Education

Oral Answers to Questions — Scotland – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 5 July 1989.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Norman Hogg Mr Norman Hogg , Cumbernauld and Kilsyth 12:00, 5 July 1989

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he now has any proposals to extend section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Photo of Mr Michael Forsyth Mr Michael Forsyth , Stirling

As I indicated in the House on 20 June, we shall look again at the case for action in the light of the outcome of the review of the operation of section 43 in England and Wales by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Photo of Mr Norman Hogg Mr Norman Hogg , Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

Does that not represent an astonishing about face, given the Minister's reply in the House on 7 June, when he said that there was no evidence in support of such a move? Does that mean that he does not know his own mind, or that he is coming under increasing pressure from Conservative Members, who owe no allegiance to Scottish higher education?

Photo of Mr Michael Forsyth Mr Michael Forsyth , Stirling

On 7 June, I said that there had been little evidence of disruption of free speech in Scotland. I also said that we would be prepared to legislate if necessary. That remains the position.

Photo of Donald Dewar Donald Dewar , Glasgow Garscadden

I suppose that this is a hopeless request, but will the Minister now give a guarantee that he will stand firm against the rather brutal performance of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and some of his intellectual bovver boys behind him? Will he look at the evidence and advice of his own Department, and show some respect for Scottish universities by defying the Right-wing prejudices with which he is too often personally associated? Does he recall that when he was asked specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford whether he was arguing that there was no problem in Scottish universities or whether he was saying that section 43 would, in any case, offer no safeguards, he replied that he was quite clear that he was saying both? Why is he now flirting with a review in this weasel way?

Photo of Mr Michael Forsyth Mr Michael Forsyth , Stirling

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman regards the preservation of freedom of speech in our universities as a Right-wing prejudice. I appreciate that the Left in this country has been associated with the denial of freedom of speech, but this is the first time I have heard a Front-Bench spokesman suggest that concern about freedom of speech is a Right-wing prejudice. Unlike many of his hon. Friends the hon. Gentleman was actually present for that debate. He made his position clear and he will have seen that the House was well attended. Hon. Members made a number of interruptions in the debate and, as a Minister, it is my role to take account of the views of the House.