§ 4. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the 3 per cent. increase in local authority expenditure in 1969–70 he estimates will be spent on education.
§ Mr. Edward ShortNearly two-thirds, giving an estimated increase in educational expenditure of 34 per cent. over 1968–69.
§ Mrs. ShortWhile thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I tell him that we on these benches always want to see him winning the competition with the Minister of Defence in this matter? Is he aware that we hope that he can give the House an assurance that there will be no saving or economising on numbers of teachers employed?
§ Mr. ShortI can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which she asks. The expenditure on education next year will exceed defence expenditure for the first time in our history. On her other point, I have not cut down by a single one on the number of teachers the local authorities have told me they wish to employ next year.
§ Sir E. BoyleWe are to debate this matter on Monday, but can the right hon. Gentleman say how he can be sure of the 3¾ per cent. figure in view of the responsibility given to local authorities under the rate support grant procedure?
§ Mr. ShortI cannot be sure of it. What I am really saying is that in computing the rate support grant figure we have agreed with the local authorities on the apportionment of a 3.7 per cent. increase for education.
§ 5. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now state in what area of education expenditure the recent savings 1811 of £4 million on school meals will he spent.
§ Mr. Edward ShortThese savings, and others made in the course of the normal processes of managing the expenditure programmes, have increased the resources available for the carrying out of our policy generally. It is impossible to relate a particular saving to a particular new development.
§ Mrs. ShortIs my right hon. Friend aware that he was reported in the Press recently as saying that this money would be used to provide 2,000 nursery classes under the social needs programme, which, of course, would cost something like £16 million at costs estimated by the Department? I am sure that he would want to correct that. Is he also aware that many of us on these benches want to see that money used for the purposes he indicated?
§ Mr. ShortOne cannot hypothecate bits of expenditure and say that a certain sum of money will be used for a certain purpose. The urban programme, in which nursery schools will play a very big part, will cost about £25 million over the next four years. In addition, the recent rate support grant negotiations, as the White Paper showed, mean that about £55 million more will be spent on education next year.
§ Mr. PeelDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better to use some of this money to bring in educational systems of which democratically elected majorities approve, rather than compel them by withholding funds to bring in educational systems of which neither they nor the majority of their electors approve?
§ Mr. ShortI am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is behind the times. What is now compelling the reactionary local authorities is public opinion.