§ 6. Mr. Win GriffithsTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of total expenditure was devoted to education in 1980–81, 1984–85, 1988–89 and 1992–93.
§ The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo)For the years in question, the percentages of total expenditure devoted to education were 11.8 per cent., 10.7 per cent., 11.8 per cent. and 11.9 per cent.
§ Mr. GriffithsI thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that our spending on education as a percentage of total expenditure is not as high as that of most of our competitors and that, in particular, we have a dismal record on nursery education on which we need to spend far more in order to give our children the best possible start in life?
§ Mr. PortilloThe hon. Gentleman heard the figures that I gave, which I do not think he expected, and I spared his blushes by not mentioning that the number of schoolchildren had fallen by 1 million during that period, so that expenditure per child had risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman is interested in international comparisons. He might think that education was of a high standard in Germany and Japan, but the percentage of gross domestic product spent in Germany and Japan was 3.2 per cent. and here it is 4.8 per cent.
§ Mr. FormanIs it not abundantly clear from my right hon. Friend's exchange with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that my right hon. Friend shot the hon. Gentlman's fox? Is it not equally clear that the Government believe in investing in human capital and 1261 have had consistent policies to that end over the past 15 years? Are they not right to insist that those who benefit directly from higher education should bear a greater proportion of the burden?
§ Mr. PortilloMy hon. Friend is well placed to comment on those matters. He knows that we have increased the proportion of our young people in higher education to about one in three, which is a rise from one in eight in 1979. He also knows that the number of young people participating in further education will increase by about 250,000 in the next three years.
My hon. Friend says that it will be right for students to bear a greater share of the burden. We certainly believe that where the state provides means-tested help for students' maintenance, it is right that students should make a greater contribution by taking a greater proportion of their funding through loans that are repayable if they find employment at about the average level of earnings. I am sure that that is fair and just. It enables us to make that enormous increase in educational provision.
§ Mr. Andrew SmithHow on earth does the Chief Secretary square what he has just said with the reports of his views that the target of one in three need not be met and that the country does not need that many graduates by the year 2000? He believes in putting the right-wing dogma of cutting expenditure over the needs of education. He said that he wanted to impose the cost of education on students. Does not that show that he puts the dogma of right-wing Tory ideology over the need for investment in education and opportunities?
§ Mr. PortilloI shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I think is important. So far, all the discussion has been about how much money we are putting into education. There should also be a discussion about the quality that we get out of education, the number of people whom we educate and the qualifications with which we put them into the outside world. The hon. Gentleman cited certain of my views. If he has the documents in which I stated them, he should lay them on the table. If not, he should stop indulging in gossip.