School Textbook Provision (Hansard, 23 March 1981)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science welcomes the contributions made by many parents towards the provision of additional books for schools. He recognises that, nationally, there are grounds for concern about the levels of book provision in some schools. That is why the Government's public expenditure plans allow for a cumulative 2 per cent. annual increase in local authority spending on books and equipment—a growth of 8 per cent. in real terms by 1983–84.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply and appreciate that parents have always made some contribution to some schools, will 962 the noble Lord please direct his mind to the Question, which was specifically about textbooks? I have evidence in my hand of schoolchildren being asked to provide textbooks for examination classes and so on, and I am also aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was made aware of this as long ago as last October. May I have information on the action that the Government intend to take about textbook provision by parents?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I see nothing wrong in parents contributing towards the cost of additional hooks, provided that contributions are made on a genuinely voluntary basis and provided that the local education authorities are fulfilling their duty under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944.

§ Baroness Bacon
My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this practice will I create an invidious distinction within the schools between those children whose parents can afford to provide books and those whose parents cannot afford to buy them?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it is precisely because the Government share the kind of concern expressed by the noble Baroness that, after a considerable period of falling expenditure on books in schools, the Government, are, as I said in my original reply, now making provision in the rate support grant for a growth in real terms of 8 per cent. on this spending, if the local authorities see fit to do so, by 1983–84.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, does this not really amount to stealing from the next generation? Is that not what we are doing?—nibbling away all the time, asking the parents to produce books, losing teachers. Everything the Government are doing is actually harming the growing generation of young people.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I was seeking in my replies not to bring a political element into this but when the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, says that everything the Government are doing is leading to a situation which gives all of us cause for concern, then I must repeat what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State (in column 448 of Hansard of 5th March), when Mr. Carlisle reminded the House of Commons that spending on books under the previous Government went down in every single year; so that by the end of the previous Government's tenure of office the spending on books was 33 per cent. less in 1978–79 than in 1972–73.
I do not conceal from the noble Baroness that, in addition to that, there has as a matter of fact been a reduction in spending on books last year at a time when the present Government were responsible. I accept that. It is because of this cumulative trend which has gone on that the Government have now made provision for an increase in expenditure on books between now and 1983–84.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, would not the Minister recognise that the parents of children who are not able to afford textbooks are the same people as are much less likely to have books at home for the children to read; so that these children will be doubly disadvantaged 963 and unable to compete with their contemporaries when they come to the harsh world of work? Does not the Minister agree that this pitifully small increase now announced will go nowhere towards meeting this class distinction that the Government are imposing in the schools?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, if the noble Lord had any responsibility for public expenditure, I do not think that he would call a 2 per cent. increase, cumulative over four years, pitiful.

§ Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the only alternative to the Department of Education and Science buying books or the parents buying books is the public libraries; and that the Library Association is much concerned about its present position? Can he give any reassurance that there will not be severe cutbacks by the libraries in total expenditure on books?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance he requires. All I can do is to refer the noble Lord to the White Paper published on 10th March. However, I repeat that I think that the provision which is being made in rate support grant, which bears directly upon the problem referred to in this particular Question, is something which should have some effect.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, may I ask a final question? Does the Minister believe that because the money is put into the rate support grant for this purpose it will be spent for this purpose?—because the same thing happened about the in-service training. How are the Government to monitor that?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, so far as the question of monitoring is concerned, as the noble Baroness knows, the figures come in annually, and that allows everybody to see what expenditure has occurred. It is a fact known from these figures that over recent years, whereas expenditure on equipment in schools has gone up, relative spending on books has not. It will be possible to monitor what is happening from the figures.