NON-DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS (Hansard, 18 May 1994)

HC Deb 18 May 1994 vol 243 cc819-31 819

§ 'After section 22D of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, there shall be inserted the following section—

§ "Further provisions relating to non-denominational schools 22E.—(1) An education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for his consent any proposal of theirs to which this section applies and shall not implement such a proposal without his consent.

(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one—

(a) to—

(i) discontinue the school or a part of it;
(ii) amalgamate the school or a part of it with another school;
(iii) change the site of the school;
(iv) change the arrangements for admission to the school.

(b) in relation to which the Secretary of State, having consulted any education authority affected by it, is satisfied, upon written representations made, that, if implemented, it will have any of the results specified in subsection (3) below.

(3) The results referred to in subsection (2)(b) above are—
1. (a) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of the education authority submitting the proposal under subsection (1) above; or
2. (b) a significant deterioration for pupils belonging to the area of any other education authority; or
3. (c) where neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) above applies, such a deterioration for pupils as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) and pupils of any other authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b) as, taken together, amounts to a significant deterioration,
in the provision, or availability of school education in a particular school compared with such provision, or availability in other schools managed by the education authority mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, where paragraph (b) or (c) above applies, any other education authority as mentioned in the said paragraph (b).
(4) Any question which may arise—

(a) whether a proposal is one to which this section applies;
(b) as to the implementation of a proposal to which the Secretary of State has consented under this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State and the education authority shall perform their duties under this Act in accordance with any such determination.".'.—[Mr. McLeish]

§ Brought up, and read the First time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. McLeish.]

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments. Nos 99 to 102.

§ Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Govan)
We have debated on previous occasions the boundaries and the costs of local government reform. When we look at particular 820 services, it is extremely clear that the reorganisation is boundary-led, rather than service-led. When we look at the education service, we see clearly that the reorganisation will have a considerably adverse affect on the education service.
There will be substantial cuts in education budgets as a result of the reorganisation, which will absorb a substantial amount of money that otherwise would have gone on service provision. Non-statutory services will be placed at risk. Opposition Members argued in Committee that pre-five services and community education should be made statutory provisions to protect them, but the Government refused to accept that.
It is also perfectly clear that many new local authorities will be too small to provide the complete range of education services which the pupils and the adults in the community deserve. They will be forced to have multiple layers of organisation—joint boards, structures for buying-in and combinations of authorities for particular services. It is perfectly clear that many of the existing provisions will be placed at risk as a result of the reorganisation.
One particular ground for concern is the way in which the new local authority boundaries will cut across existing school catchment areas. I recognise that the Government have made a number of concessions as a result of pressure from Opposition Members and from interested bodies in education. They have been prepared to concede that all existing school catchment areas would not be changed by the passing of the legislation itself, but would require subsequent action.
The Government have guaranteed that the existing legal provision for school transport to be provided for distances of two or three miles for youngsters of a relevant age will be maintained, and we welcome that. There will be a substantial deterioration in the existing provision of school transport for the majority of people living in Strathclyde and elsewhere because authorities—Strathclyde in particular—make a provision of school transport beyond the legal minimum. It is highly unlikely that those authorities will be able to do so when their budgets are under the severe pressure that reorganisation will place on them.
The loss of free transport facilities for a substantial number of youngsters will undoubtedly have a consequential impact on school rolls in areas that are affected by the boundaries of local authorities cutting across school catchment areas. We must take into account the position in which those schools and authorities will find themselves.
Without doubt, the new local authorities will find themselves under tremendous financial pressure. There will have to be cuts in education services, and schools will be closed for financial reasons. It is a question then of how many schools and which boundaries are affected.
The Government have conceded that Roman Catholic schools have special protection, as they are able to take cases to which the Church and parents object to the Secretary of State for clarification. It will be for him to identify whether the schools and parents involved are experiencing significant deterioration, compared with other schools run by that authority.
Unfortunately, as the legislation stands, no similar provision is being made for non-denominational schools. The purpose of new clause 4 is to place an equivalent responsibility on the Government to ensure that there is 821 equity between the sectors and to ensure that non-denominational schools, and particular individual non-denominational schools, are not dealt with adversely by the local authority.
It is particularly important that parents who do not have a say through elected representatives have the opportunity to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. If one authority decides to close a school in its area, the parents of the children who attend that school and who reside in another local authority will have no democratic mechanism by which to express their view. The Government have reasonably bowed to pressure from Labour Members and the Catholic Church on the issue of denominational schools. They have recognised that something has to be done and they have conceded that the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State.
I envisage that a similar position will apply in some circumstances to non-denominational schools that are under severe financial pressure. It is reasonable, therefore, that the Government should also take into account those equivalent circumstances.
I have reservations about asking the House to pass a new clause which will give the Secretary of State more powers because, throughout the passage of the Bill, he has taken unto himself more powers, which he should not necessarily have. But that should not blind us to the fact that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for matters to be referred to the Secretary of State and this is one of them. As the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church have both said that they want equivalent treatment of non-denominational and Catholic schools, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the new clause.

§ 4 pm

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
I raised on Second Reading the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred. It is one of the many problems that arise from this divisive Bill. Many children and many schools will face difficulties because the proposed new local education authority boundaries cut across the boundaries of many school catchment areas throughout Scotland.
As the Minister knows, I instanced the case of St. Modan's high school, which, although not in my constituency, serves the children of many of my constituents from Denny, Dennyloanhead, Dunipace and Banknock. The Minister may recall that I said to him that if the catchment area of a particular school were confined to the local education authority area in which that school was located, the very viability of many schools would be threatened. Certainly, the viability of maintaining the number of children in some upper school courses would be threatened. In some extreme cases, the very existence of schools could be threatened.
In a sense, the situation at St. Modan's high school in Stirling has been exacerbated by the Government's latest amendment. Under the original proposals, St. Modan's would have taken in children from two local education authority areas. Now, if Clackmannan is to be a local education authority in its own right, however, St. Modan's will take in children from three local education authority areas. As the Minister knows, there was initially a storm of protest from the rector of the school, the parent-teacher association and many individual parents. They were joined by parents of children in many other schools throughout 822 Scotland, particularly but, I emphasise, not exclusively, parents who chose to send their children to Catholic schools. Some non-denominational schools were also affected because their catchment areas would straddle the new local education authority boundaries.
The Minister will recall that lobby groups came down to Westminster and that parents, schools, the Scottish Catholic hierarchy and Scottish Catholic Education Commission sent a flood of correspondence to the Scottish Office about the matter. There was a general welcome, and relief, that there was at least some response from the Government in Committee, and the Bill has been amended to meet some of the concerns that were expressed by parents.
However, people are not exactly dancing in the streets about the amendments that were passed in Committee. There is certainly no complacency. We will still have to be vigilant to see how the arrangements work in practice with regard to statutory consultation between authorities, referral to the Secretary of State, the provision of school transport, and so on. There is certainly a general welcome for the Government's response in Committee, but it remains to be seen how the arrangements will work in practice.
The Catholic Church representatives to whom I spoke were not concerned simply about children whose parents choose to send them to Catholic schools. Obviously, they have had discussions on the matter with their counterparts in the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopalian Church and churches of other denominations.
Certainly, the Catholic Church spokespersons who communicated with me were at pains to point out that they were not demanding any special privileges; they simply wanted statutory protection of the rights that they already have. They do not want special privileges to be given to Catholic schools or any other denominational schools in Scotland. They believe that there should be statutory protection for the rights of all children and parents, regardless of the school to which parents choose to send their children in Scotland. New clause 4 seems to be an attempt to extend that protection of rights to parents who choose to send their children to non-denominational schools, as well as to those whose children go to denominational schools.
I should like some specific answers from the Minister to some questions. How many schools are there in Scotland whose catchment areas will straddle the new local education authority boundaries? How many of them are denominational schools? What denominations are they? How many of them are non-denominational? How many are high schools or secondary schools, how many are primary schools and how many are special schools?
I conclude by referring to special education and the needs of children who attend special schools. The school that I mentioned earlier—St. Modan's high school—is unique among Central region secondary schools with regard to this boundary problem. But within Central region, there are cases of children with special educational needs who travel from one part of the region to another. If the Government have their way on the carve-up of the Central region, it may well mean that children with special educational needs will have to be bussed from one local education authority area to another.
What can the Minister tell us about the safeguards with regard to the number of schools in Scotland that will be affected and the number of pupils who will be affected? 823 What will be the practical implications of those safeguards which, I hope, will be provided in the Bill? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those matters.

§ Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)
The Bill is yet another example of the Government's failure to think about local authorities and the needs of the people of Scotland. It was introduced for one particular reason, but the people of Scotland must now face its consequences.
Because of the Government's proposals on education, some catchment areas will be irrelevant or a nuisance to the new local authorities, while others will be created. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said, currently, there are no catchment areas for those receiving special education, but, by heck, there will be in the future. Those children who crop up in penny packets with their own particular special needs will not be catered for by the small local authorities of the future.
The present Strathclyde authority provides Middlefield school for the education of aphasic children. I cannot imagine that the new authorities of Dumbarton or Clydebank will be that concerned about aphasic children, because they may not come across such a child within 10 years. It is essential, however, that someone accepts responsibility for them.
From the Minister's letters to me it is extraordinary to note his touching faith in co-operation and his urge to offer goodness and light to people. Despite that, we have the most conflict-ridden Government I have ever known, who do not believe in any kind co-operation. It will, therefore, be difficult for people to heed the Government's call to co-operate.
The new clause is important because, although the consequences of the new boundaries may cause problems for primary schools, those created for secondary education will be enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has already asked how many schools will be affected by the new boundaries.
In my constituency, I can think of two particular problems that will arise. Some time ago, secondary schools in Drumchapel had to shut down because of overcapacity. The loss of those schools was a painful process for the citizens of Drumchapel. Schools in Clydebank were asked to take the Catholic children of Drumchapel. St. Columba's and St. Andrew's schools in my constituency went through careful preparations to ensure that the difficult integration—in community terms—of the Drumchapel children with those of Clydebank went ahead successfully. That integration has worked extremely well.
What will happen in the future as a result of the boundary proposals? Will the children within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow council be told that will be expected to go to a Glasgow school and be taken away from the Clydebank school into which they had been integrated? I am sure that the Minister has not even thought of that. Will a future Glasgow corporation or council look happily on the fact that, although it has space in its schools, it must pay Clydebank or Dumbarton authority for the education of the children in those authorities' schools? I cannot see such an arrangement lasting for long.
The problems that I have described affect just one constituency on the boundary of the Glasgow, but I am sure that they are replicated everywhere. In the Milngavie end 824 of my constituency, Catholic children from St. Joseph's currently go on to John Paul academy in Glasgow. In future, those children will be part of another authority, so will they be expected to go to Kirkintilloch for their education? In future, a cash transaction will take place—all because a Government wanted to gerrymander boundaries. That is all. That is why the disruption will occur.
I have regrets about supporting a further centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) intimated, I think that all Opposition Members regret that. Nevertheless, there is an anomaly.
The Government have responded to the pressure of the Catholic Church by introducing special measures to provide an extra assurance for Catholic children in Scotland. When the first school closure takes place, that will obviously cause sectarian tension. People will ask why Catholic children in Catholic schools have a built-in extra safeguard when there is no safeguard for nondenominational children.
Therefore, overcoming my squeamishness about further centralisation of power, I support the new clause.

4.15 pm

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
I shall briefly comment on the amendment, which I and my colleagues obviously support. It is especially appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), because he and I both taught at St. Modan's. In that previous existence, he was my boss at one stage. I eventually had responsibility in that school for children with special needs and I taught as a non-Roman Catholic in a Catholic school. I think that we wish to retain in our educational system the type of friendship and organisation that existed there.
I represent a constituency which is far removed from the central belt and the issue of non-denominational schools does not arise to the same extent. In my district, although there are primary schools that represent the Roman Catholic community, there is no Roman Catholic secondary school and the children move on directly to schools that do not have that religious attitude. That works extremely well. However, I recognise the importance that the Roman Catholic Church attaches to the continuation of its schools and of their ethos.
As someone who is trained in looking after the special needs of youngsters, I hope that the Government recognise the anxieties that are expressed by many people who believe that children's special needs should be met in their districts and communities. The problems that are created for the families of such children are exacerbated if they have to move far from their original communities.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister—I believe that he shares our worries—will ensure that the Bill makes it clear that children's special needs will be recognised in all areas of Scotland, thereby preventing the problem of children being sent vast distances to meet their educational needs.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said, it is important to place the problem of the new local government boundaries cutting across the catchment areas of exiting schools against the background of the financial pressures from the Government under which the new single-tier authorities will find themselves—there is no doubt anywhere in Scotland about that.
825 The Minister in the Scottish Office with responsibility for education and housing sent me a copy of the letter that he sent to Archbishop O'Brien on 4 February, in which he said: the existing arrangements for distributing resources between authorities should continue to apply after local government
re-organisation, although the distribution will of course be driven by assessments of need in each area derived by The Scottish Office". Everyone knows that the Scottish Office assessment of the need for secondary school places in different parts of Scotland is that there is an excess of places in secondary schools throughout Scotland and that it expects the move to single-tier authorities to result in a decrease in secondary school places and, thus, school closures throughout Scotland. That is no secret.
Dundee will be left with 12 secondary schools within the city boundaries, to be supported by a population of just 150,000. The Government obviously expect the new authority in Dundee, whoever happens to control it, to make savings by closing a number of places currently available to kids in Dundee. Of those 12 secondary schools, at one end of the spectrum we have the Harris academy, the Morgan academy and Menzieshill high school, which have a high number of pupils. At the other end of the spectrum, we have schools such as Linlathen and Rockwell, with only 352 and 533 pupils respectively. Pressure will be placed on the new authority to close schools that are sometimes two thirds empty. In those circumstances, the authority will look for any way in which to make savings.
In Committee, the Minister said that funding for individual pupils will follow those pupils wherever they happen to go. If, in addition to the pressure already on the new authority to close schools in Dundee, the authority is then expected to save the money that would have funded pupils attending schools in its area and to fund pupils who cross the boundary to attend schools in a neighbouring area, it may find the position intolerable.
The Minister knows that I am referring to Monifieth academy, one of whose main feeder primary schools will remain in the Dundee area while Monifieth academy will be in the Angus area. Will the new education authority in Dundee council be obliged to allow pupils who currently attend Barnhill primary school in Dundee to cross the boundary into Angus and be educated at Monifieth academy, or could it say that it is not prepared to fund pupils to attend a school in another area? Could it simply redraw the catchment area for the local Grove academy in Dundee and insist that children who have attended Barnhill primary school must attend Grove rather than Monifieth academy? That is a critical consideration.
What obligations will be placed on the council in those circumstances? Could the council simply say, "Kids from Dundee can no longer attend the school in Angus. We are not prepared to fund it. We shall keep all the resources available to us within the Dundee boundaries and insist that Dundee children attend Dundee secondary schools"? If the council does not have the power to do that, in addition to closing its own schools, it will have to fund some of the children to attend schools across the boundary in another authority area. if the council can insist that children stay within Dundee, the future of Monifieth academy will not be good because it will lose a substantial number of its present school population.
826 I want the Minister to be absolutely clear about the position between the two authorities, Angus and Dundee, and about attendance at the school in Angus by pupils currently living in Dundee, whose catchment areas may be redesignated to focus on schools in the Dundee area.

§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)
I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss special education. There is a much larger debate to be had on that subject, given the Government's failure to respond to the concerns of Enable and other organisations that deal with those with special educational needs, which were raised in Committee.
People in central Scotland face considerable problems now that the Government have been silly enough to proceed with the three council solution, with Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk as separate districts. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), I have spoken to the headmasters of St. Modan's school in Stirling, Mr. John Oates, and of St. Mungo's academy in Falkirk, Mr. Hugh Lynch. The academy is in my constituency. The result of the Government's proposal is that 60 per cent. of pupils who now attend St. Modan's will not live within the catchment area of the new local authority, which will be a major problem.
The people of Falkirk district, who are keen to have their own unitary authority to look after their citizens, will be asked to levy taxation locally to maintain the infrastructure of a school in a neighbouring local authority. Given the substantial cost of the reorganisation, they will doubtless be pressed to find the resources to look after the infrastructure of their own schools. Clearly, that will not work, cannot be sustained in the long term and cannot be justified. It is the disease within the Bill, which is driven by boundary considerations and the Government's malice. Eventually, it will weaken the educational provision within St. Modan's, cause cancerous growths in the education system within Falkirk district and kill the educational provision that the people deserve. The Government should have thought of that when they introduced the Bill. They are out to wreck education—maybe unknowingly. As I said in Committee, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. In the case of this Minister, that may be true.

§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)
I am not an expert on the Bill. Indeed, in the best traditions of Parliament, it was brought to my attention by constituents. Ministers and the Conservative party in Scotland grossly underestimate the feeling among ordinary men and women about the provisions in this part of the Bill.
I shall first refer to the main problem—the slicing in half of catchment areas. The two most important educational institutions in Scotland—the secondary schools and the primary schools—were physically, geographically and demographically put in place over a period of 25 years, on the basis of existing catchment areas. They were built and structured to service those catchment areas, which are suddenly being slashed, sliced or cut away. I am glad that the Government made their concession, particularly with regard to Roman Catholic schools, but stopping at half the truth is often like telling a whole lie. Half measures are often worse than nothing at all.
I fear that, by trying to go halfway towards meeting the problem of catchment areas and the concern of parents —particularly because of circumstances among Roman 827 Catholics—the Government have left to simmer a potential cause of resentment among people whose children go to non-denominational schools. There will come a time when, because of a school closure, because a particular school is full or because of a lack of parental choice, people who want their sons and daughters to go to a nondenominational school will be filled with resentment. They will blame the Government and ask the simple question, "Why have safeguards given to one section of the community not been delivered to the rest?"
Concern about the issue was expressed to me in my constituency on a bright Friday night when most reasonable people would have wanted to do something other than attend a meeting in a public hall and listen to their Member of Parliament. On that occasion, more than 400 parents turned up because they were concerned that, after decades, their children would no longer be able to go to Uddingston grammar school. The three feeder schools that have traditionally looked to that grammar school, which is only three miles away, will find themselves, as a result of the Government's proposals, split from it. The children will have to go to another school.
Although that school is only slightly further away, traditionally, those parents would want their children to go to it. When the practical effects of the Bill are felt, the parents of the children going to those three nondenominational schools and wishing to go to Uddingston grammar will demand to know why they do not enjoy the concessions that were given to other parents.
Two brief points arise from that situation. The parents will not only resent the move in the long term but take action now to redirect their children from one feeder primary to another. It is well known that Bellshill academy, which is one of the alternatives to Uddingston grammar, will not be able to cope with the intake from all three primary schools. In other words, the children from one or two of them will be able, even after the introduction of the new catchment areas, to go to the traditional school.
I predict that, over the next year or so, parents will move their children from the primary school that they anticipate will feed Bellshill to one that they anticipate will continue to feed Uddingston grammar. As a result, one of the primary schools will appear on the records as having children disappearing from its roll like snow off a dike. The head teacher will be blameless, and the school will be blameless. I know that it is a marvellous school, but the head teacher and the school's board will find that, because of the insecurity created by the changes and because they are anticipating how to get round them, people will move their children away.
I ask the Minister even at this late stage to do what we have been asking him to do all along—preserve the catchment areas that already exist for all schools and all parents. If he does not, the freedom of choice that he likes to speak about will be theoretical, not practical. He knows that, although a theoretical freedom will obtain, the practical compulsion of a lack of finance for local authorities will mean that they fill first their own schools, not the schools that have traditionally been in their catchment areas, which will be separated from them by the new boundaries.

828 4.30 pm

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)
I am glad to respond to the debate, and especially to the important points about special educational needs. I am glad to confirm that the Secretary of State has the powers to ensure that the necessary duties in this connection are carried out by education authorities. Those duties are set out in section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which requires every education authority to ensure that there is made for its area adequate and efficient provision of school education and further education. That obviously covers all special educational needs.
A failure to fulfil that duty could bring about complaints under section 70 of the 1980 Act: the default provisions. They provide a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can, by order, require an authority to discharge the necessary duty. Accordingly, section 70 provides an opportunity, in extremis, for the Secretary of State to intervene where and when he considers that an authority has failed to discharge the necessary duty under the Act.

§ Mrs. Ewing
Is the Minister satisfied that records of needs are being dealt with adequately and within the necessary time in the education system?

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The hon. Lady asks a relevant question. Each new education authority, under the 1980 Act, will have responsibility for identifying and assessing children who require records of needs and for providing for their special educational needs as identified and recorded. I can confirm that no record of needs will be affected by the reform and the terms and obligations that the Act places on education authorities will continue in full force.
Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 relate to clause 140. As we have said, it is not the intention of the Scottish Office to diminish or change the statutory provisions governing Catholic education in Scotland. The purpose of clause 140, which was introduced in Committee, is to clarify the arrangements under which certain changes proposed by an authority which would affect denominational schools would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for his consent. It was intended to ensure that the interests of all the children affected by a relevant proposal were taken into account.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) referred to equity. With that thought in mind when reflecting on the terms of clause 140, we came to the view that changes were necessary to the original wording. The intention was to move from a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational schools provided by a given authority to a comparison between the denominational and non-denominational education available for pupils belonging to a given authority's area, regardless of which authority managed the schools.
In layman's language, that means that if a school's catchment area is proposed for a change, it can be compared with all available schools nearby, thus widening the interpretation. I believe that that meets the point made in this regard in Committee.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked a question to which I should like to reply next. Where there are proposals for catchment areas, those catchment areas will remain in place unless and until authorities seek to change them. Before that can happen, 829 certain statutory procedures have to be gone through, including extensive consultation with parents and others. In certain cases, the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland must be obtained. Incidentally, the 80 per cent. rule means that any school that is more than 80 per cent. full will automatically be referred.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr.McAllion) asked about the parents' choice provisions. Where a school has room to take the pupils, under the parents' choice legislation, it is obliged to do so. In certain cases, where a school is 15 per cent. full or mostly empty, there may be a case for rationalisation. That will be the same in future as it has been in the past, but full consultation would have to take place.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked for the numbers of schools. The Department does not at present have details on record of all school catchment areas or similar arrangements with particular secondary schools. Central Government involvement in the maps and schemes of educational provision ended 15 years ago; those are now the responsibility of local authorities. However, where the Department requires details—for example where particular issues are raised with it, or for school inspection purposes—it can establish them with the help of the education authorities.

§ Mr. Canavan
That is a disgraceful admission by the Minister. He has known of the existence of the problem for six months or more. Enormous pressure has been put on the Government through letter writing, parliamentary representations, lobbies of Parliament and meetings with the Minister and he is telling us now that not only is the solution very conditional, but he does not even know the magnitude of the problem. Only the Government have the responsibility for the problem and the resources to quantify it by contacting all the local education authorities in Scotland. The Minister is now admitting that he has not even bothered do his homework before replying to the House. It is a disgrace.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
It is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I explained fully in Standing Committee that the reason for it was the non-co-operation of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If the hon. Gentleman wants that information provided more readily, he should encourage local authorities to co-operate with the provision of information. Of course, if necessary, the Scottish Office will do it, but it is better that a job should be done by the local authorities as arranged under the 1980 Act, and that the information should be forthcoming. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular request in relation to a particular school, that matter can be followed up.

§ Mr. Canavan
Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton
No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Canavan
It is on the same point.

Lord James Douglas Hamilton
I have answered the hon. Gentleman. He may not be satisfied with the answer, but that is the answer.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order.

§ Mr. Canavan
If I tabled a parliamentary question, would the Minister reply to it?

830

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. When the Chair requests order, both sides should resume their seats.

Lord James Douglas Hamilton
I shall provide the information within my possession, but I have answered the hon. Gentleman. If I have to give a rough and ready estimate without confirmation, I shall say that I believe that the number will be under 100. Some have suggested that it will be 600, but I do not believe that it will anything like as large as that. That is a rough and ready estimate; if the hon. Gentleman's tables a question I shall give as much information as I have available.
My first concern is that new clause 4 would result in almost any proposed change to a catchment area or almost any proposal by an authority to rationalise or reorganise its position having to be referred to the Secretary of State to assess whether his consent is necessary. Apparently, under the new clause as drafted, anyone at all can trigger that process by making representation. I find it hard to believe that Opposition Members really intend that local authorities should be so constrained. The whole thrust of the Bill is to give authorities greater flexibility, as I have made clear on a number of occasions. Indeed, in certain cases they may have to rationalise.
My second point relates to the fact that Opposition Members may claim that new clause 4 is intended to give some non-denominational schools more protection; but that would be to misunderstand the current position. I repeat that nothing in the Bill introduces new safeguards for denominational education.
Clauses 140 and 141 clarify the existing position. Clause 140 does not introduce a new safeguard. The intention behind it is to make certain that the interests of all the children affected by any relevant proposal will be taken into account in relation to denominational education. Clause 141 removes any doubt about whether an education authority would still have a duty under section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Non-denominational schools will be no worse off as a result of the boundary changes. The safeguards that exist at present will continue to apply—I have already mentioned the 80 per cent. rule.
Thirdly, because the new clause would apply to all schools—both denominational and non-denominational—it would directly cut across existing safeguards for denominational schools. So the impact of new clause 4 would be to limit section 22D only to a proposal to change a denominational school into a non-denominational school. It would remove the right of the denominational body to be consulted about a proposed change in, for example, the catchment area of a denominational school.
The new clause takes no account of the arrangements to be made for the religious instruction of pupils in denominational schools which are currently set out in section 22D. It would require the consent of the Secretary of State, even if the denominational body agreed to the proposal. New clause 4 would be a substantial weakening of the existing safeguards and, for that reason, I cannot support it.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
The Minister brings to the Dispatch Box the old skill that I remember from my trade union official days: if one cannot convince, then confuse. He deploys that tactic with great skill, and has brought it to the debate today. However, he is unique 831 in that he usually manages to confuse himself. His distance from officials today has meant that there has not been a constant stream of answers to questions.
The Minister said that clause 140 offers no new protection to denominational schools, but the reality is that it widens protection for denominational schools where their catchment areas are affected by the boundaries that have been created through the unnecessary reorganisation. That concession was obtained as a result of a massive public campaign by the churches in Scotland, especially the Roman Catholic Church.
I do not for a minute take away from the Roman Catholic Church's success in bringing its problems to the notice of hon. Members, but it was only one message that the Government received. In making the concession that is enshrined in clause 180, the Government have ignored the fact that all the churches in Scotland—the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and the rest—gave the Government a united message about the danger to education as a whole posed by the reorganisation.
The Churches warned us about what would happen. They warned us about the fragmentation of existing local authorities in Scotland, and they were right to do so. They warned that there were implications for the standards of education in Scotland and that funding difficulties would follow, as day follows night, the fragmentation of local authorities that would occur as a result of the reorganisation. They warned us that there would be an inevitable reduction in the breadth and scale of education provision for people in Scotland as a result of creating small and, in many cases, non-viable local authorities. They said that those who would suffer most as a consequence were those who presently rely on the provision of special needs education across Scotland.
New clause 4 has nothing to do with sectarianism or creating difficulties for non-denominational or denominational schools. It is about equity; it is about providing protection for non-denominational schools, which will find their catchment areas sliced up arbitrarily by the reorganisation, in the same way as protection has been found for the denominational schools that brought their case to Parliament.
Rather than being enhanced by the reorganisation, education in Scotland will be endangered. The new clause is one way of drawing that fact to the attention of the Scottish people. Now is not the time to divide the House about the issue or the new clause, but the issue will remain because the concerns about Scottish education are alive and real. They are shared by the churches and the wider Scottish population. Nothing that the Minister says either to convince or to confuse will reassure people who have a genuine and well-justified fear that education is in danger.

§ Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.