HL Deb 28 February 1983 vol 439 cc930-1

2.39 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool

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 whether they will remedy the unfair effect of the "capping" of the advanced education pool in 1982–83 on some local education authorities which provide polytechnics.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, the Government do not accept that the method for distributing the advanced further education pool for 1982–83 was unfair to local education authorities which provide polytechnics. But the Government are concerned to secure progressive refinements in the funding arrangements for polytechnics and other colleges: some of these have been introduced for 1983–84.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool

My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl the Minister for his Answer, may I ask him whether he recognises that Liverpool Polytechnic in particular has been affected very adversely by this change of policy? Liverpool Polytechnic, with very little or no fat, has never been a free-spending authority. Does he acknowledge how illogical it seems of Her Majesty's Government to talk of pouring money into Merseyside and to appoint a Minister for Merseyside whose first concern is to regenerate employment and to strengthen good training, while at the same time reducing the rate support grant to Liverpool by £64 million over four years and imposing a new financial system for polytechnics which costs the City of Liverpool an additional £3 million a year for the provision of the polytechnic?

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I always feel rather embarrassed when I have to answer questions about surplus fat, but I shall do my best! May I answer the right reverend Prelate first of all about unfair treatment of the Liverpool Polytechnic? I do not think that this statement is fair at all, because the Liverpool Polytechnic's reduction was only 2.1 per cent., which is just above the minimum provided for, whereas polytechnic cuts throughout the country average 5 per cent., and in other maintained establishments the figure is 9 per cent. I appreciate and absolutely agree with him that Liverpool Polytechnic had been a fairly sensible institution and had not been overspending. That was why the cuts were down so much. Regarding his other question about the special responsibility of the Minister for Merseyside, may I say that the special responsibility which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had for Merseyside does not relieve the local education authority from complying with national policies for higher education which entail substantial reductions in expenditure.

The role of the polytechnic in Liverpool, as of other major establishments in their regions, will, however, certainly be one of the factors to be taken into account in the decisions on the National Advisory Body's planning exercise for 1984–85. In practice, the problem of inner city regeneration needs capital rather than current expenditure. If the right reverend Prelate checks, he will find that Liverpool Polytechnic have done rather well out of this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be ready to consider even more additional specific support in capital provision when the shape of the newly enlarged polytechnic is settled.