EDUCATION SERVICE (HAMPSHIRE) (Hansard, 15 July 1980)

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)
At the beginning of this short Adjournment debate I ought to declare an interest. Not only am I a Member of Parliament for a Hampshire constituency but I have two children who are being educated at Hampshire schools. If more Conservative councillors on the Hampshire county council were to send their children to State schools we might not be in the mess in which we find ourselves.
I am pleased to welcome several Conservative Members from Hampshire to the debate. I only wish that some of them had been outside the castle in Winchester on Monday morning when 4,000 people protested against the cuts in the education service proposed by the Hampshire county council. At that protest meeting there were not only representatives of political parties and the professional organisations but large numbers of parent-teacher organisations and parents who were worried sick about the future of their children's education.
I should like to quote from a document that was handed to me at that meeting. It is from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association—not the most militant of bodies—and it states: By long tradition ours is a professional association which prefers to make its point of view felt in moderate, reasonable and unspectacular ways. However, it is our belief that the education service in Hampshire is coming perilously near to a point where adequate statutory provision cannot be made, and it is fear for the consequences of draconian decisions today which has caused this last minute appeal. Hampshire is already one of the worst education authorities in the country.

§ Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Mitchell
In any league table that one takes it is near the bottom.

§ Mr. Mates
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The additional cuts proposed by the policy resources committee 1454 of Hampshire county council on Monday morning will make the position infinitely worse. Since July 1979, 469 full-time equivalent teachers have gone, and it is now proposed that another 370, making 839 in all, should go.
The effect will be very serious. I have some details of schools in Hampshire. Some are in my constituency, and some are in the constituencies of Conservative Members. At school No. 1, the main effect will be on the teaching of German. The German language teacher has left and is not being replaced. German will disappear from the curriculum. At the same school, it is being urged that any further children recommended for placement in the special unit should remain in ordinary schools because there are no places available.
At another school—it is one at which I used to teach—there will be great difficulty in teaching both history and geography. I hope that the Minister is listening. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a history specialist. We have always agreed on the importance of academic excellence. History and geography at the school at which I used to teach will be taught by many non-specialist teachers—indeed, seven and six respectively. In other words, seven non-specialist teachers will share the teaching of history, and six non-specialist teachers will share the teaching of geography. It is inevitable that there will be a loss of teaching quality.
At another school, fourth year pupils studying biology, environmental science and needlework will not be able to continue with their courses in the final examination year. Substantial cuts will have to be made in the provision of these subjects lower down the school.
At another school there will be no drama classes, and a marked reduction in the number of teachers available for English. It is probable that liberal studies will be removed from the curriculum.
If a teacher leaves a school, he or she is not replaced. That means that very often a subject has to be dropped from the curriculum for at least part of the school.
The situation becomes even more serious when we consider mathematics and science. Teachers of those subjects tend to move around more rapidly than 1455 do teachers of other subjects. There is a shortage of such teachers and they gain promotion more easily than do other teachers. They move to graded posts and to become heads of departments in other schools. If a science teacher leaves and he is not replaced, some pupils will receive no science teaching. That is happening in school after school. It is true of a number of primary schools. As a result, there has to be vertical grouping. That means that children of one year are placed in a class with children of another year. It means that some children will not be able to move up the school at the end of the year. Another consequence is that one class will have to have three teachers in one year.

§ Mr. Mates
rose—

§ Mr. Mitchell
No. I shall not give way.
The situation in Hampshire is serious.

§ Mr. Mates
What document is the hon. Gentleman using?

§ Mr. Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman may make his remarks on another occasion.

§ Mr. Mates
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, and so that the Hansard reporters can do their job properly, will the hon. Gentleman tell us from which document he is quoting?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)
Order. That is not a point of order. Time is limited for an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Mitchell
The document has been provided by the National Union of Teachers and contains information on all the schools in Hampshire.

§ Mr. Mates
Ah!

§ Mr. Mitchell
Why does the hon. Gentleman say "Ah!"?

§ Mr. Mates
We want the truth.

§ Mr. Mitchell
I hope that NUT members in Petersfield will note that remark.
It was proposed last Monday to cut a further £600,000 off the book and equipment allowances. Only six of the 39 counties make a poorer provision than Hampshire for books in primary schools. Only four of the 39 make poorer provision for books in secondary schools. 1456 That information comes from the report of the chief education officer.
There is widespread sharing of textbooks already. That applies even for pupils taking examinations. Pupils are unable to take textbooks home to do their homework. Many textbooks on important subjects are out of date and are not being replaced. Many parents have spent considerable sums to buy textbooks for their children. It is the children of poorer families—for example, those from one-parent families—who suffer.
School fetes and school functions are being used to raise money to buy essential textbooks, instead of the more expensive and luxury equipment that used to be acquired. One Conservative council has gone so far as to say that it is the responsibility of parents to raise money to help to pay teachers' salaries. That is the situation to which we are coming—a member of the education committee making that statement. At the same time as all that is going on, Hampshire can afford to donate £2,000 to each of five independent schools in the county.
On Monday morning the policy and resources committee recommended that a further £4.2 million should be cut from the education budget. That is in excess of everything that I have mentioned so far. There are to be staff reductions to save £1½ million; reductions in books and equipment to save £1 million; and the capital programme is to be cut by 75 per cent. to save £1.2 million. Other expenditure, on non-teaching staff and in-service training, which is vital to keep teachers up to date, is to be cut by £500,000.
I have said that Hampshire has a much poorer record than any other local education authority. Official returns to the Department of Education and Science—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for Petersfield—from the report of the chief education officer for January 1979 show that in pupil-teacher ratios Hampshire stands at No. 92 out of 97 authorities and at No. 80 out of 97 for the number of teachers employed in schools, and these further cuts will make the position worse.
Children in Hampshire are being given a raw deal, and I propose to quote a significant passage from the report of the chief education officer. I hope that no 1457 Conservative Member will say that these are lies: The penalties of these reductions would include higher class sizes in many schools, reduced provision for special learning groups (eg, remedial, very able and talented children), the abandonment or reduction of some specialisms (particularly sciences, crafts and technology, languages, pastoral care, careers), real threat to the ability of some sixth forms to admit all students and less effective teaching of shortage subjects such as mathematics and science. Special schools would be affected for the first time. That was the chief education officer's report to the committee on the cuts that were announced on Monday morning.
I hope that the Minister will not make the conventional excuse that there is nothing that he can do, because I have heard that so many times. He will say that it is for the local education authority to make its decision and that it has nothing to do with him or the Department. I am beginning to wonder what is the function of the Department. It was said to me the other day that if it disappeared without trace no one would realise that it had gone. If we really want to make some cuts, the Minister ought to eliminate the DES, because on every occasion that anyone asks questions about cuts in education anywhere the answer is that that is nothing to do with the Department.
I want to make one practical suggestion about where cuts could be made. I suggest that the Minister should authorise a team of Her Majesty's inspectors to go to Hampshire to investigate whether the education committee is fulfilling its duty under the Education Act 1944. That is something that the Minister has power to do, and he should do it, because considerable doubt has been expressed by many people and authorities about whether Hampshire is fulfilling, or will fulfil, its duty if it makes the cuts that were announced on Monday morning. On behalf of the parents and children of Hampshire I appeal to the Minister to intervene now and stop the rape of the education service.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)
We are aware of the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) in the education service. I know that he was a deputy head and master in charge of mathematics 1458 and science in a school, and thus he is aware of the classroom situation. I say as a matter of interest that my children attended State schools when I was on the education committee in that area.
I want, first, to speak of the national plan and then to refer to the situation in Hampshire, particularly bearing in mind this week's events. It must be made clear that nobody wants to make cuts. The making of cuts is not a way of life, but the Government were elected on a platform that the books must be balanced. The electorate knew at the general election last year that it was a question of balancing the books. Although some people known to the hon. Gentleman would be concerned about certain cuts that have been made in Hampshire, possibly the same people would be very concerned if a supplementary rate were to be levied or if income tax were to be increased. I believe that on Monday suggestions were made by Labour Members to the effect that a supplementary rate should be levied. Often those who do not want to pay increased rates and taxes are those who shout the loudest if economies are made. I repeat that we were elected to balance the books nationally.
In the last 25 years we have almost doubled the share of gross national product devoted to education. However, I do not think that many people would consider that standards in schools have doubled in that time. Similarly, in the last 20 to 25 years we have lowered the pupil-teacher ratio by about 25 per cent. I do not think people see an automatic link between the number of teachers in post and the expenditure and the standards in schools. That does not mean that if we did not have any teachers at all the standards would be higher, but one cannot see that there is an automatic link between expenditure and educational standards.

§ Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)
Obviously everybody wants to see value for money. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Hampshire for every four teachers there is one member of the administrative staff? For every six teachers there is a meal attendant. For every 6.6 teachers there is a caretaker. Is it not essential that local education authorities take careful note of the ratio between teaching and non-teaching staff so that 1459 we can get the value for money to which my hon. Friend is referring? As 60 per cent. of the expenditure on education is financed by the central Government, what consultations can my hon. Friend have with the chairmen and others in local authorities to ensure that this ratio is kept at the right level?

§ Dr. Boyson
I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. He obviously knows the area. Just as the Government must decide, within the limited sum of money that they raise in taxes, what their priorities are, so must a local authority. The priority must surely be the teacher in the classroom. The more one spends on other things, the less that can be spent on the teacher in the classroom. What we have observed in 20 to 25 years in teaching is the build-up of large ancillary services coming from the set sum that can be spent on education at any time. My hon. Friend made a valuable intervention.
Over the next four years of a rolling programme there will be a fall of 13 per cent. in the population of children in our schools—obviously they are already born; they do not start at the age of 0; they start at the age of 4 or rising-5 or 5. Our cut in expenditure in that rolling programme is only 6.5 per cent. This means that nationally as a Government we shall be spending more per child in real terms at the end of the four years than is being spent now. I wish to stress that, because the press has given little emphasis to this fact recently.
This year we put into the rate support grant 2 per cent. more for non-teaching expenditure. That includes particularly the question of books, which has been referred to time and time again in the press and in the House. During Question Time last week reference was made to the fact that in 1982–83, £35 million will be spent on books. We know how important that is. There is no doubt about the Government's priorities.
We kept the rate support grant at 61 per cent. this year. Over a number of years there has been a movement of the rate support grant needs element against the shire counties, including Hampshire. I have the figures, and I know that other hon. Members have them as well. I therefore shall not go through them. We have rectified the matter to some extent this year. The shire counties may not have 1460 bled to death, but they have been handicapped over the years by the movement of the needs element from the shires to the inner cities. We have now reversed that. Authorities should not be blamed for something that is often outside their direct control.
We have reminded local authorities that we asked for a cut. We asked them to revise their budgets for 1980–81. Taking all services, local government initial current expenditure budget estimates are now about 5 per cent.—that is £700,000,000, above the Government's target in real terms. We must get expenditure and income into balance. In those circumstances, no authority or service can be exempt from scrutiny. We have therefore asked that local government should revise its current expenditure plans for 1980–81, to ensure that local authority spending is generally brought down to the level provided in the rate support grant settlement.
I remind the hon. Member for Itchen of what happened when the previous Labour Government were in office. We were all in the House at that time. In 1977–78, as against 1976–77, there was a cut nationally of 2 per cent. in expenditure. The Labour Government made a cut in capital expenditure that was far in excess of the present cut in capital expenditure. This is nothing new. When the international brokers came in, the Labour Party faced reality for a time. We are facing the situation without the international brokers. That strikes me as being more honourable. One makes no apology about what needs to be done.

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell
Hampshire education committee has never before cut its capital expenditure by 75 per cent.

§ Dr. Boyson
I was dealing with national figures. I shall turn to Hampshire shortly. The hon. Gentleman said that Hampshire was at the bottom of every league table. Let me keep him in suspense. I shall finish by referring to certain league tables which, if I were a parent, would appear to be more important than those that were mentioned. I shall let the hon. Gentleman wait a little while for that small treat.
The situation in Hampshire, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern, must be seen against that background. I should emphasise, however, 1461 that the reductions in the county's education expenditure that were agreed yesterday by Hampshire's policies and resources committee are not a direct consequence of the Government's call for revised budgets. They have resulted because sufficient allowance was not made for inflation. Nobody could tell what inflation would be. The cuts were made to bring the country's education budget into balance. Inflation ran faster this year than was prophesied. We all know that, and there is no harm in telling the truth.
The hon. Gentleman will not like it, but I repeat that it is for individual local authorities to decide precisely how to implement the Government's expenditure plans, in the light of local needs and circumstances. From what I know of the authority's new decisions and those that it made earlier, it would seem that Hampshire has done all that it can to safeguard the essential fabric of its education service. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) emphasised that point. Substantial savings have already been made in school meals, milk and transport. Hampshire is looking for further savings of about £4.8 million. That is less than 2½ per cent. of the authority's education budget. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it scrapped its earlier figure of £10 million because it considered that it was inconsistent with the performance of its statutory duties. That shows the authority's sense of responsibility. To make that 2½ per cent. cut, Hampshire has put all parts of its education service under scrutiny. I have no doubt that its decisions to defer school building and to withhold the 1979–80 inflation increase from the schools' general allowance were not take lightly. They were necessary. Nor do I doubt Hampshire's ability to continue to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman read from an NUT document. I remember my right hon. and learned Friend referring to other documents. Documents should not always be taken as the holy writ, although I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's word.
With a falling population in schools, there will have to be rationalisation of sixth form courses. That has been carried out well in many areas. Some small sixth form courses are fantastically expen 1462 sive. On occasions, it would be cheaper to send pupils to Eton.

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell
These are not sixth form courses.

§ Dr. Boyson
That may be so, but there are many sixth form courses in the area.
There will have to be rationalisation throughout the country. There will need to be federal arrangements between sixth forms. A sixth form teacher can spend up to one-fifth of his teaching time taking one sixth form group. The cost of one pupil taking three subjects could be fantastic. That cost will have to be faced by the teaching profession and governing bodies of schools.
Let us put the teaching position into perspective. I am informed that it means a loss through natural wastage of 320 teaching posts. The school curriculum will be little affected. Provision will continue to be made for 16 to 18-year-olds in sixth forms and tertiary colleges and colleges of further education. The Portsmouth polytechnic and the Southampton college of higher education will continue to provide a wide range of higher education courses, notwithstanding the reductions that will be made in their staffing numbers.
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to join in rejoicing over certain achievements in Hampshire. However, let me first say that we are debating the actions of an authority that has responsibly worked out how best to fulfil its educational duties in the light of today's constraints on public expenditure. It is not a matter for censure, although it does not necessarily warrant applause. Hampshire can be satisfied that it has done a sensible job. I am sure that the authority did not welcome the meeting, but it carried out its public responsibility, as we all have to. Local authorities throughout the country are having to take similar action. It is, quite simply, good housekeeping.
I mentioned the 2 per cent. cut introduced by the Labour Party and the 20 to 25 per cent. capital cut throughout the country. At that time we did not have falling rolls, with a 13 per cent. drop over four years.
Hampshire should be praised. It has been in the forefront of the provision of open sixth form colleges. It has 12 in the 1463 county. I have visited one college in Hampshire, and I was impressed. It was the first open sixth form college that I had visited. My respect for those colleges arose from what I saw in Hampshire.

§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell
Southampton, not Hampshire.

§ Dr. Boyson
I visited colleges at Cricklade and Andover, too.
If parents were dissatisfied with the provision in schools, would more pupils be staying on in that area than the national average? For Hampshire, the age 16 staying on rate is 28.2 per cent., com- pared with a 24.5 per cent. average in England. Four per cent. more stay on. That is a vote of confidence in the education authority. The gap between Hampshire and the rest of England is as wide in the numbers who stay on at 17–22 per cent. in Hampshire and 18.4 per cent nationally. Parents are satisfied with what has been achieved. That is another vote of confidence in the Hampshire authority.
The third important aspect is results. I know all about the ethos of schools, but 1464 results matter, and 14.1 per cent. of leavers in Hampshire got one or more A-levels, compared with 12.6 per cent. in the rest of England. I wish that we could see such results in the Inner London Education Authority. If parents in the ILEA area hear about these results they will move to Hampshire, perhaps to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and vote Conservative when they get there. At the other end of the scale, 13.8 per cent. of school leavers nationally have no results, but in Hampshire, where education is given such importance and works so well, only 10.3 per cent. leave without any grading.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to put on record that, despite severe difficulties and the fact that the balance of the rate support grant has been against it, Hampshire education authority is doing a good job, and it is no wonder that parents and children have confidence in it.