| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I realise that the Minister did not serve on the Standing Committee the considered the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, so I have brought along the documentation. Colleagues from other parties will remember the very long mornings, afternoons and, indeed, nights that we spent in that Committee.
It is difficult to reconcile what the Minister said today with the attitude that was struck by the then Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for education--now Secretary of State for Scotland--in that Committee when we discussed the clauses relating to self-government.
The Government are now proposing a very centralising operation, removing the freedom of parents and that of local authorities to undertake a consultative programme to enable them to take decisions. We all accept that those are very difficult, emotive decisions for local authorities to take.
During the passage of that Bill, many statements were made, when the Government said clearly that in no circumstances would the provisions of the 1989 Act ever become a centralising force.
For the benefit of the Minister, I shall quote three statements that the then Minister of State made in Committee. First, he said:
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
We believe in giving local authorities more freedom and more sensitivity in relation to school rationalisation, but we do not believe that that is a centralising measure.
Mrs. Ewing:
In that Committee, the Minister said that there would be no potential for the Government to inflict centralising policies, yet today we have before us a centralising philosophy that is preventing local authorities, parents and teachers from entering a true dialogue about how they can best provide education. The Government are standing in the way of local democracy, contrary to what was said during that Committee. It is despicable. The Government's argument is totally illogical. We believe that local education is best provided at the local level and not by diktat from central Government.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East):
The Government are blocking parental choice by their actions. The Minister said that there are greater efficiencies and advantages in opted-out schools--that view is not shared by the majority of Scotland's teachers and parents. He said that he was confident that, in time, other schools would follow the two schools that have opted out--which is an arrogant disregard of parental views. The fact that the Minister said that there are greater advantages and efficiencies in opted-out schools is an insult to Scotland's teaching profession and to the national system.
I note that the Minister ducked a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), on self-governing schools. That policy is at the heart of the amendment. The Government's policy prevents parents in schools that are earmarked for closure from using the opting-out legislation to delay closure--they are prevented from saying how they feel about opting out.
I am opposed to the Government's opting-out proposals. I believe that parents would not choose to opt out if they had the choice. Parents do not wish to opt out--they are merely using the procedure as a last-gasp attempt to save their schools because no other mechanism is open to them. The Government are starving the system of resources and they are forcing these decisions on parents.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen):
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports that last desperate strategy by parents to keep their schools open?
Mr. Welsh:
My objection is that this is the last-gasp strategy open to parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan recommended, I would prefer to see a dialogue between the education authority and the parents, to ensure that, wherever possible, a school remains open.
I am speaking from practical experience--I have helped to save schools locally. When Tayside was run by the Conservatives, I fought tooth and nail to save a rural school that is now, thankfully, thriving. I give due credit to the previous Labour Government and to the late Frank McElhone, who was the then Minister for Education. He listened to my arguments and to the arguments of the parents. The school was saved and it is now thriving. The Government are forcing people into that situation.
I place on record my opposition to the opting-out proposals. They are destructive of our national school system; they are unwanted by parents and by educationists; they are an anglicisation; and they are a deliberate attack on the national system--a system that has the support and confidence of all Scotland's parents.
Instead of attacking Scotland's schools, the Minister should have told us how the Government are building on the system's strengths and resourcing the national system properly. The amendment would not be necessary if the system were resourced properly. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government, as parents choose to opt out only as a last resort in order to fight school closures. Rather than addressing the real problem of under-resourcing in the school system, the Government are responding to the symptoms and blocking an avenue that parents have chosen out of desperation in fighting for local schools.
Given the choice, it is obvious that parents would prefer to opt into the national system. However, the Government's total failure to provide adequate resources overall has forced parents and education authorities into this situation. Rather than closing the loophole through this amendment, the Government should provide much-needed funds to local authorities to enable them to run schools properly.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
How would the hon. Gentleman reply to the Accounts Commission, which says that there are 300,000 surplus school places in Scotland?
Mr. Welsh:
The Government should examine that problem in consultation with parents and schools. Some school closures cannot be avoided--I am not saying that they should be avoided. However, schools should be closed for educational reasons rather than as a result of deliberate under-resourcing. The Government's policies have forced parents to take desperate measures. I believe that the amendment is a direct result of deliberate Government policy. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East):
I did not intend to participate in the debate, but I am a little confused by the contributions from hon. Members from the Scottish National party.
Mr. Welsh:
The hon. Gentleman is easily confused.
Mr. McAllion:
That is true most of the time, but I am more confused than usual by the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I have some direct experience, as local government spending cuts have forced the closure of several secondary schools in Dundee. Rockwell school used the procedure to prevent its closure and to halt the consultation process with the local authority.
In reality, by choosing to ballot to opt out, the school delays any closure decision in that year--the decision must be put off until the next year. However, the cuts cannot be delayed until next year. Savings are lost to the local authority when the school board and the parents begin the procedure. As a result, it must make other cuts elsewhere in the education budget. Teachers in Dundee now face redundancy because parents have used that procedure to prevent school closures.
I do not understand whether the SNP supports school boards that adopt that procedure. Does it want to see teachers across Scotland sacked because the device remains available to school boards that wish to avoid closure? The hon. Gentleman said that some school closures are unavoidable; I agree with him. Some schools must close--they cannot go on for ever--but the parents at those schools will never agree to it. So long as the device exists, parents will continue to use it to prevent rational discussion about education provision in any city. That is the reality.
Mr. Welsh:
I did not say the words that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put in my mouth. He describes the symptoms of the Government's deliberate policy, and that is what I attacked.
Mr. McAllion:
I said that school boards choose to opt out because of the spending cuts that the Government force upon them. So long as the device exists, we cannot have a rational debate about how to deal with the problem at local authority level.
"it is absurd for Opposition Members to argue that this is a centralising measure."
He said later in the debate:
"self-governing schools will offer an alternative to schools under local authority management."
10 Jul 1996 : Column 413
He then said:
This is a strange situation. We have to reconcile different political positions--the Government said that they were opposed to a centralising philosophy, but they are now centralising.
"Under no circumstances will there be a centralising authority by the Government."--[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 March 1989; c. 50, 65.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |