HC Deb 16 December 1977 vol 941 cc1193-202

2.14 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker (Kingswood)

I raise again the subject of the restoration of the cuts in educational spending in the county of Avon, because of the widespread disgust and concern among parents and teachers' within the county. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Members of Parliament for Bristol have received many representations, and many of these have been sent on to the Department of Education and Science.

This is why I believe that at this stage it is important to raise this matter once again. There is a great need to restore the cuts in educational spending in Avon. The cuts that were imposed by the local education authority were much too severe and went far and away beyond the restraint on spending recommended by the Government.

It is maintained that as a direct result of the cuts 290 teachers and more than 300 ancillary workers are unemployed and that pupils are inadequately supervised during lunch hours. The teacher-pupil ratios in sixth forms have been cut, contrary to the recommendations made by the Government. No rising fives are being taught in schools in the county of Avon. Reductions in supply teachers have meant that whole classes have had to be sent home.

Whatever complaints have been made to the Avon education authority over the period since the cuts were initiated, the Avon Tories have simply blamed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the severity of the cuts when they themselves are really guilty of what has been done. The cuts that have been made gravely affect the children, their parents and their teachers and will have a lasting effect on our education service in both the short term and the long term. Unfortunately, the damage of education cuts is not as dramatic as something like a power cut, but the results are just as damaging.

The reason for the great problem in Avon stems from the fact that the education budget in 1973 was inadequate. At the meeting of the education committee on 25th January, when cuts of £2,043,500 were finally approved, Dr. Glendinning referred to the inadequate budget of 1973 and the £900,000 taken out of that budget in error as being the prime cause of today's troubles. The size of the education budget had been kept below what could reasonably have been expected. So the source of the trouble and the reasons for our present predicament are that the base situation in 1973 was far too low.

The exclusion of the rising fives from infant schools has provoked more anger among parents than anything else that has been done, and in my view it is probably the most undesirable action that has been taken, because I believe that this policy will seriously affect the ability of some children to profit from their education throughout the whole of their school lives. This is the main concern which has been expressed in many of the letters I have received and which I have passed to the Department.

In addition, schools are not being redecorated or repaired. It is impossible even to get things like windows replaced, or minor works undertaken.

Avon has also cut the provision for the purchase of new books by 50 per cent. I have heard of some schools—one of them is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, whom I am delighted to see present for this debate—which have asked parents to contribute 50p a year for a school library and to send along computer paper and card cut-offs to supplement their stock of materials. These are the things that have curtailed the ability of children to get on with the job. There are grave disadvantages in later life for all the children who are faced with this situation.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will reply to the debate, has been most helpful. In reply to a Question on 28th November, she held out some hope for the future. In that reply my hon. Friend told me that the rate support grant for 1978–79, unlike that of 1977–78, was intended to enable local authorities to continue to admit, or resume the admission of, rising fives in primary schools.

That is widely welcomed, but when I circulated that reply to parents they asked "Will Avon take any notice of the Government? What will happen to make Avon change its mind?" In 1976. 6,000 rising fives were admitted to schools, but in 1977 the number was only 1,500. My constituents are quite right in thinking that there is a need for the Department of Education to say something to Avon about this.

I had a letter from one of my constituents in Downend, which arrived only this morning, which welcomed the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State. The letter states: Will Avon indeed change their policy in time to benefit my daughter and children of similar age who would normally be starting school after Easter instead of five months later in September? In doing this, how much money will be spent? I have an instance of a school in Timsbury, where the saving is extremely minimal. The county council makes a capitation payment of £7.10 for each child for which it is responsible.

In the case of Timsbury, 17 children were kept out of school for one term. The saving, I assume, would be one-third of the capitation payment—£2.33 per child—making a total of £40.23 for the 17 children. We have gone to all the trouble just to save £40.23. To my mind, the damage that it will cause for these children in later life does not make it at all worth while.

There is also the problem of the cutback in ancillary workers. Many of them are members of my union, the Transport and General Workers Union. The director of education wrote to primary school heads in Avon telling them that they had to achieve a given reduction in hours worked by ancillary and clerical assistants. He gave them nine days to sort this out, and there was no question of the unions being consulted beforehand. It was done in a high-handed manner, and it is hardly surprising that there has been a great deal of resentment about it.

In the school at which my son is a pupil, the Christchurch School at Han-ham, there has been a problem where the hours of the clerical secretary and the assistant have been cut to make up a total of 32–5 per week. Although great diligence has been exercised in making sure that one or the other of the two is in attendance so that if a child needs attention someone is at hand, it means that on Tuesday afternoons the headmaster not only has to answer the telephone and attend to secretarial matters but has to look after any child who has been sick during that period. As a parent, I find that far from helpful.

With regard to ancillary workers, I have an instance from the Sir Bernard Lovell Comprehensive School in my constituency, where the cleaners have always worked on Saturday mornings as well as after school. When a new wing was built about 18 months ago, it was reasonably supposed that the cleaning hours would be increased. But that was not so. The new wing comprises 16 new classrooms, two offices, four toilets and cloakroom space. But 12 cleaning hours were removed when this additional building came into use. Without these hours, the carpet in the school is never shampooed, because the only time it can be done is on Saturday mornings. There are numerous instances where ancillary workers are not able to undertake the jobs that they have done in the past to maintain this sort of thing. It is all left to Avon. There are some instances of two firms turning up to do the same job. That is the inefficient way in which Avon is organising things.

Only last week, at the Sir Bernard Lovell School, one firm came to mend a hole in the roof of the deputy head's office and a day or two later another firm came along to do exactly the same job. These are the repair jobs which in the past were carried out by the caretaker and ancillary workers, but these jobs are now not being done because Avon has lost the confidence of those people by the penny-pinching way in which it has cut down their hours.

Another thing which has happened is the cut-back in supply teachers. It was thought that Avon would be economising, but the only thing on which it has economised is the good will of the teachers. By cutting back in this way Avon has got the teachers in such a belligerent mood that they are not prepared to cover absent colleagues, which is what they have done in the past. Despite advice from the unions, Avon went ahead with these so-called economy measures. As a result, Avon has been forced to employ far more supply teachers than it has ever done in the past. I understand that the additional cost to the authority is in the region of £450,000 and that the bulk of it has been spent since September 1977.

In simple terms, penny-pinching Avon has cost the ratepayer money. The rise in the cost of supply teachers since the imposition of Avon's restrictions is an indication of the great reliance that the authority hithero placed on the good will of the teachers who covered for their colleagues.

This week I received a communication from the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers which claims that, as a result of the cutback in supply teachers, 16,721 pupil days have been lost, and that on occasions when supply teachers were not available classes, and sometimes the whole school, have had to be sent home.

Representatives of the Avon Campaign Against Cuts in Education saw the Secretary of State in October. They were most impressed. On its behalf, the campaign has asked me to tell the Secretary of State of its deep concern about the problems that I have outlined today.

The chairman of the education committee said on 25th May this year: We cut to the bone last year. This year we are cutting into the bone. Next year we shall be amputated. With that kind of talk, my constituents and others are naturally gravely concerned about what is happening. Obviously, as things get better economically they want to see the improvement projected into Avon with regard to the severe cuts that they have experienced.

My colleagues who are Labour members of the local authorities are sickened by the severity of the cuts, which are being blamed on the Secretary of State. We certainly feel that there is a need for the Government's position to be made clear at this stage. The Avon education service has been mismanaged. In the past I have had to raise the problem of how the chief education officer departed from us in mysterious circumstances. It has been a far from happy experience since Avon took over the education of our children. The effects of those actions will be felt well into the future, and the future of many of our children will be sacrificed.

Those employed in the education service in Avon have suffered from uncertainty, the threat of redundancy and the frustration caused by undermanning and by not being given suitable conditions of work. I recognise that, because of the economic situation a year ago, the cuts had to be made, but Avon's cuts were too severe and it got its education priorities all wrong. I hope that, in the light of the better economic climate in which we now find ourselves, talks can take place to review the situation to stop the great damage which is being done to the children of Avon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. Mr. Speaker has asked me to remind the House that this is a half-hour Adournment debate and that it ends at 2.44 p.m.

2.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) for raising this matter. I am aware from the many strong representations made by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is very great concern in Avon about the level of expenditure by the local authority on education. My hon. Friend has accurately described the situation in which the education service in the county has been subjected to economy measures of increased severity over the last few years.

I believe that the county council has made savings on education, as on other services, in every year since 1974–75. In the current year, I believe that the difference between the estimated cost of continuing existing policies and the expenditure limit set by the council amounts to just over £2 million, or about 2 per cent. of the total planned expenditure on education.

I believe that the economy measures that the county has introduced fall into three categories. These are, first, those which can be brought about without major changes in policy, or by the continuation of existing economies. Savings are made under this head on administration costs, the school meals service, student support and energy conservation.

The second category entails significant policy changes but does not affect staffing levels. The school meals service, again, is affected, as is the library service, school transport, adult education, swimming lessons for schoolchildren and so on. In particular, capitation allowances, from which schools buy the majority of their books and teaching materials are being held at 1976–77 levels in cash terms.

Finally, there are those economies which involve both policy changes and changes in staffing levels. Here my hon. Friend referred to the effective loss of supply teachers, peripatetic teachers, and so on in services in school. Other measures include reductions in staffing ratios for pupils aged over 16 who are not studying for A-levels and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, restrictions on the admission of rising fives to the infant classes of primary schools. This is of great concern to my hon. Friend—as it is to me—and to many parents, particularly those in the areas of authorities which have adopted policies similar to those folowed by Avon.

My hon. Friend asked me to highlight how the policies of Avon are set against the background of central Government policy. I must remind him that the 197778 rate support grant circular was expressed, as always, in national terms, and the advice and figures given relate inevitably to the average for the country and cannot be applied readily to every local authority. But the corollary of that is, as we always say in the circular, that what the circular means for particular services will be for the authorities to determine in the light of their own circumstances and priorities. We therefore set the background of national policy, and authorities must, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, make their own decisions, for which they must take responsibility in the light of the advice which we give.

The circular for that year sought, as my hon. Friend has indicated, to give local education authorities a clear idea of the main consequences of the settlement in terms of national priorities, putting emphasis on the need to maintain staffing ratios in schools, to begin the expansion of in-service training and to continue with the development of nursery education.

Rate support grant is a block grant available to authorities for their expenditure as a whole, and it is not earmarked in any way, even for the education service as a service, let alone for particular priorities within that service. So, again, I must repeat that it is for each authority to decide, taking account of its priorities and our guidance, how to allocate its resources. It is for that reason that debates of this sort are all the more important, because they show how much local concern is being expressed about decisions taken locally, and they spell out the background to those decisions.

So far we have been talking about decisions already taken by Avon and in the process of implementation during 1977–78. Yesterday, the Government's rate support grant proposals for 1978–79 were approved by the House. I shall now consider how the settlement affecting the next financial year may bear upon Avon and its provision of education.

As with most authorities, Avon began to consider next year's budget long before the information was available about the rate support grant settlement or, indeed, about its own level of spending in the current year against the background of the policies to which I have referred. It would appear that, in deciding that there should be a provisional target to save £263,000 in education next year, the local authority took the figures contained in this year's public expenditure White Paper and assumed that the national reduction in local authority expenditure between 1977–78 and 1978–79 envisaged in that document would apply pro rata to each individual local authority. As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have emphasised in discussing the advice we give, these national priorities cannot be simply apportioned in that way.

Apart from that, however, the figures in the White Paper require a certain amount of examination. As we indicated in Circular 3/77, while overall planned expenditure on the education service was expected to fall by about 1.5 per cent. between 1977–78 and 1978–79, the main burden of the economies was meant to fall on the schools meals service. I do not know how Avon considers that the saving should be made, but if it bases its savings on the White Paper it should be aware that that document actually envisaged a slight increase nationally in expenditure on education in schools and colleges.

Since the White Paper was published in February, the Government have made additional resources available for 1978–79 to help the education of the young unemployed, to increase the number of children eligible for free school meals, to provide more discretionary awards for further education students, to expand the urban programme and to allow for the employment of additional teachers to help the disadvantaged. These resources are on top of the provision in the White Paper, which already assumed a certain slight increase in education spending, the maintenance of school staffing standards nationally, a modest increase in provision for the under-fives and further development of induction and in-service training schemes for teachers.

The White Paper took as its figures for 1977–78 those embodied in the rate support grant settlement for that year. There are now indications that local authorities' actual expenditure on education in 1977–78 will be somewhat below the settlement level.

Against that background of what was expected and what we are looking to for this year, perhaps I may say a little about the rate support grant settlement for next year. It should make it possible for local authorities, if they so choose, to spend a little more on education than we estimate them to be spending in 1977–78. The Government attach importance to the maintenance of staffing standards, the expansion of in-service training and continued help for the disadvantaged, especially for the under-fives or for young people faced with the prospect of unemployment. But, taking the country as a whole, the settlement provides a basis for maintaining standards and for restoring expenditure in some parts of the education service which have suffered most from economies over the last year or two.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House yesterday, the great majority of authorities will be able under this settlement to maintain their standard of services. If authorities decide to make further cuts, the decision must be seen as entirely and solely theirs, because we do not believe that there is anything in this settlement which requires them to do so.

I understand that the resources co-ordination committee of the county council met yesterday and decided to recommend to the full council that the proposed savings targets of £263,000 should be reduced by £250,000. I also understand that this recommendation will be discussed by the county council in January. The main point that I should like to make is that when that discussion takes place the local authority should have available to it all the relevant information on next year's settlement, a better picture of the financial effects of its decisions this year and our views on the main implications of the settlement for the coming year, expressed in national terms.

I hope that the authority will want to look at its committee's recommendations not only against the background that we have discussed today but in the light of the representations made throughout the last year, by my hon. Friend in particular but also by many of his constituents and those of others of our hon. Friends in the area of the Avon authority.

The Government are trying to give assistance to local authorities to enable them to maintain and improve the standards of education in their areas. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend knows that we cannot take responsibility for the decisions that they are free to make and that they choose to make in the light of their own views of their priorities. For those decisions they must be responsible to their local electorate.