HL Deb 24 November 1966 vol 278 cc357-9

3.18 p.m.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making with plans to fulfil their 1964 General Election pledge (given in their Manifesto The New Britain) "to transfer the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer"; and whether they will give an assurance that such plans as they may have will be laid before Parliament in time to become effective by 1st April, 1967.]

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, radical reform of local government finance must await the changes in structure which are expected to result from the work of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Meanwhile the Government have decided, through the Local Government Bill now before Parliament, to relieve the rates by steadily increasing the proportion of local authority expenditure met from the Exchequer.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her the following supplementaries? Do Her Majesty's Government still stand by the words that were used in public by Mr. Wilson over three years ago, when he said: We shall return progressively to a system of specific grants, with first priority for education, notably in the field of teachers' salaries, where the Government must assume a higher proportion."? Secondly, since the total cost of teachers' salaries is now running at about £573 million a year—

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him the context of the quotation he has given?

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, it came from the Socialist Manifesto on Education dated 1963. May I continue the second supplementary? Since the total cost of teachers' salaries is now running at about £573 million a year for England and Wales, with the rates meeting some 40 per cent. of that figure, how do the Government square their undertakings to give early relief and to transfer the larger part of teachers' salaries et cetera, with the actual announced figure of relief for ratepayers for 1967–68, which appears to be a mere £30 million?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, the Government, of course, are not in any way going back on the words in their Manifesto. As I think I indicated, it is simply that they are waiting on the results of this Royal Commission. They have never at any time repudiated this, and there is no change of heart. Actually, the noble Lord's figure was almost correct. It is £600 million; and already, of course, as the noble Lord knows, more than half the cost is met by the Exchequer through the grant system.

If I may also refer the noble Lord to the speech of the Minister when he introduced the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, he there made reference to the change in the grant in relation to the number of child places. While this does not actually affect teachers' salaries, it does mean that there is a change in the amount of money which will be given by the Central Government to local government.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lady for that reply. Arising out of the first part of her answer, did not the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack and who speaks with all the authority that comes from that Woolsack tell your Lordships' House only yesterday that Royal Commissions were the classic method adopted by people who did not want any real reform?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I shall make no attempt to reply to that, but will merely say that the Royal Commission is expected to report in 1968.