§ 24. Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent the raising of the school leaving age to 16 in 1969–70 is related to the expectation of economic growth and availability of resources contained in the National Plan.
§ Mr. CroslandThe National Plan took account of the decision by the previous Government to raise the school leaving age in 1970–71, although it was made clear that programmes of public expenditure must be subject to continuous modification in the light of the development of the economy. The decision still stands, and the cost will be met from the resources available for education.
§ Mr. BiffenAre we, therefore, to understand that the raising of the school leaving age was confirmed by the Government on the expectation of the rate of growth envisaged in the National Plan and has now been reaffirmed on the expectation of a considerably lower rate of growth, as indicated in the Chancellor's Budget speech, and that it will, therefore, take precedence over other forms of social spending which might otherwise have taken place?
§ Mr. CroslandI happen to regard this as one of the most important forms of social spending that one could imagine, for all manner of social and educational reasons. I repeat that the decision still stands. It was reaffirmed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) at a time when the previous Government were developing a balance of payments deficit of £800 million.
§ Sir G. NabarroIs it not a fact that existing resources are utterly inadequate to meet educational needs with a school leaving age of 15 years, and, as we are now three years from 1970–71, is it not manifest that resources will not be available to meet the huge additional capital cost involved?
§ Mr. CroslandNo, Sir. It is very far from manifest. As far as the capital cost is concerned, I have already made it 1356 clear to authorities that we shall make available the sum of £100 million over three years to raise the school leaving age. As far as educational resources are concerned, despite the economic difficulties of the last two or three years, educational spending is still going up at the rate of 5 per cent. a year, and that will allow us resources with which to carry out these extremely important reforms.
§ Sir E. BoyleWhile not accepting the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the forecast of the balance of payments deficit was anything like £800 million when this announcement was made in January, 1964, is it not a fact that, since that date, the growing number of authorities deciding to adopt a change in the age of transfer from 11 to 12 or 13 has further strengthened the case for raising the school leaving age? Is it not also the case that the previous Government adopted a date two years later than the Newsom Committee recommended?
§ Mr. CroslandThe right hon. Gentleman is right on both those points, and I would underline one of them. The number of authorities which have decided to change the age of transfer to 12 will, in consequence, make the operation of leaving the age easier than it otherwise would have been.
§ Mr. FortescueWill the Minister confirm that the raising of the school leaving age will in no way prejudice the essential improvements which are needed to so many of our primary schools?
§ Mr. CroslandThe fact is that we have to do both those things. As the right hon. Gentleman realises, because he decided to raise the school leaving age at almost the same time as he decided, quite reasonably, to set up the Plowden Council to report on primary schools, it is wrong to propose that in education it can be said that either the school leaving age or the primary schools should have absolute priority. One has to advance on a number of different fronts at the same time, and that is what we are doing.
§ Mr. BiffenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the unanimity between the Front Benches, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.