HC Deb 28 February 1963 vol 672 cc1430-2
17. Mr. Wainwright

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that the cost of education is becoming a financial burden on local rates; and if he will now take steps to ensure that the Government's financial contribution of 50 per cent. of the cost of education shall be substantially increased.

20. Mr. D. Smith

asked the Minister of Education what proposals he has for transferring a further part of the cost of education to the national Exchequer, thus relieving the burden on ratepayers.

Sir E. Boyle

Education is one of the local government services covered by the general grant, and about 60 per cent. of total relevant expenditure on these services is borne by the Exchequer. I see no justification for changing this arrangement.

Mr. Wainwright

Does not the Minister realise that even the West Riding County Council is being continualy embarrassed by the cost of education? This year, even after pruning, its expenditure will be £35¼ million, a reduction of £2,850,000 from the previous figure. Does not the Minister consider, therefore, that inasmuch as we want more education for our children, the Government ought to stand a greater portion of the cost than they do now?

Sir E. Boyle

I understand the financial problems of local authorities caused by the very rapid expansion of the education services at the present time. One cannot advance the share of the national product from 4.1 per cent. to 4.9 per cent. over three years, which is what we shall be doing and what the country wants, without creating problems. I must say, however, that this is a problem for central Government finance as well as for local government finance. In 1962–63, the current financial year, total expenditure for education relevant to the general grant was £785 million. The general grant represents about 55 per cent. of the estimated expenditure on all the relevant services, and rate deficiency grant covers a further 5½ per cent. In addition, my own Ministry's direct expenditure in the current financial year is about £60 million, and school milk and meals account for about £66 million in addition. I should not like the House or the country to think that the central Government were not themselves paying very large amounts of money for the education service.

Mr. Smith

Although the difficulties of expansion are appreciated, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the colossal imbalance in local authority spending today through education swallowing up something like two-thirds of the rate product? In view of this, will he look at the matter again? Before very long, many people living on restricted incomes will be extremely severely hit by rate rises.

Sir E. Boyle

I appreciate the difficulties caused to ratepayers by the rapid expansion of the service. I was concerned only to point out that central Government expenditure itself is going up very rapidly. Of course, education expenditure as a whole has risen as a demand on our resources more rapidly than any other main block of demand in recent years. I myself do not believe that it would be right to make a drastic change here if we believe that education should continue as a national service, and as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on 12th December, local rates are less of a burden now in real terms than they were before the war.

Mr. F. Harris

I ask my right hon. Friend not to underestimate the very strong feeling on this matter. Does he realise that, if the whole question is not completely reconsidered and the burden reallocated, rates will go up and up?

Sir E. Boyle

I assure my hon. Friend that I do read the newspapers. I think that that, perhaps, is in itself an answer to his question.