§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what approaches he has received from parents in the Guildford area of Surrey requesting him to use his default powers over standards of education in the area; what criteria he used in making his decision in this matter; and if he will publish his reply.
§ Dr. BoysonComplaints were made in July 1981 against the Surrey local education authority by the South-West Surrey Association of the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education. The Department's reply of 12 February 1982, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 15 February, sets out the matters my right hon. Friend took into account in considering the complaints and was as follows
Dear Madam,It is now possible to reply to your letters of 17 July and 2 December 1981 alleging that Surrey LEA is acting unreasonably with respect to its powers and duties under the Education Acts and is failing to discharge its duties under those Acts and requesting the Secretary of State to issue directions under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944. It is regretted that it has not proved possible to send an early reply; complaints of this nature demand detailed consideration and this inevitably takes time.The substance of your complaint is that "by reducing expenditure in both cash and real terms the Surrey local education authority is in the course of reducing education provision in the county to a standard which falls below the minimum level compatible with the policy and objects of the 1944 Education Act" and that in so doing the Authority is in breach of sections 7, 8 and 61(1) of that Act and has acted, and is continuing to act, unreasonably. The Secretary of State has carefully considered your letters of 17 July and 2 December (together with their supporting documentation), the Authority's comments thereon and other evidence available to him relevant to the complaint. The Secretary of State notes that while the evidence in support of the complaint by your Association relates only to certain schools in the Guildford area, it is stated by you and acknowledged by the Authority that these schools are typical of schools in the county at large. Since the particular schools referred to by the Association have not been named it has not been possible for the LEA or the Secretary of State to investigate or to comment upon particular points in relation to individual schools. However, the Secretary of State has noted that the local education authority acknowledges that reductions in educational provision with results of the kind identified by the Association in respect of Guildford schools have been made over recent years in the county and are not untypical for the county as a whole. The Secretary of State considered that this circumstance is relevant to your suggestion that he should use his powers under section 93 of the Education Act 1944 to order a local inquiry into the matters raised in your complaint. He took the view that sufficient evidence was already available to him to enable him to come to a decision on the complaint without ordering such an inquiry. What in essence is in dispute is not the facts of the case but their interpretation in relation to the powers and duties of the local education authority under the Education Acts.Having considered the evidence, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that Su[...]ey is failing to discharge its duty under section 8 of the Education Act 1944 to secure the provision of schools which are sufficient in "number, character and equipment" for providing education and training suitable to the requirements of all the pupils concerned or under section 7 to contribute towards the development of the community by securing that efficient education shall be available to meet the needs of the population of the area. In reaching this conclusion, the Secretary of State 275W has noted that both as a result of financial constraints and as a consequence of falling school rolls, the local education authority has found it necessary to make reductions in some aspects of its educational provision for the area. He has considered whether the resultant provision made by the authority falls short of the minimum standard which the law requires. The Education Acts prescribe that standard only in general terms and their interpretation involves a substantial element of judgment. It also requires the consideration of general factors including current educational practice in England. Having considered the matter in relation to the present case the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, as respects the provision it secures for its area, the Surrey LEA is in breach of its duties under the Education Acts. Neither is he satisfied that the authority is acting unreasonably with respect to any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under those Acts.The Secretary of State is also not satisfied that charges are being levied in respect of the education provided in Surrey's schools. He notes that many schools in the county benefit from active parental support but he has seen no evidence that such parental contributions are other than freely given nor that the policies and practices of the authority in respect of such contributions constitute a breach of its duty under section 61(1) of the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State is considering separately the new points raised by your letter of 20 November 1981 to Dr. Coffin, a copy of which you sent to the Department, concerning the authority's proposals for restructuring instrumental music tuition. He is seeking comments from the authority and I shall write to you again on this matter.Finally, you sought the Secretary of State's intervention in what you described as the "dismantling" of the Guildford Children's Library by the Surrey County Council; supporting correspondence complained that the library facilities provided there for children had been adversely affected by the installation of an amusement machine and that changes were made in the children's library facilities without consultation between the County Council and the Guildford Borough Council.The Surrey County Council exercises public library functions not as a local education authority under the Education Acts but as a library authority under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (as amended by the Local Government Act 1972). The statements of complaint do not of themselves imply that the Surrey County Council has failed to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service as required by section 7 of the 1964 Act. The Secretary of State has seen no evidence that the library facilities provided for children by the Surrey County Council are insufficient; he has been informed that although the children's library in Guildford no longer has a room to itself, the stock of books has not been reduced. He has seen no evidence that the provision of amusements on library premises is incompatible with the performance of the relevant duties and in any event has been informed that the amusements complained of are no longer in use. The Act does not require a library authority to consult any other local authority as to the provision to be made in its area. In the circumstances the Secretary of State has seen no evidence that the Surrey County Council has failed to carry out its duties under the Act and he therefore sees no cause to intervene under section 10 of the Act and does not propose to hold a local inquiry under section 16 of the Act.Yours faithfully,
J. Wilde.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have made any special reports on standards of educational provision in schools in the Guildford area; and if he will publish them.
§ Dr. BoysonHer Majesty's Inspectorate has not made any formal reports on either individual schools or groups of schools in the Guildford area in the last year.