§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish the report of Her Majesty's inspectors indicating the effect of reductions in education expenditure on the standards in schools.
§ Mr. Mark CarlisleI have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) on 9 December last year.
§ Mr. PriceIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on Friday of this week the House might discuss open government and the degree to which the Government are sticking to their pretensions about providing information to the House? Is he further aware that since the autumn of last year he has had a report on his desk? If it has not arrived on his desk, he cannot be a very good Secretary of State and cannot have called for it. Since the autumn of last year the Department of Education and Science has had a report by the senior chief inspector on the effects of provision on standards in schools. Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman depriving the House of Commons and the public of information? When will we receive the inspector's estimate of the relationship between the amount of money that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to allow for education, and standards in schools?
§ Mr. CarlisleThe hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. I am aware of the debate on Friday, and I have today approved a letter that will be sent to the hon. Gentleman in advance, dealing with the questions that he has asked me about documents from the Department.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question I am sorry to tell him that what he said is wrong and false. I have not seen the final report, because it has not yet been completed. When it has been completed it will be sent to me by the inspectorate. In response to a question on 9 December 1980 by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I undertook to consider the question of publication. It is wrong to suggest that I have had the report since last autumn and that I am somehow trying to hide it from the House.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that school standards depend not so much on expenditure as on the quality of teachers and on their ability to motivate students? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree also that it might be helpful if the teaching profession were to co-operate more with the Government, and if more teachers were to spend more periods in school? In addition, might it not be helpful if some head teachers and deputy heads spent more time in classrooms than in their offices?
§ Mr. CarlisleI agree with my hon. Friend. The quality of education is not synonymous with the standard of provision. The standard of provision is of importance, but the standard of teaching and the motivation of children are equally, if not more, important.
§ Mr. KinnockIf that is the case, why does not the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I see that the Ghost of Christmas Past has arrived. However, I shall address my remarks to the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. If the standards of provision and performance are not directly related, why has the Secretary of State got something to hide about the publication of information on the impact of cuts on standards in schools which is already available to him from Her Majesty's inspectorate? Perhaps I might remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the senior chief inspector's remarks. Does he believe that the age of miracles has passed or that school curriculums will be affected as a result of the cuts?
§ Mr. CarlisleI must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the honesty of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I have told the House that I have not yet received the final report of the inspectors. It is not complete. Any suggestion in the press to the contrary is incorrect. I stick to the fact that the standard of educational provision is not synonymous with the standard of educational quality and performance. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example, I refer him to the recent report on the Inner London Education Authority, which showed that in many cases the standard of provision was 50 per cent. higher than that found in the rest of the country, but which did not show that the quality of performance equalled that amount.