boards are the right way forward. I repeat that what was promised in the Conservative manifesto seemed to me to be the right way forward, which was to give powers to reconstituted school councils. In those circumstances, some of the powers in the Bill could have been properly and legitimately attached to school councils. That would have been a popular and radical reform as 1026 opposed to a reform which is motivated by the Minister's ideology and which paves the way for a development in education which is resented.
What the Minister promised when he first published the proposals has been substantially modified. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside will claim credit for that, but the Minister's views have not been modified one iota. To the extent that he can extend the powers within the Bill, he will; to the extent that he cannot, he intends to bring forward new legislation in the next Session of Parliament to enable him to do so. At the end of the day the crunch is not whether people trust the Bill but that they do not trust the Minister because he is not trustworthy on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sure that the word slipped out without the hon. Gentleman realising it and that he would want to withdraw it.
§ Mr. BruceI take your rebuke, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may rephrase it more delicately. My constituents know that the Minister remains committed to proposals which he published before the Bill came forward and that he will not relent in future from seeking to implement those powers. For those reasons, they have no confidence in the Bill because they know that it is a step in a process which fundamentally they are likely to reject, and on which they have made clear their views.
The amendments are central to the crucial point in the Bill. Unless the Minister is prepared to accept that the parental majority should be modified and that staff representation should be increased, confidence in the working of school boards will not be extensive or widespread. I do not expect the Minister to respond constructively. I do not believe that he or his colleagues, who think that the Bill as it stands is likely to create a radical new dimension within Scottish education, are correct.
My constituents are substantially satisfied with the way in which the schools in their area work and with the relationship which they have with teachers. Although there are aspects on which they would like to have more power, which I support, they do not support the powers proposed in the Bill. I support the amendments. If the Minister seeks to reject them, I will be unable to support the Bill in its entirety.
§ Mr. GrahamI spent nine years on Strathclyde regional council. During that time I went frequently to school councils. I was always impressed by the debates. When there were votes, the councillors divided not on parent/teacher lines but on issues, and the weight of argument won the day.
I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). It is sensible to proceed on the basis that if the Government are keen to have parental involvement, they should also want the involvement of teachers and other people. It should be a cohesive group so that when it is discussing problems concerning schools and education there can be a full debate.
I have had experience of people attempting to take over school councils. Generally they have failed because they could not put forward a decent, sound argument. We will not see a deliberate takeover if there is a cohesive group. 1027 The Minister is smiling. I have smiled at the Minister regularly because of some of the nonsense in the Bill. This is so serious that there is no smile on my face now. I am angry because the Government did not take advantage of a golden opportunity to reform school councils. I do not claim that school councils were perfect. There were many faults. But if the faults had been removed we might have had a better system than the Government have proposed.
The Government's attitude is that school teachers are the enemy. We should bear in mind that it is the teachers who are educating our young people to take the country hopefully into a better world. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
It is incredible that the Government will not allow so many people who have children at school to play a part in school boards because they are in education authorities. In Strathclyde alone, more than 50,000 people are employed by the regional council. I have seen examples of school teachers playing an admirable role in school councils. It is lamentable and disgraceful and shows a lack of talent to take those people away from making a major contribution to their children's education at school. Their experience can be invaluable, whether as a parent or as a teacher, yet the Government will deny such opportunities.
I believe that the Minister received a copy of a survey carried out by Bishopton primary school which clearly showed that the majority of parents were opposed to the Government's proposals for parental involvement and the whole school board scenario. I remind the Minister that that area is not particularly a Labour stronghold. A Tory was returned in a recent district election, so I can assure the Minister that it is not a hot bed of radicalism. It is an area which might support the wetter instincts of the Conservative party, but the people opposed the Government's proposals for school boards. I am sure that the majority of those people would have liked to have seen some effort to improve and develop school councils and to encourage them to play a more meaningful role. If the Government have sufficient funds for schools, we should have parental involvement so that our children might be better educated. We should not be squandering valuable time and finance.
I am convinced that there will be a short surge of interest when we establish the school boards, but I bet anyone in the House that, in a couple of years' time, there will be no school boards in many schools because the parents will be sick of them and will leave it to the teachers and kids to get on with the business. I am not at all hopeful for school boards because I believe that they will become small in number and will eventually disappear.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI am almost prepared to take on that bet with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). Perhaps we can have a word afterwards about the stake that he might be prepared to put on it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The experience of school councils in my part of Scotland has not been of division on any lines, certainly not on the basis of party politics or professional background, whether teacher or parent. The decisions taken by those school councils were reached through consensus and on the merits of the arguments and I hope that that will continue to be the case. That will be the case in most areas because 1028 those people who wish to become involved will do so in the best interests of education and of the children attending the schools.
I have my doubts about the matter and my hon. Friend the Minister knows that I still have reservations that any one group should form a majority on the boards. I strongly support the proposal that the parental group should be the largest single group, but I part company with my hon. Friend on the question whether parents should necessarily have a majority. None the less, I understand my hon. Friend's arguments and those put forward by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which strongly supports a parental majority. It is not worth getting too worked up about the matter for the very reason that I have given, that there will not be division along particular lines, so, although I believe that my hon. Friend is wrong, I shall not oppose him on this matter.
However, I am most anxious about teacher representation. My hon. Friend knows my views on that, but I do not believe that the proposals recommend a sufficient number of teachers, particularly in respect of smaller schools. I was not the only Committee member to hold those views, although I felt particularly strongly about the matter. My hon. Friend said that he would reconsider the matter. I should be much happier if he would assure us that he will agree to increase teacher representation on school boards.
§ Mr. SalmondI wish to give a brief welcome to this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 9, which puts forward the case for community representatives. It raises a particularly interesting argument because it involves a constituency of electors which includes both teachers and parents and is worthy of the Minister's serious consideration.
I want to take up the main point—the balance on the schools board between parents and other representative groups. I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although I part company with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), as I believe that the issue goes to the heart of the anxieties of many people in Scotland about this measure. The nub of the concern is the fear that an unrepresentative minority and a determined clique of vested interests will attempt to seize control of the school board and, therefore, will still have substantial influence —through, for example, the vetoing of the headmaster's spending plans or the presence of parent representatives on the appointments committee—over children's education and matters that were part of the ceiling powers in the Minister's original proposals.
If parents did not have an absolute majority on a school board, that would remove many of the concerns because the school board would have to progress by consensus and take into account the views of parents, teachers, co-opted members, and, I hope, community representatives. The school board could still exert its considerable influence over those key areas, but only when it was operating through a consensus of its members. If clause 2(2) is left as it is now, with an absolute majority, there will be grave concern that a determined minority of parents may seize control of a school board.
The Minister takes an interesting view of the various responses that he has received to the consultative exercise. He has received probably the most clear rebuff of any Scottish Office Minister in recent times as a result of the first consultation exercise on this measure. There were 1029 7,600 responses, which showed no enthusiasm for a parental majority. The report of Education Alert, showing that about 78 per cent. of the sample were opposed to the idea of a parent majority, has already been mentioned. The Minister dismisses that out of hand, as he is wont to do. His reaction to the various rebuffs that he has received has been to attempt to rubbish the questions asked.
I clearly remember being on a BBC television programme with the Minister when the studio audience voted overwhelmingly against his proposals. Only two people in the audience were in favour of his argument. The Minister said that the wrong question was being asked. He then proceeded to set the question to be put to the audience and, lo and behold, still only two people came to his support. It is a remarkable argument. The Minister may wish to intervene to correct my recollection of the numbers. I concede that there may have been more—perhaps three or four—but there was a substantial majority against the Minister's proposal, even as he phrased it. The House will have to treat with great caution the Minister's attempts to rubbish clear indications of the force of Scottish worry about an absolute parental majority on school boards as somehow being an inappropriate sample asked the wrong question. Quite clearly the Minister does not even pay attention to answers to his own questions.
7.30 pm
When the Minister replies to the debate, he will have to tell the House whether he will pay attention to the serious concerns being expressed by the vast majority of Scottish Members about the school board proposals. Will he make some concession to the points that we are putting forward on behalf of our constituents or will he rely on the majority in the recesses of this place, the "Morris gun" majority, and make no concessions whatever? That is the fundamental choice that the Minister must make when he replies to the worries expressed on this group of amendments. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) place such emphasis on the views of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council. In another context Conservative Members like to cast doubts on whether bodies with rather grand-sounding names speak for the people for whom they purport to speak. I would question how many parents, far less teachers, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council speaks for in my constituency. The representations that I have received about the Bill have not been in line with the submission from the council on which the hon. Member for Eastwood placed such value.
There have been many representations about the Bill, but at this stage it is largely a matter of disinterest and slight suspicion rather than active hostility. Those who have been in touch with me have expressed opposition to what is seen to underlie the Bill. They have expressed concern about the idea of establishing a parental majority in bodies that are to have the proposed powers.
In line with their attitude on many pieces of mischievous legislation introduced by the Government, the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will have the good sense to have little to do with the Bill. The 1030 Bill will not have the effect that the Minister hopes, and it will not lead people down the philosophical road that he intends us to follow.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the vast majority of people in Scotland are well satisfied with the way that schools are run, with the quality of the teaching staff and the relationships between parents, teachers and communities. For that reason the Scottish people will not come forward in large numbers to seize power. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) who said that in the majority of communities interest will subside fairly rapidly. He was also right to say that within school councils, as in any sensible organisation, members divide not along parent-teacher lines but on the basis of the argument. At least to some extent that will be a damp squib.
The underlying fear expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House is the potential that exists for the highly motivated pressure group to take over a school board and to use it for its own purposes. That fear keeps coming through and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a takeover. A school does not have to be taken over by a politically motivated pressure group seeking to take the school down the road which in his more visionary moments the Minister has in mind—opting out and that kind of nonsense. It might be a group that has a stake in some bitter local controversy that in some way impinges upon the school. It might be a religious pressure group.
There are all sorts of pressure groups which at a given moment might think it a splendid idea to get three or four people on to a school board to exercise disproportionate control over the affairs of that school. Surely it cannot be healthy to legislate for such a possibility. If the Government are interested in the good of Scottish education, as opposed to some rather confused ideological point, they will take the Bill away and think about it again.
§ Mr. SalmondHas the hon. Gentleman noticed that with the exception of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) all the Conservative Back Benchers have opted out of the debate?
§ Mr. WilsonIf I had been called to speak slightly earlier I would have observed that nobody other than the hon. Member for Eastwood had opted in. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a brief appearance. He appears to be the acceptable face of Toryism in his constituency, but for the time being I shall not put it any higher than that.
My final point is in support of the amendment that calls for community representatives. The legislation as drawn takes a narrow view of schools and their place in the community. It does not accept that many people who are neither parents nor teachers have an active and wholly proper interest in the working of schools. Many school activities provide opportunities for such people to participate, and that is where the interests of the wider community can be seen in the functioning of schools.
One aspect of the legislation that deserves comment is that for the first time in the long tradition of Scottish education the right of the churches to be represented on education bodies is to be abolished. Community representatives would not specifically redress that, but they would at least be an avenue through which—if it was the wish of the people electing community representatives 1031 —the churches could be represented. The same argument could be made on behalf of various other groups that are presently disqualified from participation by the very narrow format of the Bill.
For a school with 1,000 pupils to have a so-called representative body on which there are five parent members, one staff member, and three co-opted members is far too narrow and selective. The whole idea that there must be a parental majority is misplaced. In the light of our electoral experience, the Opposition have great faith in the good sense of the Scottish people. We should not be too afraid of what the Minister is proposing. He is a zealot, but fortunately he does not have an army of zealots to lead. That has been the experience on other issues and it will be the experience on this one as well.
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has disappeared because I was about to make a nice little joke. However, I had to chop it because the language of the Opposition gets very dangerous. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was the only acceptable face of Toryism, but that may not be the case.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was corrected for calling the Minister untrustworthy. I think that perhaps that was a little severe. The Minister cannot be trusted on this issue. I hope that that expression is acceptable. None of us trusts him on this issue. We know what he proposes and what the future holds. I know about the discussions that he is having in my constituency and about his opt-out suggestions to groups from the schools in my area. We know what it is all about and I shall be glad to hear the Minister deny that he has been having such discussions. We should like to be told whether he has been having them and whether he is encouraging groups in my constituency to think about opting out. He should be very careful about what he says because I may know all about his discussions.
The Minister made an appalling attack on the people who produced the analysis of the views of the randomly selected 435 people who answered the questionnaire, and he assumed that the figures were wrong. However, the facts are that 78 per cent. said no to an overall parental majority and 87 per cent. said that additional teachers should be elected. That was later corroborated in the careful analysis of control of expenditure. Eighty-three per cent. said no to total control of expenditure by the board, but 66 per cent. said there should be consultation on expenditure.
The figures ring true. People want consultation, not domination, which is what the Bill is about. The Government seek to create groups that will allow this peculiar, reactionary Minister and the Secretary of State to reverse the democratic history of Scottish education. This is especially dangerous because it involves a small group of people. In all our social and political life there are groups of activists. We are in politics because we were among the activists. Of course, we are not completely representative of the mass of people, who may be active in other directions.
Any group of people who involve themselves in a social, political, cultural or educational organisation do so because they are keen. Parents who involve themselves in education do so because they are keen on their children. By definition, those who involve themselves most are those 1032 who are interested in their children's future. But that is not necessarily the sort of people with which to constitute a board. A board should be able to take overall decisions for all the pupils in school, which a group of parents would tend not to be able to do. They are certainly motivated. In four or five years' time my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) may well be interested in the motivation of parents with children going to school. We should all congratulate him on a recent happy event. I hope that, as I would wish the boards to be, it was the result of partnership and consultation.
There is a group of people who, by definition, are concerned with all the children—especially with those who are not doing so well. Others may be concerned with high-flying children, but teachers have to be concerned with all pupils, above all those who require special care. Majority decisions of the council should be taken by teachers. If there is to be an imbalance of numbers, it should be in favour of the teachers, not activist parents. Parents and teachers say—almost everyone says—that this is so, but the Minister and the Secretary of State disagree. Yet the case is manifest.
The purpose of the Bill is not to extend parental involvement but to create a parental hegemony. Nothing could be more dangerous. The Government's proposition should be taken back; the Minister should listen to the voices of parents and teachers. He should establish genuine involvement. I am entirely in favour of boards being involved, but it is dangerous to give a majority of parents powers over expenditure and all other matters. We know about the sort of people the Minister is concerned with. We reject the motivation behind this Bill, which is why we shall vote against it. I ask the Minister to reconsider while there is still time and to do something about this matter in another place.
§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)One thing has been obvious in this short debate. This is the last overspill of the bitterness that the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State feel towards teachers for the duffing-up that the latter gave them last year. That explains the Minister's failure to respond on this issue. The Bill is an attempt to remove some of the powers that the Minister alleged teachers have. Whole sections of the Bill reflect the Government's bitterness towards the teachers because of the way in which the teachers exposed the Government's failure to support education in Scotland.
7.45 pm
The original Forsyth proposals have had to be amended because the people to whom they were directed did not want the powers. The Minister has boasted of how he has listened to the parents when making his changes. But whenever parents are asked about this matter, in television studios, in opinion polls, in writing or through the schools council system, they have made it clear that they want changes to be made to this part of the school board proposals. The Minister and his colleagues have set their minds against those views, however. As I said, that is due to the Government's bitterness.
As other hon. Members have said, teachers are the one group in society to whom the Minister and his colleagues have failed to accord professional respect. They imagine that teachers are responsible for everything that they think is wrong with Scottish education. It is extraordinary, for instance, that in 1988 teachers with pupils at a school 1033 cannot stand for election to that school's board. It is remarkable, too, that if those same teachers happen to be parents of children at a school they are classed with two other groups in society—lunatics and criminals. That is another example of the Minister's bitterness. At this late stage, with the overwhelming mass of opinion in Scotland against the Bill, the Minister is still not prepared to move, even when his hon. Friends suggest that he should make some concessions.
The Minister still has his hang-up: a determination to discipline the teachers. He tried to give parents the right to discipline them by giving them the responsibility for sacking teachers—and the parents did not want that. Now Forsyth's final revenge and failure to acknowledge the professionalism of Scottish teachers is to deny them even half the rights that parents enjoy on school boards——
§ Mr. Michael ForsythPerhaps it will enable the hon. Gentleman not to develop his argument if I point out that teachers are not eligible now to stand as candidates in regional elections. So the suggestion that we are putting them in the same position as prisoners and lunatics, as he emotively put it——
§ Mr. ForsythPrisoners would be a better word than criminals, since not all criminals are in prison.
Secondly, teachers are unable to stand for election as parents only in schools in which they teach. They can stand as parents in schools other than those in which they teach, so the limitation on their ability to stand as candidates is considerably less than their ability to stand and find themselves elected to the education committees of regional authorities.
§ Mr. RossThat does not change what I said. The proposals do not allow teachers who have pupils at a school to stand for election to that school's board. In that sense the Minister puts them in the same category as criminals, and if he knows of criminals who are not in gaol I suggest that he immediately gets in touch with his colleagues in the Government and advises them of where they are. They are not in the Chamber right now, certainly, as the Minister is almost alone on the Conservative Benches. The Minister should say where these criminals are so that they can be taken into custody. We cannot have criminals loose in the land.
The Minister has emphasised my point by his determination to extract a penal reform from the teaching profession, which he does not like. I do not know why he does not like it—perhaps he had a bad experience as a youngster. He certainly seems to have had some bad experiences and he seems to blame the teaching profession.
To bring the matter back into perspective, the Minister does not and cannot deny my point that he is trying to pursue unfair and discriminatory proposals. He must know that public opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly against him. If he really wants to claim, as he has throughout the debate, that he listens to those to whom he seeks to give more representation—the parents—he should listen to the parents on this issue and accept our amendments. Only then will we believe that he is not trying 1034 to extract what I began my speech by describing as "the Forsyth revenge" for the duffing-up that the teachers gave him last year.
§ Mrs. FyfeIn the hope and belief that even this Minister can sometimes listen to reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Please be sensible, Maria."] Well, I say that because earlier the Minister proposed that when there were adult pupils at a school, their parents—"the grannies" as he put it in Committee—should have a vote. However, he then thought better of it and I believe that the Government dropped that proposal. That is why I say that even this Minister can sometimes listen to common sense.
I do not want to make a speech, but simply to pose some questions. I hope that the Minister will answer at least some of them because they arise from our discussion this evening. What makes the Government so sure that enough parents will seek election and will keep on doing so? Are the Government not worried about the outcome for schools if, as is predicted by some of my hon. Friends, the whole thing eventually collapses because of lack of interest? What will the Government do if our warning proves correct and if, because of lack of interest, some nutcase groups attempt to take over? As has been suggested, that will rarely happen because in most cases the common sense of parents will prevail. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must be aware of and it could happen. What are the Government proposing to do about it?
What about the fact that parents will be allowed to comment on matters such as curriculum and teaching methods, and expect answers from the head teacher? Does that not open up the danger that some highly influential parents—we talked earlier about the possibility of lawyers, doctors, university professors and army officers having an undue amount of influence on such decisions—may throw their weight about in a way in which other parents might not be able to cope with?
Why is there absolutely nothing in the proposals about ensuring that the education of girl pupils is given much more equal weight than it has ever been? We still face prejudice over the education of girls, who are refused access to certain courses, or discouraged from taking them. The proposals blindly ignore that area of educational provision.
In conclusion, why does the Minister think that he has a right to impose this legislation on people who clearly do not want it?
§ Mr. Michael ForsythSeveral points arise from the debate, but I should like to begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to the Opposition Front Bench.
The issues raised fall into four categories. The first relates to the position of teachers who are also parents in some schools. This point was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). As I explained to him in my intervention, being able to stand for election for school boards and have a say in the running of schools is a considerable step forward on the current position because at present teachers are unable to stand for election to the education authority. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, would have recognised that.
The thrust of these amendments is to take the matter further and to allow staff in particular schools to stand as parent representatives or as teacher representatives. For 1035 the reasons that I have spelled out in some detail in Committee, I do not regard that as desirable because it could result in the school boards becoming homogeneous.
The second issue raised was parental majorities and why the Government are insistent on having a parental majority——
§ Mr. BuchanI know why.
§ Mr. ForsythThe hon. Gentleman says that he knows why and I am sure that he is better qualified to know why than are most Opposition Members. It is because the Government are committed to parental involvement in schools and because we see the boards as providing parents with a forum and platform in the education system so that they can express their view. We recognise the argument for partnership, which is why there are places on the boards for representatives from the community and the teaching staff to be elected or co-opted. However, the boards will be the parents' forum in education.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) considered partnership, but he should take account of the broader picture. Through staff meetings, meetings which take place in school and through their professional bodies, teachers have the ability to make their input. Parents have no such ability and that is why we are providing that they should form the majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) argued, in doing so we have the wholehearted support and enthusiasm of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which was dismissed by Opposition Members. Instead, they mentioned partisan groups such as Education Alert and others which have consistently opposed the proposals and which have produced——
§ Mr. Salmondrose——
§ Mr. ForsythI shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
Those groups have produced a poll which, to say the least, is highly questionable. The hon. Member for Gordon endorsed that poll, in contrast to the MORI and System 3 polls.
§ Mr. Malcolm BruceThat is the second time that the Minister has used the word "partisan". I should like him to explain what he means. Does he mean "partisan" because those groups do not agree with him or is he implying a sinister motive? Those groups represent parents who have a genuine interest and who have sought other people's views. Will he not acknowledge that?
§ Mr. ForsythIt is a self-appointed group of people who have set themselves up to put forward their perfectly legitimate point of view, opposing the school boards. What I criticise is the hon. Gentleman asking me to be influenced by questionnaires that purport to have a random sample but which, on examination of their own data, show that 17 per cent. of the parents are also teachers——
§ Mr. Salmondrose——
§ Mr. ForsythNo, I shall not give way. I am answering the point raised by the hon. Member for Gordon—[Interruption.] Such data do not prove that the survey was representative. If the hon. Member for Gordon thinks that 1036 17 per cent. of parents are teachers, he knows even less about education than I had imagined. The questions in the questionnaire were poorly designed. They included:
Do you think additional staff should be elected?andA Board may apply to the Local Authority for, and be granted, extra powers without consulting or advising the school's other parents or teachers. Do you agree?Those are hardly neutral questions. By way of information I should add that under the provisions of clause 12 the statement made in the latter question is completely unfounded and untrue, as the hon. Member for Gordon will know from his experience in Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to make that point.
§ Mr. Salmondrose——
§ Mr. ForsythNo, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The third point raised related to community members for whom the hon. Member for Dumbarton sought to argue. We touched briefly on this issue in Committee when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) argued that we were removing the right of Churches to be represented on school boards. There is provision, through co-option, for that to be realised. I am puzzled by the idea of community members because the electorate would not consist of the community. It would consist of parents and staff. That hardly seems to be an extension of democracy given that the same people, the parents and staff, will have the opportunity to elect representatives in their own way. The community can be adequately and more effectively represented through co-option as a result.
8 pm
It was also argued that we should define the structure of the school boards on the face of the Bill. I rejected that in Committee because it would bring in inflexibility. It would not enable us to consider questions like those my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me to address, involving the numbers of teachers, or to do that in the light of experience. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we shall consult about the regulation.
I noted the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside made in Committee about providing additional teacher representation, particularly for schools of between 500 and 1,000 pupils. I have not forgotten that and I have been heavily influenced by his argument. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give a commitment tonight, because I would prefer to go through the consultation process prior to the regulations before I reach a conclusion. I do not want to make up my mind before I have heard what the teachers have to say.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithWhile thanking my hon. Friend for his comments, I must state that I was not referring simply to schools with between 500 and 1,000 pupils. He may have slipped up in that. I am concerned about schools with pupil numbers ranging from one to 500. We have one-pupil schools in some areas. It is important that there should be more than one teacher representative in some of the smaller schools.
§ Mr. ForsythThat is a separate point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that the question of additional teacher representation would not apply in single-teacher schools. In schools with two teachers, the 1037 second teacher would almost automatically be on the board. Three-teacher schools would have 90 or more pupils and that must be borne in mind.
The question of unrepresentative groups was also raised during the debate. We took on board the anxieties about those groups during the consultation process and in that connection the Bill contains a number of provisions, including the election of board members every two years and the requirement of the endorsement of the majority of parents voting in ballots where additional powers are sought. I believe that the ability for unrepresentative groups to take control has been diminished substantially. I could not help but note that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) adopted a position in conflict with a number of his colleagues when he argued that there would be no interest, while others argued that there would be great interest from unrepresentative groups.
I believe that the balance is right and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 259.
1040| Division No. 371] | [8.03 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Dewar, Donald |
| Anderson, Donald | Dixon, Don |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dobson, Frank |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Doran, Frank |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Douglas, Dick |
| Ashton, Joe | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Barron, Kevin | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth |
| Battle, John | Eadie, Alexander |
| Beckett, Margaret | Eastham, Ken |
| Beggs, Roy | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Bell, Stuart | Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Faulds, Andrew |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Fearn, Ronald |
| Blair, Tony | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Blunkett, David | Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) |
| Boateng, Paul | Fisher, Mark |
| Boyes, Roland | Flannery, Martin |
| Bradley, Keith | Flynn, Paul |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Foster, Derek |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Foulkes, George |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Galbraith, Sam |
| Buchan, Norman | Galloway, George |
| Buckley, George J. | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Caborn, Richard | Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) |
| Callaghan, Jim | George, Bruce |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Gould, Bryan |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Graham, Thomas |
| Clay, Bob | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Clelland, David | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Grocott, Bruce |
| Cohen, Harry | Haynes, Frank |
| Coleman, Donald | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Henderson, Doug |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Cousins, Jim | Holland, Stuart |
| Crowther, Stan | Home Robertson, John |
| Cryer, Bob | Hood, Jimmy |
| Cummings, John | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Darling, Alistair | Howells, Geraint |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Hoyle, Doug |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Prescott, John |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Radice, Giles |
| Ingram, Adam | Redmond, Martin |
| Janner, Greville | Reid, Dr John |
| John, Brynmor | Richardson, Jo |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Kennedy, Charles | Rogers, Allan |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Rooker, Jeff |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Lambie, David | Rowlands, Ted |
| Lamond, James | Ruddock, Joan |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Salmond, Alex |
| Leighton, Ron | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Lewis, Terry | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Litherland, Robert | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Livsey, Richard | Short, Clare |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Skinner, Dennis |
| McCartney, Ian | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McFall, John | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| McKelvey, William | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| McLeish, Henry | Spearing, Nigel |
| Maclennan, Robert | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| McTaggart, Bob | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Madden, Max | Stott, Roger |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Strang, Gavin |
| Marek, Dr John | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Turner, Dennis |
| Martlew, Eric | Vaz, Keith |
| Maxton, John | Wall, Pat |
| Meacher, Michael | Wallace, James |
| Meale, Alan | Walley, Joan |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Wilson, Brian |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Winnick, David |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Worthington, Tony |
| Mullin, Chris | Wray, Jimmy |
| Murphy, Paul | Young, David(Bolton SE) |
| Nellist, Dave | |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| O'Neill, Martin | Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. John McAllion. |
| Pendry, Tom | |
| Pike, Peter L. |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) |
| Alexander, Richard | Bowis, John |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes |
| Amess, David | Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard |
| Amos, Alan | Brazier, Julian |
| Arbuthnot, James | Bright, Graham |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Brooke, Rt Hon Peter |
| Ashby, David | Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Browne, John (Winchester) |
| Atkins, Robert | Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) |
| Atkinson, David | Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Baldry, Tony | Burns, Simon |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Butcher, John |
| Batiste, Spencer | Butler, Chris |
| Bellingham, Henry | Butterfill, John |
| Bendall, Vivian | Carlisle, John, (Luton N) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Carrington, Matthew |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Carttiss, Michael |
| Body, Sir Richard | Cartwright, John |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Chapman, Sydney |
| Boswell, Tim | Chope, Christopher |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Colvin, Michael | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Conway, Derek | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Irvine, Michael |
| Couchman, James | Irving, Charles |
| Cran, James | Jack, Michael |
| Critchley, Julian | Jackson, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Janman, Tim |
| Curry, David | Jessel, Toby |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Day, Stephen | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Devlin, Tim | Key, Robert |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Kilfedder, James |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Dover, Den | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Dunn, Bob | Knapman, Roger |
| Durant, Tony | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Eggar, Tim | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Knowles, Michael |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Evennett, David | Latham, Michael |
| Fallon, Michael | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Farr, Sir John | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Favell, Tony | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Lightbown, David |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Lilley, Peter |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Forman, Nigel | Lord, Michael |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Forth, Eric | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Franks, Cecil | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Freeman, Roger | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| French, Douglas | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Gale, Roger | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Gardiner, George | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Malins, Humfrey |
| Gill, Christopher | Mans, Keith |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Maples, John |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Marland, Paul |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Gow, Ian | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Mates, Michael |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Gregory, Conal | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Mills, Iain |
| Grist, Ian | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Ground, Patrick | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Moate, Roger |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Hannam, John | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndbum) | Mudd, David |
| Harris, David | Nelson, Anthony |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Neubert, Michael |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hayes, Jerry | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Hayward, Robert | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Heddle, John | Page, Richard |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Paice, James |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Patnick, Irvine |
| Hill, James | Patten, Chris (Bath) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Pawsey, James |
| Holt, Richard | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Howard, Michael | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Price, Sir David | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Speller, Tony |
| Rathbone, Tim | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Redwood, John | Stern, Michael |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Riddick, Graham | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Taylor, lan (Esher) |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Thorne, Neil |
| Rost, Peter | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Rowe, Andrew | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Walden, George |
| Ryder, Richard | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | Watts, John |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Wheeler, John |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Wood, Timothy |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | |
| Shersby, Michael | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sims, Roger | Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell. |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
8.15 pm§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`, and—I direct the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to clause 14(1), which makes direct reference to a board's powers over the use of premises outside school hours, and which encourages their use by members of the community in which the school is situated. There is a glaring gap in the legislation because it does not show how a board can operate that recommendation and there is no mechanism in the Bill to establish the links between the community and the board.
- (i) an observer elected by the staff and students of the community education service in those schools which provide community education services; and
- (ii) an observer elected by all registered mature students in secondary schools in which at least 5 per cent. of pupils are mature students undertaking Scottish Certificate of Education presentation courses.'
The amendment attempts to fill that gap, and is especially important for those areas where community education centres are the schools themselves. I am thinking of rural areas, such as my constituency, where many of the primary and secondary schools are the community education centres. Some of the conurbations in Scotland have separate community education centres, as the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) —parts of whose constituencies I used to represent—are aware. In rural constituencies the schools are those centres, although I believe that in the Lothian region certain community schools are seen as the flagships for the whole concept. I am thinking especially of Wester Hailes, Dean's school and Livingston, where the schools and the community education centres are one and the same.
There are different methods of management and administration within the various areas. For example, in the Grampian region the head teacher controls the day use of the school and the senior community education worker controls the evening use. In Lothian the norm is for a single head establishment. I do not want to join in the debate about which system is better or more favourable 1041 because that is not the issue at stake. However, there is a genuine concern in schools in my area about how the school boards will link with community education. The Grampian head teachers' association has been discussing the matter and various bodies have suggested different ways in which that aim could be achieved, but no firm conclusion has been reached. Currently, the college councils in the Grampian region ensure that the community education sector has full representation.
One suggestion is that there should be a sub-committee of the board—a sort of users' committee—that would negotiate the allocation of space. Perhaps one third of the board should be co-opted members, although that would not be effective in small schools such as Speyside high school in Aberlour in my area, where the school board will probably comprise no more than seven members. The sub-committee would, therefore, be very small and it would place an undue burden on members of the school board who were asked to become involved in a users' committee.
The first part of the amendment seeks to give the community education service direct access to the deliberations of the board. The Minister will have noticed that I am asking only for observer status and not for voting rights. The suggestion was that it could participate in the discussions and, perhaps, iron out problems, thereby saving later confrontation. I am seeking a straightforward involvement for people who would be democratically elected. It is not a major amendment, but I hope that the Minister will treat it seriously.
The second part of the amendment deals with particular situations in some of our schools. Adults are increasingly being encouraged to return to school as full-time pupils, particularly to study for Scottish Certificate of Education presentation work at O-grade and highers. When we discuss school education, there is the danger of thinking that pupils are always children. In many areas there is an increasing number of adult pupils who return to school. We should welcome that trend because it reflects the idea that education is a life-long process. It has benefited many people because they have gained a great deal of confidence and self-respect in later life by managing to achieve success in examinations.
I have spoken to head teachers in my constituency where that practice is well advanced, particularly at Speyside high school, and it seems that the schools have benefited greatly from the involvement of adult pupils. It has been suggested that young pupils who might not find a subject riveting and dynamic suddenly find that when adults are excited about that subject their enthusiasm spills into the classroom and the youngsters benefit from having older people working with them.
Adult education is also important at a time of high employment. No doubt the Minister will tell us that unemployment is declining in Scotland, but it is declining gradually and there is still a high and unacceptable level of unemployment in Grampian. Education is obviously beneficial to adults because it can help them to start a new career. At a time of declining school rolls it is beneficial for the schools concerned to have an increasing number of adult students participating in their daily life.
The second section of the amendment would provide an opportunity for those people to become involved in the 1042 school board. I have said that their observer status would exist only when at least 5 per cent. of the pupils registered in the school are mature students undertaking SCE presentation courses. I do not think that any school in Scotland falls into that category, but the provision would put down a marker within the Bill. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give us his opinion of the community education service and the involvement of mature students who return to school.
§ Mr. Norman HoggI have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I strongly support her moderate and reasonable proposals. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to what she said, because her amendment deals with something for which the Bill does not provide. It is an oversight by us all that we have not dealt with mature students in secondary schools.
§ Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)I am happy to support the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) particularly in regard to mature students in secondary schools. The intake of mature students was pioneered at the north end of Glasgow at St. Augustine's secondary school. It was very successful and those who were involved in it found that the presence of adults in classrooms which normally contained pupils of 14 and 15 years old had a settling effect on the pupils. That intake of adult students was taken up in one of the adjoining comprehensive schools, Colston secondary school. It is a pity that that school is under the hammer and is about to be closed. I do not wish to go into that argument as I have been through it before. The Minister saved Paisley grammar school, and it is a pity he could not save Colston secondary school which has an excellent reputation for mature students.
In constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is very high, some unemployed people feel that their only chance of getting out of the trap is to go back to school.
It says a lot for men and women who have brought up their families and who feel that they have missed out on educational opportunities, or did not have those opportunities, that they want to get back into the classroom. Like the hon. Lady, I feel that it would do no harm if those pupils had a say in the running of the school. After all, if they undertake a commitment to a course which sometimes takes two or three years, they have every right to know what is going on in that school.
My only criticism of the amendment, and I mean it as a constructive criticism, is that instead of being observers the pupils should have full voting rights. If we ask people to participate in the democratic process and to give up their time voluntarily, it would be a bit galling for them to have to sit through meetings without the full powers that everyone else had.
The community education service does an excellent job throughout the country, and increasing numbers of people are turning to it. I have often said to officials in the community education services that they are so enthusiastic that sometimes they overlook what other educational departments are doing. At least amendment No. 62 is one way of making sure that one hand knows what the other is doing. I am certainly happy to support the amendment.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythI begin by saying how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) until he urged me to support the amendment. 1043 However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that their intentions in supporting the amendment can be realised through the Bill.
It is obvious from the amendment that the hon. Lady had some difficulty in defining precisely with whom she was concerned. I have given that some consideration. If she looks at clause 6(3) and (10), she will see that a school board will have powers to establish committees—with up to one third of their membership being people who are not members of the board—which can look at particular areas of concern. That mechanism would go a long way to meeting the circumstances to which the hon. Lady rightly draws the attention of the House. Clause 6(10) provides that boards will be able to invite people to meetings as they consider appropriate, so there would be an opportunity for individual boards to follow the hon. Lady's recommendations.
The hon. Member for Springburn thought that people should have full voting rights and should be able to participate in all the deliberations of the committee. The Bill provides for co-option which could bring in representatives of adult learners or other people within the categories which the hon. Lady had in mind. Of course they would enjoy full membership and full voting rights on the board.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to take comfort from the fact that the Government endorse the thinking behind the amendment, but we believe that the amendment is not necessary, and, because of the difficulties of definition, it could be more restrictive than the provisions in the Bill.
§ Mrs. Margaret EwingI thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for their support of the amendment. The hon. Member for Springburn felt that there should automatically be voting rights. I was trying to guard against a situation in which a mature student could also be eligible as a parent member of the board. That is why I chose observer status. I was conscious of the fact that an additional restriction might be placed on choosing as observers people who were mature students because they had already sought the right to represent through their parental involvement.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot support the amendment, although he supported its sentiments. It is a probing amendment to establish the Government's thinking. There was little reference in Committee to the community education service and the role of mature students—-two aspects that needed airing during the debate.
I mentioned clause 6(3) on committees because some of my constituents believe that this measure will not serve the purposes of small schools. Speyside high school has a population of less than 500 and a committee would not necessarily be as effective as we would hope. The Minister has assured us that the Government are keen to have these sections of the community involved. I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of people in my constituency and elsewhere and will ask them carefully to note his comments. I hope that people will become 1044 involved as mature students or as members of the community education service. Given those sentiments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Norman HoggI beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 22, leave out
`instructors and auxiliaries involved in education'and insert 'and support staff. The amendment is designed to do two things. The first is to improve the Bill's wording. The expressioninstructors and auxiliaries involved in educationis a clumsy way of describing those persons who are not teachers in the accepted and statutory sense of the word, but who work in the classroom. Secondly, there are others involved in education in a school who are neither teachers, instructors nor auxiliaries but are very much involved in education, in the sense that they work in support of the professional staff and, therefore, have a place in the arrangements for membership of a board. I do not understand why they should be left out.We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I had hoped that we had persuaded the Minister that there was a clear case for doing something for janitors. I seem to recall that the debate turned on the question of janitors. I could say that amendment No. 43 is all about "janny power", which will give the Hansard writer something to think about. School staff who are not primarily education staff but without whom a school would not operate as an educational institution should have a proper place in the scheme of things. In many schools the school janitor is an extremely influential person. I do not mind saying that, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, the janitors at some schools in my constituency are more important to me than the head teachers because the janitors open schools on Friday nights when I turn up to meet my adoring constituents.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all staff in a school are treated as equals in respect of the school board. This would create a good atmosphere among those who work in the school and leave the staff free to choose whomsoever they wish to represent their interests on the school board. Everyone would be part of a team designed to promote the education of children. That is why the amendment is right. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it.
§ Mr. Michael J. MartinI support the amendment. For some time, I was a full-time trade union officer representing school staff, including janitors—and I know the excellent work that they do. Schools would not he able to function properly without those staff whom, for want of a better expression, we would call manual workers.
There is some snobbery in the Minister's thinking——
§ Mr. Michael Forsythindicated dissent.
§ Mr. MartinThe Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will prove me wrong. From time to time, he has made utterances about industrial relations, especially in the public services, and he has asked why we should have "them and us" attitudes. This legislation clearly sets out a "them and us" attitude. Why should the only staff on the boards be those with academic qualifications and school auxiliaries?
Anyone who has been connected with a school knows that the back-up staff are important—cleaners, janitors, 1045 cooks and those who serve meals. In large schools there are maintenance staff, swimming pool attendants and green-keepers who look after the playing fields. If the school board can make decisions without those staff having an input, we could land in all sorts of problems. A board could decide the times at which school started, lunch was eaten and school closed. If such decisions are made without manual workers having an input, there could be disruption and those people might feel left out. If a school is to work properly, every member of staff must be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) is right in moving the amendment, which will give manual workers a feeling that they have a say in the running of their school.
§ Mr. Michael ForsythThere is no snobbery involved; on the contrary, the discussion in Committee revealed that there was some common ground. The difficulties arise in terms of the practicality of achieving our purpose.
The amendment is not entirely satisfactory. The term "support staff" does not get us much further than the definition in the Bill, with which I freely acknowledge I am not 100 per cent. satisfied. I said in Committee that I would consider it. I must confess that we have failed to come up with an alternative. Perhaps unusually, I ask the Opposition to join us in the quest for a suitable term. I am prepared to consider the tabling of an amendment in another place if we can find the right formula.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) that it is perfectly possible for educational staff to serve on boards and I recognise that they will have an important contribution to make. I should be the last person to argue that the janitor does not have a central role to play—especially when I consider the size of my majority in my constituency. Janitors are extremely important and influential people and we want them to play a part. That can be done under clauses 6(3) and 6(10). I do not see that it is necessary to extend the definition to include all staff. The difficulty does not arise in larger schools, but in small schools the staff as a whole could conceivably outnumber the teachers and there may be only one place for a teacher representative. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not seem to have addressed himself to that consideration.
I accept that the definition in the Bill is difficult. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth said, in Committee we had a long discussion about janitors and I concluded that the janitor who occasionally coached a football team was involved in education. I cannot accept the amendment because the words "support staff''——
§ Mr. Michael J. MartinI accept that in small schools —especially those in the Highlands—there may be only one teacher and many more back-up staff. However, the Minister should acknowledge that some comprehensive schools in thickly populated areas employ more manual workers than some factories. That should be borne in mind.
§ Mr. ForsythIt should indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but such schools will have larger school boards and there will be more opportunity for co-option. My point is that the rural areas—not just the Highlands 1046 —have schools at which more support staff would be eligible for election to the single teacher's place than teachers. Therein lies our difficulty.
The term "support staff" seems to me at least as vague and possibly more so than the phrase "anxiliaries involved in education" and there would probably be as many problems with interpretation. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to withdraw the amendment. If he has any further thoughts—indeed, if any hon. Member or anyone outside has further thoughts —we shall be delighted to consider the matter further.
§ Mr. Norman HoggI have often listened to Ministers thanking hon. Members for their comments and saying, "I shall write to the hon. Gentleman." On this occasion, the reverse applies. I shall think about the matter further and write to the Minister. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.