HC Deb 14 November 1989 vol 160 cc219-27

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 24, after "board" insert (a "first resolution")" to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution (a "second resolution") passed at a meeting of the board held not less than twenty-eight days, nor more than forty-two days, after that at which the first resolution was passed".

Mr. Lang

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51 and 53 to 55.

Mr. Lang

The amendment requires a school board to pass two separate resolutions, the second in confirmation of the first, before it may call a ballot of parents on self-governing status, with a period of between four and six weeks between the two resolutions. The other amendments in this group are all consequential, to deal with references later in the Bill to a resolution of a school board calling a ballot. Immediately on passing the first resolution the board must, under the terms of subsections (6) and (7) of clause 13, inform the education authority and, where the school is a denominational school, the denominational body concerned.

I said something about this amendment in speaking on the timetable motion earlier, and I should like to enlarge on it now. I note that the Opposition moved a rather similar amendment in Standing Committee. They did not develop their reasons for it at the time—indeed, they subsequently withdrew it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), quite properly in the circumstances, dismissed it with a brief explanation of why we did not think it necessary to follow the English legislation in this particular. He stressed the desirability of keeping the opting-out procedure as short as possible, and I think that it has been accepted on all sides that at any rate the procedure should not be unduly drawn out.

A good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, however. Immediately after that amendment was disposed of, the Committee moved on to a discussion, which eventually was quite wide ranging, of the whole procedure leading up to a ballot, and particularly about how voters in a ballot should be made aware of the significance of what they would be voting for or against. There were, for example, amendments discussed on the lines that voters should be given a statement of the views of the staff at the school or that they should be given a kind of prospectus by the school board, outlining how the school would be managed, and under what policies, if it became self-governing.

I think that it is fair to say that those debates served to inform everyone's thinking, on both sides of the House and outside Parliament as well. Amendments were made both in Committee and on Report which are relevant to this matter. My hon. Friend accepted an amendment from the Opposition which was designed to guarantee that voters were given the information that they would reasonably require in order to make a decision in the ballot and, in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) we introduced a new clause on report, which is now clause 17, designed to ensure that a local authority cannot use its superior financial resources to swamp the voters with propaganda, and to provide that the school board, if it is so minded, shall have a reasonable sum available to it to promote the case in favour of self-governing status.

5.30 pm

The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour, with Labour support, in another place and was also seen as relevant to the same general concern when it was discussed in another place. The House may therefore find it helpful if I set the amendment in the context of how we see a ballot being conducted.

It is clear that when a school board decides to call a ballot, the matter will instantly become news. There is no possibility of the ballot being, as it were, conducted by stealth. Obviously the parents must be informed, but even before that, the education authority must be informed as soon as the board's resolution is taken. Likewise, the staff at the school—even if they do not receive a formal communication from the board, as one would expect them to do—will hear of the decision from their representatives on the board.

Both the education authority and the staff will certainly have views on the matter. They will want to make them known to the board but, even more, they will want to publicise them and communicate them direct to the parent voters. Those actions will occur irrespective of whether we legislate for them. At the same time, the school board will itself almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Perhaps the Minister will now answer the question I asked earlier about a moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the possibility of moving towards opting out.

Mr. Lang

The provisions of the Bill are for no moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the starting of the procedure towards opting out; it can set in motion the procedure, if it thinks it appropriate when it is constituted. But that process, as I have been describing and could describe in greater detail, is likely to take several months before reaching a conclusion.

As I was saying, the school hoard will almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind. There are provisions under the School Boards (Scotland) Act under which a board is required to communicate with parents as often as seems to be necessary about matters which are its concern; and there is provision also for parents to requisition an open meeting with the board. So the machinery is there.

We plan shortly to issue guidance to school boards, in addition to the general circular which we have already issued in draft, specifically on the details of the procedure for acquiring self-governing status. We shall reinforce there the message that it is desirable that a board should be as open as possible with parents about what it intends. In particular, we shall encourage boards to give parents the opportunity to express their views and discuss the issue at open meetings before the ballot is held. That, we think, is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to address the House when there is not on the Government Benches another Member who represents a Scottish constituency?

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My father is a member of the Liverpool Scottish. Will that do?

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Lang

We believe that the process that I have described is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.

Mr. McFall

The Minister has spoken at length about consulting parents. The message that I am getting is that, even if parents pass a vote of no confidence in a school board, that board need not take any notice. Until school boards have some accountability, there will be no faith in this legislation.

Mr. Lang

As the proposition about opting out would have to be put to the parents in a ballot, the parents would have an opportunity to express their view clearly and decisively in the context of that process.

In that context, the procedure required by the amendment will be a positive help. It guarantees that, in addition to the period that must elapse between a decision to ballot and the holding of the ballot, there will be at least four weeks' of public debate on the issue. In addition, at the end of that period the board is given an opportunity to reconsider its position, in the light of the feedback that it will have had from the education authority, from the staff at the school and from the parents who elected it. At that point the board will be free to decide whether it still wants to go ahead with a ballot, and it will have to take a positive decision, ratifying the earlier one, if it still means to go ahead.

The amendment will be wholly beneficial to the process from any point of view, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Like others, I have questions about the balloting of parents. The Minister said that parents would be informed—by methods that have yet to be revealed. He agreed that parents' meetings would be the ideal places for such information to be given. How will parents be notified? Is it possible that notifications of such meetings, or even the ballot papers, will lie at the bottom of school bags along with crusts of bread and empty crisp bags for perhaps several weeks? If the Minister has more precise proposals, will he tell us about them?

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

I support the Minister's remarks and wish at the outset to thank him for including clause 17 in the revised Bill. He will recall that, when I intervened in his speech in the guillotine debate, I expressed concern about sone of the experiences in England and Wales and said that such experiences had not filled one with confidence that the local authority would not use its overbearing power to intimidate—I used the word "bludgeon"—parents. The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to parental choice.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that he will not allow to happen in Scotland what has been going on in England. For example, The Birmingham Daily News wrote: Opt-out school banned by city council and under that headline noted: More than 1,000 Birmingham youngsters have been banned from using the city's libraries because their school has opted out". Such disgraceful behaviour must not be repeated in Scotland.

Mr. Howarth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House because it illustrates the pitfalls that can face schools when the local authority seeks to be overbearing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for two English Members—who are interfering in our proceedings, anyway—to discuss a purely English matter on what is a Scottish subject?

Madam Deputy Speaker

This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. All voices will be heard.

Mr. Howarth

I am grateful to you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I remind Opposition Members that although they may accuse us Englishmen of interfering in Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) could be seen rushing down the corridor to participate in and vote on English matters.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

I left to take part in a Division on the Local Government and Housing Bill, a measure which affects my constituents in Scotland as much as it affects the people of England.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to vote on matters concerning England and Wales.

The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to ensuring that both sides of the argument on this matter are fully explored, and I can think of no fairer system that could be introduced in this legislation. Let us not forget that the Bill is permissive. It imposes no statutory requirement on schools in Scotland to opt out. It is not draconian. It enables parents to reach a decision for themselves. It shows a genuine concern by the Government for parental choice.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that we were concerned with the wishes of parents. Although the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) initially described as excellent the Strathclyde regional council's document, that document was widely rejected by the Labour party because it flew in the face of Labour's policy, which was enunciated only a month later, and that was comprehensives all round. It did not seem to wish to see the diversity of education provision in Scotland.

We are left with confusion on the Socialist Benches. Although the Opposition apparently welcome the amendment, the thrust of the Labour party's policy on Scottish education has been to return to the same grey uniform policy of "Take it or leave it. We the politicians know best", which was the policy that it brought before the nation in the 1960s.

Mr. Sillars

Irrespective of party divisions, I, like most other Scottish Opposition Members, am sick and tired of hearing lectures from people who are grossly ignorant of the history and development of Scottish education and its achievements.

Ayrshire decided to move to a comprehensive system at the same time as Enfield in England, but the experience was different. There were major problems south of the border, but there were no major problems north of the border, where the comprehensive scheme was implemented and has been a shining success ever since.

We in Scotland agree with comprehensive education, because it fits in with the egalitarian nature of the body politic in Scotland. If Conservative Members from south of the border are interested in Scottish education, they should visit our comprehensive schools to see the variety of education provided for children and the considerable stimulus given to them during their school life. They will see the degree of commitment that has existed for generations among Scottish teachers because they believe in the philosophy that underwrites Scottish education. The only time that that has been broken was during the dispute between the teachers' unions and the minority Government represented by the Minister. He did more damage to Scottish education in a few months than Attila the Hun could have done if he had come over and roamed about the place.

Unfortunately, we are under the pressure of a guillotine, but will the Minister tell me about amendment No. 3? I want to know whether I am correct in saying that a school without a school board cannot opt out. It is a great tragedy that we have reached this late stage before some hon. Members have had an opportunity to ask Ministers for elucidation.

Most Scottish people would like the television in the Chamber to be live tonight so they could see that they are reasonably well represented on the Opposition Benches. They would also see that at one time there were no Scottish Tory Members present. There are now two—the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). More importantly, I would like the television cameras to be on when the Division bell goes and the Conservative Benches begin to fill up with English Tories passing through into the Division Lobby to vote us down irrespective of our point of view, even though we represent the majority opinion in Scotland on this measure.

The position is becoming a farce. The Government will pay heavily for that farce when the House is televised and Scottish people do not need to rely on us to tell them that we can win all the arguments but that we are overwhelmed by the arrogant and ignorant English Conservative Members who do not give a click of their fingers for the Scottish people. However, their day of reckoning will come.

I was pleased that the Minister nodded when I asked that key question. We should spread the word throughout Scotland that, if there are no school boards, there can be no opting out. The Government have inserted the necessity for a school board because their ultimate objective in Scottish education is the privatisation of some schools. There must be a mechanism to take us into the interim phase of school boards and opting out and then on to the the final phase of the objectives set down by the ideologue, the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

We should tell the Scottish people and parents and those who will be parents that, if they want to prevent the ultimate privatisation of our education system, they should not go down the road of the school boards.

5.45 pm
Mr. McAllion

The last English Conservative Member who spoke—the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)—finished his peroration with the observation that the Labour party argued that politicians know best. That could not be further from the truth. However, it could not be more apposite to describe the way in which the Tory party in Scotland operates. It has been overwhelmingly rejected by popular opinion in Scotland, but the Tory Government continue to push every one of their prejudices down the throats of the Scottish people, irrespective of what those people think.

Mr. Gerald Howarth

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Bill says that it is the parents who will decide? The Secretary of State is not imposing on Scottish parents the requirement that they shall move to self-governing status.

Mr. McAllion

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a ruse on the part of Conservative Members to continue to argue that this is permissive, not statutory, legislation. The Government would not impose statutorily on schools within education authority control a requirement that they should all move to direct control by the Scottish Office. If they did that, they would be treating all the schools the same. The basis of the legislation is that some schools in Scotland will he treated differently from others. That is why it is permissive. It is to allow some schools to opt out, while the rest remain under education authority control. It is designed to allow schools that opt out to be given more capital resources and more revenue resources and to receive more favoured treatment by the Government. That is why the legislation is permissive. No Opposition Members are convinced by the Government's arguments.

I was interested in the response that the Minister made to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) when she asked whether there could be moratorium on the time between a school board being established and any possibility of that school requesting opting-out status. The Minister said quickly, "No." He said that because those schools are to opt out from August 1990 onwards. If there were to be a two-year moratorium, it would take us beyond the next general election. Thereafter, there would be no possibility of any schools opting out, because the Government will not be in power after 1991 or 1992, and nor will this legislation which they have imposed on the people of Scotland.

Mr. McFall

On the finances of opted-out schools, my hon. Friend will remember that, in column 237 of the Standing Committee report, I asked the Minister about the finances that would be available to schools for opting out. He told me that the finances would be no more than those presently received from the education authority. However, in The Daily Telegraph, this week there was a report about the opting out of schools in England, where a number had been given more than they had received from the education authority. There were no apologies for that from the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will receive more because privatisation is on the agenda. It is bribery, and nothing else.

Mr. McAllion

My hon. Friend is right to describe what is now happening in England—

Mr. Gerald Howarth

rose—

Mr. McAllion

I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, as he has made his own speech.

The Minister responsible for education expressed concern about the provisions in the Scottish legislation not being as tight as those for England and Wales. The Minister explained that that was why the Government were accepting this group of amendments. I welcome that back-pedalling when I compare it with the position that was taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in Committee.

It is refreshing to witness this change of tack and the change in personalities since the Minister of State has taken over responsibility for education. It suggests that he accepts, at least in part, the fundamental argument that was advanced by the Opposition in Committee. We said that, when the Bill left Committee, the way was open for a small clique of parents to hijack school boards and thereafter to hijack hoards of management and to take schools out of education authority control without the approval of the majority of parents with children attending those schools. I am glad that the Minister says now that he wants to ensure that parents properly appreciate what they are voting for. That is something that never concerned the Under-Secretary of State.

We are told now that, before a ballot takes place, the education authority will have to be informed. Four or six weeks will have to pass before a second resolution is passed by the school board announcing its intention to hold a ballot. The Minister made his intention clear when he said that the education authority and the school board would want to conduct what he said—I took a note of what he said and I may not have recorded his words exactly, but I have the drift of them—would be several weeks of campaigning, with mass publicity, to ensure mass support for whatever proposals came forward from the school board thereafter. I believe that those were the words that the Minister used, and I find them somewhat optimistic.

When the Minister was questioned about the resources that would be made available to school boards and education authorities to allow them to indulge in mass campaigning on the issue before the parents that would be the subject of the ballot, he was more than vague in his reply. He gave no guarantee that additional resources would be made available to the boards or the authorities to enable them to conduct the campaigns which the hon. Gentleman now says are necessary if ballots are to have any meaning in the context of whether schools should opt out of local education authority control.

The Minister's position is flawed for another reason. It ignores the secondary importance which is attached in the Bill to ballots of parents. The Minister referred to the outcome of any such ballot as a positive statement of parental opinion. What does he mean by that? Does he mean a clear majority of all those who are entitled to vote in the ballot? We tried again and again to get a ministerial response to that question in Committee, but we remained unsuccessful.

It remains unclear what the Secretary of State for Scotland will regard as a positive statement of parental opinion. The Minister of State has repeated the statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make to those who have chosen to express their vote. There is still the possibility that, after a publicity campaign and a ballot has been held, a clear minority of parents who intended to vote for opting out will be regarded by the Secretary of State as having made a positive statement of parental opinion, thereby allowing the Government to say that the school should opt out of education authority control.

On 3 May, when we were dealing with the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State made a comment which may be helpful to both sides of the argument. He said that he wanted to ensure the right of local communities to control their school structure, that being one of the finest traditions of Scottish education. I think that everyone will agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, nothing in the Bill guarantees that that tradition will continue. It will still be possible for a minority of parents to win a minority vote in a ballot and thereafter to secure the support of the Secretary of State in allowing the school to opt out of education authority control. That is unjust and undemocratic, especially in the context of current Scottish politics.

I remind the Minister that, since the Bill emerged from Committee, there has been a change of opinion in Scotland. The Scottish people are listening to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling and paying attention to the debate on education in Scotland. The opinion polls show that support for the Labour party in Scotland stands at 55 per cent. while support for the Tories is only 18 per cent. In other words, the Tories have sunk even lower than the depths to which they fell during the 1987 general election. That is because measures of the sort that we are confronted with in the Bill have been forced down the throats of the Scottish people.

The Scottish people have been denied the Parliaments for which they have voted in successive general elections. They have been denied also the opportunity to vote in elections by a Prime Minister who is now running scared of a stalking horse in the Conservative parliamentary party. At the same time, she is running even more scared of the electorate outside this place. The Scottish people can express their opinion only through opinion polls and local government elections. They have done so again and again and have made it clear that they do not want the legislation that is being introduced by this Government. The democratic voice of the Scottish people has been heard. They do not want the Bill. If the Minister listens to the people of Scotland, he will withdraw it.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has again done the House a service by giving an entirely ignorant description of the history and merits of Scottish education. It is not renowned for its worth because of comprehensivisation: it is renowned because there are few other systems which have more successfully seen parents determined to encourage the education and excellence of their children. If we examine the encyclopaedia of those who have been successful in the world—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the timetable motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43 agreed to.

Forward to