§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
§ 10.1 pm
§ Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South)I am indebted to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to ventilate the subject of Lancashire's educational needs and Government funding for 1983–84.
Lancashire must make cuts in expenditure next year in the order of 2½ per cent. if penalties are to be avoided. Building maintenance was reduced over several years until the 1982–83 Budget. A sum of £35 million will be needed to bring premises up to a reasonable state of repair. Thereafter, about £12 million per annum would maintain acceptable standards.
Recently, the chairman of Lancashire county council Mrs. Louise Ellman, at a special meeting, approved a massive crash maintenance and repair programme for county buildings with a target of £4 million. There will necessarily be a need for exemption from penalties if Lancashire education authority spends £35 million in 1983–84. It is not—I make this clear to the Minister—asking for more money but for an exemption from penalties.
Every year buildings deteriorate further. The review of surplus school places identifies not only new buildings and improvements but repairs as well.
Lancashire's unemployment is at a very high level—nearly 20 per cent. in some parts of the county—and public expenditure is thus transferred from building, maintenance and new projects into supplementary benefits, unemployment benefits and so on. This year, approximately 13,800 young people in Lancashire left schools and colleges. Job vacancies numbered 111. This immediately raises the question of training opportunities and further education, to which I shall return later. Statistics show that Lancashire is either on or below average in terms of provision in almost all areas of education. The chairman of the education committee, Councillor Josephine Farrington, has been battling bravely with this problem. Administration is now below average, and staff increases are needed to deal with school choice appeals, post-16 careers, and in-service needs to meet new demands for a thorough review of surplus places. For example, population trends and educational and social needs have been exacerbated by many old buildings that date back as far as Waterloo. Some schools are not in the right place, and changes since the Industrial Revolution have made the problem much more complex.
Welfare benefits are another factor, as a high percentage of pupils require free school meals because of unemployment and low incomes. Last year saw the first improvement in uniform clothing grants for many years, during which inflation had been ignored, but £27.50 for a secondary pupil is totally inadequate to meet real costs today. The maximum maintenance allowance for 16-plus pupils in schools and colleges is now £375. As a result, there is pressure on able youngsters to leave full-time study because of near poverty subsistence. Adults seeking further education are unable to live on their allocation, yet are very much in need of new skills.
In the primary school sector, there is a problem about the age of the buildings. In Lancashire, 231 schools, 1044 providing 40,000 places, date back to 1903. In addition, there are 23 split sites, 115 schools with no hall, 24 with all the toilets outdoors and 61 with some toilets outdoors.
Temporary accommodation in Lancashire primary schools represents less than 5 per cent. of total places compared with 10 per cent. nationally, thus making it more difficult to take surplus places out of use. Population movements mean that primary schools are sometimes in the wrong location. Despite overall falling pupil rolls, additional primary school places are still required in growth areas such as the central Lancashire new town areas.
Capital receipts from the sale of surplus education buildings and land are relatively modest because property values in Lancashire are low compared with other parts of the country such as London and the Home Counties.
Reviews of primary schools show that it is sometimes necessary to provide a new school to replace existing schools, thereby getting rid of surplus places; to enlarge one building in order to take other premises out of use; and to upgrade the premises of retained schools so that changes in the pattern of primary schools in an area are reasonably acceptable to local people.
The pupil-teacher ratio in Lancashire is 23:3. The average among all local education authorities is 22:3. However, among LEAs displaying similar additional educational needs of Lancashire, the ratio is 21:6. The unit cost in Lancashire of teaching staff is only £411, whereas the average for all LEAs is £448. Among LEAs displaying similar additional educational needs of Lancashire, the figure is £457. Therefore, high cost is not the problem.
Deficiencies in the pupil-teacher ratio in the primary sector lead either to less remedial help, larger classes, classes covering a wider age range, or all three. Inadequate capitation widens the gap between affluent and poor area schools, thereby placing a greater reliance on local fundraising in certain areas.
Books in primary schools are a major factor in the search for good education practice. Out-of-date books may hamper the work, for instance, in multicultural education. Reading books become so precious that pupils may be prevented from taking them home. We need to increase expenditure on books.
In the secondary sector, capitation is below average. Children are sharing examination books. The syllabus includes home study, but how can that be done? Here again, the pupil-teacher ratio militates against adequate remedial provision, which becomes more necessary because of the deprivation at primary level, which I have already mentioned.
There are many pressures on the service in adult education, including social factors and language problems. In Lancashire, we have large ethnic groups in Blackburn, Preston, Burnley, and elsewhere. There is also the problem of the older unemployed and retraining for new jobs in technology. One wonders why it is taking so much longer to get Home Office approval under section II.
I shall say a word about the youth service. If we compare Lancashire with other shire authorities, of which there are 39, Lancashire spends 13.15 per cent. less than the average expenditure of the 39 non-metropolitan authorities. There are six other large authorities, including Hampshire and Cheshire. Lancashire spends 8.7 per cent. less than they do.
1045 The DES analysis carried out in July 1982 on the needs of authorities, using several socio-economic criteria—for instance, the number of children taking school dinners—drew attention to the authorities that wish to spend more. Clearly, Lancashire is one of those. It should be spending more, because 31 of the 39 shires need less than Lancashire. Youth unemployment has meant greater demands on the youth service.
It is interesting to note that the Lancashire Council for Voluntary Youth Services held a conference recently on the Thompson report. I shall not quote it at length, because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to my speech, but it said:
We are in agreement that Social Education is the main task of the Youth Service and welcome the reference to the balance of relationships which has led to work with specialist groups. Every effort is needed to encourage and facilitate the involvement of young people in society at relevant levels. We endorse the need for further legislation … In Lancashire, of course, we have made progress on these lines and the foundation has been laid to extend the opportunities … The needs set out in this reportthat is, the Thompson reportmake great and overwhelming demands on the Youth Service at all levels.Again, we are talking about resources and whether they will be provided to underline the Thompson report recommendations.Slight improvements have been made in the psychological services in 1982–83 through the employment of eight more educational psychologists. However, special needs are not met at the right time, and that can result in more expense later. Again, it is a question of finding the resources to extend the service.
On further education, we do not know what percentage of students in Lancashire will need what provision, under which mode, or at what cost to the LEA. However, we do know that training provision from Easter 1983 has to be planned for by the education authority. Perhaps the Minister can tell me what happens to students at the end of the first year.
My last point relates to the Preston polytechnic. I shall give the Minister a few facts, and then put my final question.
The number of higher education places per head of population in Lancashire is well below the average, making Lancashire a net exporter of higher education. The polytechnic serves Lancashire and Cumbria well in that it has developed strong links with local industry, commerce and community services. It provides education for a large number of part-time students. In fact, only a few other polytechnics teach more part-time students.
Preston polytechnic is a relatively new institution which is now consolidating its position within Lancashire and Cumbria and needs to continue with its building programme in order to fully serve the local community. The polytechnic staff recognise that there is a great need to provide education for adults who are turning to higher education for the first time and also for those who are returning to higher education because of changing circumstances. The simple profit and loss approach to education is unacceptable in this area. The needs of those people cannot be fully met if one is concerned only with the number of students per staff member.
My final question to the Minister is set in the context of the overall problems of Lancashire's education policy. What action can he take—perhaps in pressurising the 1046 Treasury to make funds available—to meet the needs of education in Lancashire? I await his comments with interest.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) for giving the House an opportunity to debate this subject. I note hat he is a former deputy chairman of the Liverpool education committee and I well recognise his interest in this matter. Lancashire is one of the largest local authorities in Britain in terms of its population, size and budget. For 1982–83 Lancashire's total budget is well in excess of £400 million, and for 1983–84 its expenditure target is about £465 million. Education accounts for some 60 per cent. of the authority's expenditure. Therefore, I recognise the importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I shall do my best to answer, if not all, as many as I can of his questions.
The Government are concerned about the education needs of the people of Lancashire. The Government's expenditure plans take careful account of those needs, as I hope to show. I do not hide the fact that the authority, like other authorities, faces difficult decisions. However, in devising their plans the Government are not blind to the problems faced by authorities such as Lancashire.
First, I shall say a word about the public expenditure plans. Details of the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84 were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week. My right hon. Friend described the national plans for current expenditure on education underlying the settlement on 8 November.
As is the habit nowadays, the plans are expressed in cash, and the level of services that can be provided will depend on the extent to which local authorities can contain their cost increases and, in particular, on the level of pay settlements for local authority employees in the months ahead. That is of crucial importance. For example, if pay settlements are of the order of 3 ½ per cent. next year, some further improvement in national pupil-teacher ratios will be possible. Britain's pupil-teacher ratios on average are now at record levels. They have never been better in Britain's education history. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman said, that pupil-teacher ratios in Lancashire are below the average for the shire counties. However, that is a matter for decision by the authority itself. The authority must decide on the expenditure balance between education and the other services which it provides for its community.
If authorities are able to restrain their cost increases to about 4 per cent., overall provision per pupil nationally on new books and equipment—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—could also be improved, and the level of repairs and maintenance restored. In non-advanced further education the plans allow for a further increase nationally in demand for full-time and sandwich courses from 16 to 19-year-olds. Whatever the reason, we are glad that more youngsters are staying on after the age of 16 both in schools and in further education.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the grant-related expenditure assessments seek to determine the level of spending necessary for each authority to provide a common level of service, bearing in mind the special needs and circumstances of the authority. The total GRE 1047 is derived from the Government's national expenditure plans, and is distributed among individual authorities on the basis of their relative needs.
The GRE assessments for education are based upon the number of pupils and students for whom each authority must provide. There are also a number of other factors of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. It includes, for instance, an allowance for unemployment among young people. Provision has been made in the Government's plans for expenditure of £70 million by local education authorities in 1983–84 to encourage young people who might otherwise be unemployed to remain in full-time education. We recognise that the increased numbers staying on in full-time education represents a cost for the authorities. This sum has been distributed among local education authorities by reference to their numbers of young unemployed.
In 1981–82 and 1982–83 Lancashire contained its total expenditure within the Government guidelines. We must recognise that. Consequently, its expenditure target for 1983–84 represents an increase of 4 per cent.—some £18 million in cash—from its budget for 1982–83. This reflects the Government's policy to seek greater financial restraint from those local authorities which, unlike Lancashire, have in the past ignored our guidelines and continued to spend at levels above that which we believe the country can afford.
Falling rolls and pupil places is an issue of great importance, especially in Lancashire. It would be wrong to infer from this talk of expenditure that the level of expenditure alone determines the quality of an authority's education service. People are recognising that within limits there is no inexorable or automatic bond between more expenditure and better quality. An authority's ability to respond fully to the needs of its population depends also on the effectiveness with which it deploys its expenditure. Effective management is particularly important at present, when local authorities are faced with falling pupil numbers and the need to take surplus school places out of use.
We are not saying that every last surplus place should be removed. The empty places, just like the country's population, are not evenly spread. We recognise that in a new town, for instance, there may be increasing rather than diminishing pressure.
That is why as a general, national, target we are asking local education authorities to take out of use only two out of every five surplus places. This leaves a good deal of scope for schools to use accommodation not needed for classrooms in different ways—for example, as parent rooms. It leaves local education authorities considerable scope to act in accordance with their circumstances. We do not expect large counties with many rural areas to be able to take out surplus places at the same rate as closely populated urban authorities.
We would not expect Lancashire, for example, to remove 40 per cent. of its 46,000 spare places. What we ask is that local education authorities should study the circumstances of each of their areas and consider what could and should be done. I know that Lancashire has been doing that on the secondary front and I am glad that now a similar effort is taking place to bring primary schools into better line with pupil numbers. We welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned meals. In the same way, an authority's ability to respond to the educational 1048 needs of its population within the resources available will depend upon its readiness to make savings in its expenditure on, for instance, school meals. A number of education authorities have responded to this challenge by reorganising their service. I know that Lancashire has introduced the cash cafeteria system which, experience shows, is likely to encourage pupils to continue to take a meal at school.
However, the proportion of Lancashire secondary pupils who were taking a school meal in October 1981–53 per cent.—was higher than in the country as a whole—44 per cent.—and was higher, indeed, than the proportion in the country as a whole in 1979. Clearly it is not necessarily straightforward to achieve savings. I recognise that. However, the experience of some authorities in finding cheaper and more efficient ways of providing meals shows perhaps what can be done.
The hon. Gentleman asked about provision for capital allocations. The total provision for LEA capital spending on schools and further education in 1983–84 was £273 million. This means that the provision of capital for school improvements and the removal of surplus places has been maintained. Further LEAs have been able to make a small increase in their spending on further education equipment.
Individual LEAs were informed of their allocations from this total by letter last week. As ever, total LEA bids for education capital allocations far exceeded the total available, so we had to weigh each authority's needs carefully. In Lancashire's case, the need to rationalise primary schools to remove some of the 46,000 surplus places obviously represents a substantial capital cost, especially since certain of the schools are old or defective in some way or other.
These points have been made to us by hon. Members with Lancashire constituencies from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) and Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). The sum of nearly £12 million that has been made available for country and voluntary projects in schools and further education should enable Lancashire to meet its main requirements. Having weighed its needs and special circumstances, we think that the county should find this sum sufficient to take forward existing commitments and to begin to meet other pressing needs.
Furthermore, I should like to draw attention to the flexibility that is available to local authorities to make up any shortfalls in particular programmes by virement between services, between authorities and between years. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 allows for this, and the extent of overall underspending suggests that the education service as the full spender should, where possible, be topped up from other services. I hope that Lancashire and other authorities will keep this flexibility in mind.
The fact that the education service is ready and able to make use of this flexibility was proved recently by the Lancashire education authority's response to the criteria of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make up the underspend on capital accounts in 1983–84. The Lancashire LEA's bid for additional capital spending on education of nearly £1.5 million was agreed to. In the meantime, the authority is seeking additional loan sanction for about £3 million to carry out repairs and maintenance to education buildings. This is now under consideration by the Department of the Environment.
1049 The hon. Gentleman spoke of youth training in Lancashire and the amount of youth unemployment, which we recognise. The MSC has built up its YOP programme in Lancashire from negligible levels to about 20,000 places a year. In 1981–82 and 1982–83. The training that is offered aims to help young people to develop maturity, confidence and independance. For slightly older people TOPS courses are available.
In early 1983 we shall have a massive marketing operation for the new youth training scheme. It will provide a one-year programme of education and training. We think that it will be of great importance.
§ Mr. Stan ThorneWhat will happen to the young people after the one year of training?
§ Mr. SheltonI should be unhappy if the fact that a job might not be automatically available at the end of a year's training made a youngster wish not to undertake the training. There is no doubt that this sort of training will increase the likelihood of a young person obtaining a job. Secondly, when, fairly soon, the recession ends, a bottleneck—it is one that always occurs in such circumstances—could arise because of a lack of skilled manpower. It is clear from looking through the newspapers that there are places for skilled people. There are shortages of skilled people. Unemployment is mainly among the manually unskilled. Even though there is no guarantee of a job—I wish that there were—there is no doubt in my mind that it is very much to the advantage of young people to get this training.
1050 Unfortunately, time does not permit me to say much about adult education. If the hon. Gentleman would like to talk to me after the debate or to write to me, I shall be delighted to answer his questions. I hope that I have said something to reassure him of our concern for educational needs.
I agree that Lancashire has been a relatively low spender on education compared with its expenditure on other services. That is a matter for the councillors of Lancashire. Its expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools is well below the average for shire counties in the current year. It should now be assessing its relative levels of expenditure on individual services in the light of the relative needs for expenditure on education and other services. The authority rightly carries the final decision about expenditure on education in 1983–84.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is looking forward to visiting Lancashire in the new year. I am sure that the authority will take that opportunity to acquaint him of its needs and the problems that it faces. The hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. I have answered as many as I can in the time available, but if I leave—
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.