§ 13. Mr Ancramasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated cost of the additional administrative staff in Scottish education has been since 3 May 1979; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Alexander FletcherInformation about cost is not available. The figures of non-teaching staff that are available show virtually no change in the numbers employed at June 1979 and March 1980.
§ Mr. AncramI think that my hon. Friend will agree that in a parliamentary answer recently a slight increase was shown. Does he, like me, find it surprising that, at a time of declining skill roles, administrative staff should be increasing? Does he not also agree that, at a time when educational authorities are pleading poverty in relation to teachers' pay, this is an area where economies could probably be made?
§ Mr. FletcherMy hon. Friend is correct. As the House knows, a considerable decline is taking place in pupil numbers. It makes sense that there should be at least a proportionate decline in the number of staff employed by local authorities.
§ Mr. FoulkesWill the Minister confirm that the administrative costs in Scottish education are under 5 per cent. of the total budget, which compares favourably with the excessive 8 per cent. in Marks and Spencer?
§ Mr. FletcherThe hon. Gentleman is always happy when comparing apples with oranges. We are talking about education. There is no question but that the administration of education by local authorities in Scotland must be reduced over the next few years as a result of the considerable decline in pupil numbers.
§ Mr. SproatDoes my hon. Friend agree that last year non-teaching staff in Scotland increased by 251? Is that not a grotesque increase? What further steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to see that we do not continue to have this endless proliferation of bureaucracy?
§ Mr. FletcherMy right hon. Friend is considering what steps he might take to obtain more information on an authority by authority basis regarding the manpower statistics generally.
§ Mr. BuchanIs not this obsession on the Conservative Back Benches, supported by the Front Bench, which seeks to add to the unemployment figures in Scotland, becoming obscene? Is not the biggest waste of public expenditure, in human and cash terms, the £7,000 million spent on unemployment benefit? Is it not the case that the main projects coming forward to deal with unemployment, apart from this issue, in Scotland, are in the public sector? Is it not a nonsense for the Secretary of State to say that every penny spent in the public sector is a burden on manufacturing industry when it is, in fact, frequently a stimulus?
§ Mr. FletcherThe reason why unemployment is so high today in this country is that for years, under the Labour Party, over-manning was encouraged in the private sector but, more particularly, in the public sector.