§ Mr. PawseyTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure that his proposals for changes in the management of schools, colleges and universities will not be forestalled by decisions taken before the provisions of the proposed Education Reform Bill come into effect.
§ Mr. Kenneth BakerIn accordance with the statement I made to the House on 22 July, the Education Reform Bill —which is being published today—contains provisions which require my consent to the disposal by LEAs of land used by or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of polytechnics and colleges to be transferred from local authorities (clause 95). That requirement applies to all such disposals after 22 July 1987. Similar provisions apply, in the case of the Inner London education authority, in relation to disposals of land which may be required by an inner London borough if it successfully applies to assume education responsibilities for its area (clause 121), and to contracts over £15,000 (clause 120). Similar controls on the disposal of property will apply in respect of schools whose governing body has informed the LEA that a ballot of parents is to be held on the question whether grant-maintained status should be sought (clause 59). LEAs will also be prevented from transferring staff into or out of such schools except with the agreement of the governing body. The Bill further provides that any new agreements or contracts made after 20 November 1987 by any local education authority or by the governing body of any polytechnic, college or school, which would protect members of the staff from compulsory redundancy or guarantee members of staff redundancy compensation above the statutory minimum, shall be void (clause 138). This will ensure that the ability of future governing bodies to manage their institutions effectively is not constrained by inappropriate commitments to the staff. The provision will not preclude the payment of compensation above the statutory minimum where individuals are identified for redundancy.
In the case of universities, the Government's policy is that newly appointed staff should no longer be given "tenure", that is, special protection against dismissal on grounds of redundancy or financial exigency. The Bill provides (clause 132) that staff currently in post who have tenure should retain it as long as they continue in their present appointments, but that those newly appointed or promoted to permanent posts after 20 November 1987 should no longer have this special measure of protection. This approach will provide on an equitable basis for tenure to he phased out as quickly as reasonably possible, without the creation of substantial numbers of new tenured appointments in the period before the commissioners who will be responsible for the required amendments to university statutes have completed their work.
§ Mr. Nicholas BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the means by which the provisions of the Education Reform Bill will strengthen the protection of academic freedom.
Mr. JacksonWe have recently reaffirmed the Government's view that academic staff should have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in 679W jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institutions. The precise content of the idea of academic freedom in any particular situation depends, however, among other things, on the type of institution and the subject taught or researched; we do not believe that it can be said to have a single clear definition applicable in all circumstances. The Government therefore consider it more appropriate for the requirements of academic freedom to be taken into account by the university commissioners, in consultation with individual universities and colleges, when statutes are amended to provide appropriately for the definition of good cause for dismissal and for arrangements for appeals against dismissal. The existence of suitable and disinterested appeals arrangements will represent an important element of protection for academics from victimisation on account of their views. It will be for the Privy Council, in considering whether to recommend to Her Majesty that amendments to university statutes put forward by the
June 1987 July 1987 August 1987 September 1987 October 1987 Secretary of State 5 4 3 3 13 Mr. Stanley1 1 2 3 5 9 Mr. Scott1 2 — — — — Lord Lyell 9 9 2 9 12 Mr. Needham 6 8 9 6 9 Dr. Mawhinney 2 6 10 7 4 Mr. Viggers 9 6 — 11 — 1 Mr. Scott left the Northern Ireland Office and Mr. Stanley joined in mid June 1987.