§ Report received.
§ Clause 2 [Composition of Boards]:
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 1, I should say that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
§
Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, no doubt much to the disgust of the Minister I return to the topic of the composition of school boards. They are bodies that we greatly welcome. However, we feel that the boards must be a partnership and not the dictatorship that they may easily become should the Government's proposals that there must be a majority of parents on the school board be accepted.
§ Time and again we have produced our arguments. I shall bring them forward once more in order to persuade the Minister to make more of his reply. The teaching profession has a lot to contend with quite apart from doing the job. Teachers' pay rates have fallen behind those of many other sections of the community. I believe that they have been under-rated for many years in the general, national scheme of things. They are of immense importance and we know it.
§ If one is to introduce school boards to Scotland it must be done with the co-operation of the teaching profession. Teachers welcome the help and cooperation of parents and, if it is properly balanced, the school board must be welcomed by both parents and the teaching profession. I know that there have been a number of attempts in the form of polls to verify the opinions of the general public on this subject. No doubt the Minister will speak on that point but a number of other questions arise. It is not simply a matter of asking: "Do you want a majority of parents on the school board?"
§ My amendment is a very simple one. It proposes to leave out the whole of the subsection which states that there should be a majority of parents on the school board. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has tabled a slightly better amendment but its purpose is exactly the same. An experienced parent-teacher organisation has done a lot of work on this subject and has reached the conclusion that one should not have a preponderance of any one group of people on these boards in order that the boards may work properly.
§ Ours is a very simple position: we do not want an absolute majority to be a statutory requirement. We want the boards to work. We believe that they will work a great deal better if there is equality and no one body has a majority which can be used in an unreasonable manner. I beg to move.
§ Lord SomersMy Lords, I have been in the teaching profession for some years arid should like to confirm every single word that the noble Lord has said. I sincerely hope that the fable of having parents on school boards in order to run schools properly will 87 be seen through. The idea looks very well on paper but in fact parents know very little about what happens in the school. They know what they want for their own well-loved child but they do not know anything about how to give it. I sincerely hope that this amendment will be accepted.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for moving his amendment and for suggesting that on balance the amendment in my name is preferable. I suggest modestly that he is probably correct because my amendment is rather more flexible than his. I hope therefore that on reflection he will agree that if we are to take this issue any further it would be better to approve the amendment in my name.
This matter was discussed at Committee stage and I believe that this amendment is qualitatively slightly different from the earlier one. The general story is the same. In support of the previous amendment it was argued that an overall majority of parents was contrary to the concept of partnership which should underpin the relationship within school boards. Mutual co-operation between parents, staff and co-opted members is best encouraged by the absence of any group with an overall majority.
The whole school board scenario is bound to be experimental. An inexperïenced parental approach to the new powers of the boards should be balanced and checked through the parents having to convince at least one other member of the board. If there were a balance the parents could be in the majority but they would at least need to convince one other voting member of the board of the correctness of their views.
During our earlier discussions I said that it was significant that the Education Reform Act 1988, which covers England and Wales, does not give parents an overall voting majority on school governing boards despite the fact that the system has had a much longer history in England than it has in Scotland. The fact that the Government intend that school boards initially will have an overall parental majority has been accepted, but many people feel that this provision should not be laid down in statute but be capable of change in the light of experience. I believe that we have introduced a little flexibility at this point.
Experience in the operation of school boards may show that if the boards are to operate effectively, there should not be an overall majority of parents in particular schools or certain classes of schools. In such circumstances would it not be better for the Secretary of State to have greater freedom to alter the composition of school boards by changing the regulations specified in subsection (3)?
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a submission made by Mr. Ken Grigor who was a member of the Royal High School Parent-Teachers' Association in Edinburgh. He was there for a long time and was, I believe, chairman for a period. He is convinced that some schools may not be able to establish a board, at least at the beginning, because of the insufficient number of parent volunteers to occupy all the available vacancies. In such circumstances the flexibility that we are suggesting is 88 something to which the Minister should be only too pleased to give serious thought. From his very wide experience of a school board and an active parent-teacher association, Mr. Grigor believes that parents themselves do not think that they should have the overall majority on school boards.
I do not think that this is in any way a wrecking amendment. Its aim is to help the Government, make school boards work and give the flexibility which I believe the Government will come to realise in some cases is necessary in view of the very large number of school boards that will be set up and preferable to imposing a rigid pattern on all of them. I hope therefore that the Minister and the House will give serious thought to the ideas that I have put forward.
§ Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, both noble Lords have explained that their respective amendments seek to do away with the parental majority on the school boards. I know that both the local authorities in Scotland and the biggest teaching union there, the EIS, are extremely keen to see that majority abolished. As I said in Committee, both those bodies were kind enough to explain to me that they did not believe that parents would be up to having such a majority. They agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in that it may not be possible to get enough parents to do the job. They think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, it will destroy the so-called "notion of partnership".
In Committee I said that, based on my experience of school councils in Scotland where parents do not have a majority, I disagreed with the noble Lords very much. When financial delegation comes to the schools and they are operating their own budgets, I believe that the system will prove to be by far the best way of routeing school boards to consider the interests of the pupils of that school and to get away from schools being used not as a partnership—that is not happening at the moment—but as a place where interest groups play a very large part in the discussion of the policy of the school.
Indeed at times schools feel that they are a political battlefield. That may sound an overstatement. However, noble Lords may be aware that on this very day the EIS, their biggest teaching union, has called its members out on a one-day strike throughout Scotland. When it heard about this, the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council issued a statement in which it said:
The SPTC condemns the proposed strike action by the EIS and calls on the Union not to promote further disruption in Scottish schools, a course of action which will not impress Scottish parents. Parents have a right to expect those who teach their children to behave in a professional fashion and many will question whether strike action by EIS members, in the current situation, is consistent with this high standard".I have expressed the view to the EIS—I do not expect anyone to lay great store by my opinion; they do not have to—that if schools are to flourish in Scotland, the only way forward is for them to return to being professional associations and to cease carrying out the role of a militant trade union. That is what parents want; and that is what the people of Scotland want.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? I deplore the EIS going on strike for a day. However, surely she is not suggesting that the rest of the school board, apart from parents, will consist of EIS members. They will be co-opted members and people appointed from the local authority. They will form only a part. Not all teachers are members of the EIS. The EIS, through the teachers, will not have a majority on the school board.
§ Baroness Carnegy of LourMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. He is absolutely right.
Perhaps I may briefly sum up my remarks. The atmosphere which will be created in a school board which has a majority of parents upon it will eventually, not necessarily initially, be such that the members of the school board, the staff of the school, everyone in the school and the parents will consider the school and the interests of the pupils. The paramount concern will be the school and not the education system. It is thinking about the education system and the politicising of that issue which is at the root of the trouble today.
I believe that it will help to create an atmosphere which teachers—whether or not they belong to a teachers' union—will appreciate. It will enable them to develop and express the high professionalism to which they aspire. The teachers will find that they are encouraged and expected to be highly professional by parents. They will be greatly appreciated for it. This can happen only if we have the atmosphere within the school boards which the parental majority will create.
This is a Scottish approach to a Scottish problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, we have not had boards before. We can therefore start afresh. I hope very much that your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, we are at almost the final stages of this interesting and important Bill. From these Benches we very much welcome the basic proposals on the school boards. I regret very much that the Educational Institute of Scotland, which used to be a highly regarded professional organisation, has resorted to strike action. I regard that as totally irresponsible. It does nothing for its cause and creates immense hardship, in particular for single-parent families where mothers have to go out to work while their children are at school. I therefore hope that, in making any further contribution to this discussion on the future of education, the EIS will become less political, more responsible, and indulge in more constructive contributions to education than sloganising about the anglicisation of Scottish education.
Having said that, I must confess that the present confrontation in Scottish education, of which the EIS strike is a reflection, is an unhappy circumstance for the future of Scottish education. Therefore any contribution which we can make to establish a better relationship, to make this system work and to create the kind of partnership that the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, have sought, is to be welcomed.
90 I am conscious that this afternoon we are discussing the structure. However, this interesting experiment of school boards will work not because of the structure but because of the people who will be attracted to service on the school boards and in education. I hope that we can encourage people to approach the educational problems of Scotland without the confrontation that seems to be a feature of discussion on education at the moment.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, provides a degree of flexibility. It takes the matter out of the area of conflict that we or they must have a majority. That is the basis of conflict and confrontation. It provides a degree of flexibility. I believe that it will help the success of this experiment.
The experience of Jordanhill school in Glasgow at the moment does not encourage us to believe that necessarily a parents' majority in the government of school boards is essentially a remedy for all the difficulties and weaknesses. I want this experiment to work. I believe it is good idea. I want parental involvement in the schools to succeed. But I want it to be built on a basis not of confrontation or conflict but of partnership. It is precisely that objective that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has in mind in the amendment that is now before us.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Lord AddingtonMy Lords, I find myself agreeing with much of what has already been said. The idea of partnership is what fundamentally lies behind both amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seems to encapsulate it rather better than that under my name, on the grounds that it does not state an absolutely fixed position and that the flexibility therefore will enable us to adapt to any future change.
The idea of partnerhip is something that we have hammered away at for a long time. This is conceivably the last attempt to get anything like it into the boards. The idea is to stop there being two confrontational groups. For example, the parents could possibly be a misinformed body. This has been mentioned before. There is a danger of fiscal or possibly religious domination which could lead to biased views on certain subjects within school boards. If the two groups—the professional sector and the parental amateur sector—were evenly balanced that could possibly counteract any of the dangers of either one dominating.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, one of the problems we are faced with is the concept of conflict between teachers either as a professional body or a body of employees and the community and the parents on the other side. It seems to me that one of the best ways of reducing that conflict is to go along with the amendment and place the teachers, the parents and the community in general as equal partners in a project to determine the school's philosophy and future, because that is what is involved.
The education is of the children, but it is of benefit not only to children but to the wider community. We all suffer if our children are badly educated. That is 91 why the three pillars are required. We need the support of the parents of the children involved. We need the support of the profession and we need the money that comes from the community at large to fund the whole project. If any of those groups feels that it is either in a subservient minority or in a position of apparent authority over the other two, we have a recipe for conflict.
It seems to me that we should construct these boards in such a way that one group does not have an absolute majority over the others. We shall then inevitably construct something that has a bedrock for future development and not something which may or could give rise to conflict.
I am sure that however the school boards are made up the vast majority will operate in a practical and sensible manner, but I hope that in the formulation of the boards we do not take any hostages to fortune where one group or another, for example the teachers, can say that it is placed in the position of an employed group rather than people of professional standing who are recognised as such.
§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this very important debate, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, realised it would be when he moved his amendment.
I make no apologies for repeating the major points I made during the debate on similar amendments in Committee. We are concerned to guarantee parents a proper say in the education of their children. For too long the parental voice has been muted and constrained within the education system. School councils have, it is generally agreed, been tried, tested and in the end found wanting.
Our concern was to institute a system whereby the views, concerns and interests of parents would, without the slightest doubt, find expression. We have taken care to ensure that boards are integrated into the education system, to ensure that what we believed was a fundamentally unbalanced structure was restructured. Our purpose was to achieve a proper balance of interests. In any restructuring there is liable to be resistance to change. Where entrenched interests exist, there is invariably such resistance. No doubt this is the reason the parental majority has been the subject of repeated attacks from some authorities, particularly from the Educational Institute of Scotland.
In passing, I should say that I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe and Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, in relation to today's action. I believe that action to be ill-conceived, as they do, and very damaging, particularly to the children. Parents, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, have expressed their view through the Scottish Parent Teachers Council and they are very unimpressed with today's action. They want the best for their children, and because of today's strike thousands of pupils are having their education disrupted.
I know that there is much talk from the EIS about anglicisation, and so on. Every reform which this 92 Government have introduced, from the parents charter to the school boards and testing, has been opposed by the EIS. I realise that that may be its view of how matters should proceed, but what the Government have proposed have broad parallels with education developments in many other countries. The Bill introduces to schools benefits that have been available to most Western world countries for decades.
Therefore, I believe I am right to say that what we are looking for, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has so clearly pointed out, is a partnership in education. We are not looking for a dictatorship but for a partnership. We want balance, and to establish that balance of representative views in which parental opinion cannot be denied and is clearly heard we must have the parental majority on the boards. It is fundamental to the Bill and that is why I am glad I have the chance to restate that here. It is a counterweight to the dominance of the authority and the power of the profession. Without the parental majority we genuinely believe that the partnership of purpose we earnestly desire to achieve with the boards would be at risk.
If the Bill is read as a whole, it is obvious that the parental majority cannot be taken as a way parents could somehow exercise an unfettered power, as noble Lords seem to suggest. We come to various points in the Bill which indicate that. We have met the very genuine concerns that boards should be accountable, by making them accountable for their actions not only through the electoral processes that are carefully constructed in Schedule 1, but also through the basic duty on boards to report to parents and to consult them. We did not just rest there, content with those mechanisms of accountability. We have provided for parents to call boards to account for themselves whenever parents decide that is necessary.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in his usual very fair way, said that teachers have a lot to put up with. I know only too well that that may be true. I also believe that at times parents as well have that to contend with.
I shall answer the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made about people standing for office as parents. The Dumfries experience, which may not be representative of the whole of Scotland when the Bill becomes an Act, encourages us. The fact that 25 parents stood for four vacancies in one school is indicative that in some areas there will be ready acceptance that parents are prepared to take their responsibilities most seriously. I cannot accept the amendment.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, I listened to the Minister with my usual enormous respect, but I do not think he has made the case. I am not putting the views of the EIS. He seems, like the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to have brought the EIS in as the main exponent of this viewpoint that we are putting forward. But I am putting forward my own views just as sincerely as he is.
It is highly undesirable to give any party an absolute majority by statute on the new school 93 boards. The Minister is being extremely cautious about the powers he is to give the boards until he sees how they work. That is very sensible of him. It also might be sensible for him to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The checks and balances built into the Bill are many and this is another which would do good. His approach of trying to achieve a proper balance is correct, and although we differ it is only slightly. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("a majority of") and insert ("the majority group on").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, my amendment now stands since the noble Lord—
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 formally.
§ 3.41 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 133.
94| DIVISION NO. 1 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addington, L. | Hirshfield, L. |
| Airedale, L. | Hooson, L. |
| Annan, L. | Hughes, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Hunt, L. |
| Aylestone, L. | Hunter of Newington, L. |
| Banks, L. | Jay, L. |
| Blease, L. | Jeger, B. |
| Bonham-Carter, L. | Jenkins of Putney, L. |
| Briginshaw, L. | Kagan, L. |
| Bruce of Donington, L. | Kilbracken, L. |
| Buckmaster, V. | Kilmarnock, L. |
| Callaghan of Cardiff, L. | Leatherland, L. |
| Campbell of Eskan, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Lloyd of Hampstead, L. |
| Carter, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Chitnis, L. | Longford, E. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.] |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Manchester, Bp. |
| David, B. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Davies of Penrhys, L. | Molloy, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Diamond, L. | Mulley, L. |
| Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Oram, L. |
| Ennals, L. | Paget of Northampton, L. |
| Ewart-Biggs, B. | Parry, L. |
| Fisher of Rednal, B. | Peston, L. |
| Fletcher, L. | Pitt of Hampstead, L. |
| Gallacher, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] |
| Galpern, L. | |
| Glenamara, L. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Reilly, L. |
| Grey, E. | Robson of Kiddington, B. |
| Grimond, L. | Rochester, L. |
| Hampton, L. | Russell, E. |
| Hanworth, V. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Hatch of Lusby, L. | Serota, B. |
| Hayter, L. | Somers, L. |
| Stallard, L. | Underhill, L. |
| Stedman, B. | Wallace of Coslany, L. |
| Stoddart of Swindon, L. | Walston, L. |
| Strabolgi, L. | Whaddon, L. |
| Taylor of Blackburn, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Taylor of Gryfe, L. | Willis, L. |
| Tordoff, L. | Winstanley, L. |
| Turner of Camden, B. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Airey of Abingdon, B. | Jenkin of Roding, L. |
| Allerton, L. | Johnston of Rockport, L. |
| Alport, L. | Kaberry of Adel, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Kinloss, Ly. |
| Arran, E. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Auckland, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Barber, L. | Long, V. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Lovat, L. |
| Bellwin, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Luke, L. |
| Blyth, L. | McFadzean, L. |
| Bolton, L. | Mackay of Clashfern, L. |
| Borthwick, L. | Macleod of Borve, B. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, L. | Manton, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Mar, C. |
| Brookeborough, V. | Margadale, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Marley, L. |
| Bruce-Gardyne, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Burton, L. | Mersey, V. |
| Butterworth, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Cameron of Lochbroom, L. | Montgomery of Alamein, V. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Morris, L. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Mostyn, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Mottistone, L. |
| Carnock, L. | Mountgarret, V. |
| Cathcart, E. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Cayzer, L. | Munster, E. |
| Coleraine, L. | Napier and Ettrick, L. |
| Colnbrook, L. | Nelson, E. |
| Constantine of Stanmore, L. | Norrie, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Cox, B. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Craigavon, V. | O'Brien of Lothbury, L. |
| Craigton, L. | Orkney, E. |
| Crickhowell, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Cullen of Ashbourne, L. | Oxfuird, V. |
| Davidson, V. [Teller.] | Pender, L. |
| De Freyne, L. | Pennock, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller] | Peyton of Yeovil, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. |
| Eccles, V. | |
| Ellenborough, L. | Reay, L. |
| Elles, B. | Reigate, L. |
| Elliot of Harwood, B. | Renwick, L. |
| Erne, E. | Rugby, L. |
| Erroll of Hale, L. | St. Aldwyn, E. |
| Faithfull, B. | St. Davids, V. |
| Fanshawe of Richmond, L. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Ferrers, E. | Sanderson of Bowden, L. |
| Forbes, L. | Selkirk, E. |
| Fortescue, E. | Shannon, E. |
| Fraser of Kilmorack, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Gainford, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Slim, V. |
| Glenarthur, L. | Strange, B. |
| Goold, L. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Gridley, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Halg, E. | Strathspey, L. |
| Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. | Terrington, L. |
| Thomas of Gwydir, L. | |
| Halsbury, E. | Thomas of Swynnerton, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Trafford, L. |
| Hesketh, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| Hives, L. | Westbury, L. |
| Home of the Hirsel, L. | Whitelaw, V. |
| Hooper, B. | Young of Graffham, L. |
| Hylton-Foster. B. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.