Educational Standards (Hansard, 10 February 1981)

§ 2. Mr. Dubs
asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effects of the recent rate support grant settlement on educational standards.

§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle)
I gave my assessment of the implications of the recent rate support grant settlement, following consultations with representatives of the local authorities, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 16 December last year.

§ Mr. Dubs
Does the Secretary of State accept that the consequences of the rate support grant settlement were that the Inner London Education Authority would have had to cut its services below a level that even the Secretary of State would accept, and that therefore the ILEA's only course was to maintain its standards? Does the Secretary of State agree that it made the right decision?

§ Mr. Carlisle
I do not accept any of the premises underlying the hon. Gentleman's question. First, I do not accept that I am suggesting that the ILEA should cut its standards below what is acceptable. The rate support grant for the authority has been affected by the movement of rates away from inner London and by the fact that the ILEA has historically been a high spender. The amount of grant that it receives will depend on its budget. As I pointed out in a statement to the House last week, for every 1 per cent, by which the ILEA reduces its expenditure it will get another £4 million from the Government.

§ Mr. Emery
As the question concerns the whole country, will my right hon. and learned Friend point out to teachers and educationists generally that at a time of world recession it is impossible for the Government to continue with projected expenditure that was based on trying to win an election and that unless the Government get on top of inflation the money spent on education in the next two or three years will buy much less than it can purchase today?

§ Mr. Carlisle
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend says. As I have made clear on many occasions, the education services cannot be exempt from the need to reduce public expenditure and to bring it into line with what the country can afford. Unless we get our public expenditure more realistically in line with what we can afford, we shall have higher unemployment in future and more economic problems.

§ Mr. Beith
How can the Secretary of State still claim that there is money in the rate support grant for youth and community capital grants when education authorities, including many Conservative-controlled authorities, say that they cannot meet their statutory obligations satisfactorily in the face of the present level of cuts?

§ Mr. Carlisle
I confirm that for the purposes of arriving at the amount of relevant expenditure for education purposes I have assumed similar expenditure on the youth service in general terms as in previous years. I have visited some of the youth services in the area of the hon. Gentleman's local education authority. I realise that the services are under pressure in many parts of the country, but the Government have assumed that current expenditure should remain similar to the levels of previous years.

§ Mr. Adley
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Dorset county council's decision on school meals, which was criticised by a number of Labour Members and by some trade unionists, has been widely accepted without demur by the parents in my constituency? Will he therefore commend the decision of the county council to other local authorities as an example of good housekeeping?

§ Mr. Carlisle
My hon. Friends remarks are a fair assessment of the reaction to the Dorset decision. I repeat 726 what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier. We are anxious that authorities should make savings in school meals rather than in other parts of educational provision.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Does the Secretary of State recall saying on 16 December, at the time of the rate support grant settlement that reductions would have some impact on educational provision and numbers employed? Does he accept that only his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is likely to accept his figure of a cut of £87 million in local authority expenditure as accurate and that, in fact, that figure is a gross underestimate, because school expenditure will be cut in 1981-82 not by £70 million, but by £150 million? Does the Secretary of State realise that, because of his refusal to fund school transport services and his miscalculation of the savings on school meals, there will be another £157 million to be found? [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."] I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but they are going to get it. School cuts next year will mean a monsterous £307 million being taken away from the children of this country. Does the Secretary of State think, in the light of such figures, that local education authorities can discharge their legal responsibilities under sections 8 and 61 of the 1944 Act, or does he accept that as "Education Magazine" said last week, he is presiding over "a period of catastrophe"? Does he not think that he ought to resign?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The same rules apply to Front-Bench spokesman as to Back Benchers.

§ Mr. Carlisle
In the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman he has not added a single new fact that I have not told the House myself. If he cares to read what I said on 16 December he will realise that I said that it was £87 million in addition to the assumed cut in the previous White Paper and I went on to add that there was also £37 million assumed as a result of the reduction in school transport. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that he thought that I said that the reduction was £87 million, when it was greater, means that he did not read, or did not understand, my statement.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I accepted in my statement that the additional cut was bound to have some effect on the level of provision in education. I said that we had to bring that level of provision into line with what the country could afford. I stand by that.