HL Deb 05 April 1984 vol 450 cc817-23

4.20 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on education in Inner London, which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement reads as follows: "The Government have been considering the responses to the White Paper, Streamlining the Cities, and the associated consultation documents. We have now reached a decision on the future arrangements for education in Inner London. We think it right to inform the House of this now.

"The White Paper proposed that there should continue to be a unitary education service in Inner London, run by a single education authority. It also proposed that the authority should be a joint board of councillors appointed by the Inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City.

"Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of this House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in Inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly-elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in Inner London, taken together, justify a directly-elected authority in this special case.

"We propose, therefore, that the successor body to the ILEA should be directly-elected. We intend to provide for this in the main legislation abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, to be introduced in the next Session.

"It remains our intention that the new education authority for Inner London should be made subject to statutory review in the light of experience."

My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement. We should like to congratulate the Government on having paid heed to the representations that have been made to them and for accepting the wishes of Londoners to have a directly-elected Inner London education authority. Can we hope that, as they thought it right to accept the wishes of those living in London on the ILEA issue, they may now accept the wishes of those living in London in regard to the GLC? If it is right for the one, why not for the other? And would it not be better and more satisfactory for ILEA itself to be part of an all-purpose authority?

Would the Minister recognise that there will be problems even with the new arrangement? There will be three different administrations running ILEA in three successive years. Surely that will be difficult and disruptive, and will mean a real lack of continuity. There could be only 13 of the present members out of the 48 going on. Could we please have a comment on that?

We are glad that the Government have recognised—and here I quote from the Statement— The nature, scale and importance of the education service in Inner London". Can we take it that the Ministers do agree that there are very exceptional needs that ILEA has to provide for, with a number of different languages for children in schools and so on? Also, may I ask whether the financial arrangements for ILEA will be the same? Will there be any amendment to the Rates Bill to take account of the new situation? Finally, will any boroughs within the existing area be allowed to opt out?

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. It is indeed encouraging that the Secretary of State has responded to widespread pressure for an elected body for education in London. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked: is this a portent of things to come? I attended a recent ILEA public debate and it was quite clear from the comments of all the Conservative members that they thought it would be impossible to combine the duties of ordinary borough council and joint education authority membership, which must be virtually full time. Either the borough or the education would suffer, as boroughs would nominate their least useful members.

There is one important question which has already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady David. If the first election is to be held in 1985 our welcome will be unqualified, but deferment to 1986 would be less welcome because presumably this would require a transitional council and it would mean that ILEA would be subjected to three different administrations in three successive years. That could only be bad for education in London.

Having taken the right course on this issue, for which we congratulate them, will the Government undertake to legislate for elections in London in 1985 and thus ensure a direct and smooth transition from the present body to the new authority? One final question, my Lords: is it intended that the new authority should be able to raise its own rate directly or by precept upon the boroughs?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their responses to the Statement. In reply to the questions they raised—and in the main they tended to be similar ones—the noble Baroness asked "if this why not the GLC?" There can be no doubt that ILEA is in many ways a unique establishment. The fact is that it is a unique establishment in what it spends alone. Even leaving aside what it spends in relation to what it should spend, the fact is that its needs are so great we cannot compare it with any other education body in the country. We cannot even compare it with any of the other composed joint boards. It is truly unique; and when these points were made in the consultation we felt that not only were they very valid in themselves but the people making them—the unbiased people making them—were such that we should give to this the weight that we have given. So we see that there is a difference, and the two things do not necessarily have to go together.

I think the point about having three administrations in three successive years is interesting. I do not accept that it need be disruptive at all, but the fact is that the interim Bill which will be dealing with the other matters pertaining to elections and so on, which I am sure we shall be discussing in your Lordships' House in due course, is not a Bill to impose permanent solutions at all. It is there for a special purpose and we do not feel that would be an appropriate vehicle to do anything of the kind suggested. Of course I do entirely accept, as the noble Baroness says, the exceptional nature of the case—and this is why we are treating ILEA as having special needs: it is not the only reason but it is certainly one of them—and hence the agreement to do it.

As for the financial arrangements, the new ILEA, if I can call it that, will come within the scope of legislation to be presented to this House. It will also be subject to the financial and manpower controls proposed in the White Paper for the first three years of its existence. Thereafter, as I have said, we shall have to see what happens. Will any borough be allowed to opt out? The answer is, no; there is no such intention at all.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the kind of rating authority that it would be. In fact it will be a precepting authority; and rates, as now, will be collected by the rating authorities—in other words, the London boroughs and the City of London. I hope I have answered the questions.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I should not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth but I should like to take the occasion to express my thanks to my noble friend the Minister and also to dissociate myself completely from the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It seems to me that the important thing about this step is precisely that it will enable the citizens of London, and particularly the parents of London, to take account of the educational needs of their children rather than of other local matters, when they come to vote. Because of that, I regret (although I understand the reasons) that a direct rating authority is not suggested, since that would even more cogently bring home to the citizens of London the balance between expenditure on education and the results achieved. Nevertheless, I think that most of my noble friends on this side of the House will have greeted this announcement with enormous pleasure.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I think that all of your Lordships will know of his immense pleasure and interest in this whole subject and I was glad to hear what he said.

Baroness Lockwood

My Lords, I wonder whether, following on the remarks of my noble friend Lady David and of the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, I may ask the Minister if he can throw a little more light on that part of his Statement which refers to the new authority being subject to a statutory review. What would be the timescale for this? I am sure he will appreciate the importance of this, in the light of the fact which he has just admitted, that there will be a period in the next three years when there are three separate authorities administering education in inner London.

May I also ask, on that part of the Statement which refers to a group of people with a close understanding of the needs of education in inner London, whether he includes in that group parents of children in inner London and teaching and non-teaching staff in inner London? Does he agree that it is appropriate that we should record our appreciation of the enthusiasm, the perseverance and the tenacity with which this group of people have pursued the objective of maintaining a directly elected body responsible for education in inner London?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am second to none in my appreciation of and respect for the education lobby, not only in London but throughout the whole of the country. Yes, the parents and those who are concerned with education have always, in my experience, taken a passionate interest in this particular service for reasons which are obvious to all of us—certainly to everyone who is a parent. As regards the review, I think that the noble Baroness will have to wait for the details. The main Bill will contain a provision for review, but I am not today able to give any more detail than that about it.

Viscount Eccles

My Lords, I entirely agree with the decision. When the GLC was formed, my colleagues in the Government wanted to break up the ILEA. I refused and the ILEA went on. But at that time we said that the ILEA would be a success only if the interests of the children were put in front of politics. I am afraid that that has not always been the case since those days. Therefore, may I ask my noble friend whether, when this new body is set up and when people are asked to stand as candidates, he and his colleagues will impress upon them that they must look on London education as something which is for the children, and for those taking other education here as well, and not as a forum for politics? My question to the Minister follows from that. How will he limit the amount of money which I presume the new body can precept on the boroughs? What will be the financial relationship between this elected body and the people who pay the rates, from whom their expenses must come?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend for what he has said and I am sure that, with his particular background and relationship with the ILEA, it will receive special weight. Of course, I so much applaud what he said about what we should like education to be; that is, apolitical. In so far as it is possible to put the emphasis on that being so, this Government will try to do so. But I fear that at the end of the day it will still be the decision of the people who are elected to it to decide the direction in which it will go. As for the financial aspects of it, I said that for the first three years—this is unusual—in the same way as will pertain to the joint boards, the overall budget will have to be approved. That is the first structure. That is because, as we learned in 1973–74, it is those critical first structures and financial budgets that can so often set a financial pattern to follow.

Beyond that, we recognise that when people are elected with one function only to be concerned about there is bound to be extra pressure for special spending. But I would also hope that the people who go on to become members will be people who will be responsible, and who will understand that we cannot always do all that we would like to do when we would like to do it. I have no doubt in my own mind that they will be at least as responsible as any other education authorities—and there are very many in the country—who, although the members have other functions as well, are concerned about that aspect. Clearly, this is a new situation and a new position that we are looking at. All the answers are not there today, but I am pleased with the general reception which your Lordships have given to the proposals.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like to welcome this Statement which I think all of the members on my side at County Hall will be very pleased to do. But I must disagree with my noble friend the Minister when he says that he has great respect for the present education system administered by the ILEA. I have never represented inner London; I have always represented outer London, but I have been an inner London parent and somewhat concerned. I should like to ask him if he can tell me whether there is any prospect of the Government reconsidering the matter of the precept, as that is the one thing that concerns me. There is this risk at the moment that local councils will again be blamed for the high precept, if it continues at anything like the present level of 77p in the pound. I wonder whether there is any thought of changing that?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend Lady Gardner reads Hansard—and I hope very much when I read Hansard—it will show that I did not refer to my respect for the education administered by the ILEA as such. I was referring to the respect which I have for those who administer education generally, and I have a lot of respect for them. I have myself served for many years on a quite sizeable education committee. I understand the concern which my noble friend expressed about finance; and she, too, is experienced in this aspect. It may be helpful if I just say an extra word about it.

Steps will be taken to improve the accountability of the new directly elected body—and all major precepting authorities, come to that—by requiring them to provide certain background information. This will be done by amendment to the Rates Bill. In addition, as announced in the rates White Paper, steps are being taken to improve the accountability of all rating and major precepting authorities to their ratepayers. New rates demand rules will be issued, which will require authorities to show on rate bills the amount due to each major precepting authority, including the newly elected education body. All these changes will now take effect for rate demands applying to the year of abolition 1986–87.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, in his reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the Minister referred to the need for what is, in effect, rate capping during the first three years of the new authority. May I ask him in what sense this is a new authority? Is it the Government's intention that the staff of the Inner London Education Authority shall lose their jobs and have to reapply for them? Is that the position of those with responsibility in schools? Surely the Government's intention cannot be to cause disruption among staff and in the schools, and in that sense is it meaningful to talk about a new authority?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, one can play around with semantics and terms. The staff position is something which will be decided by the members when they are elected. There is no intention at all to cause disruption. Frankly, it is not helpful to talk today about disruption. Disruption does not enter into it. This is about doing something which has received acceptance all round and which I think will generally be welcomed. It has got nothing at all to do with disruption.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the discussion, but yesterday I was invited to visit a deprived school in Inner London. Never having visited one before, I had my eyes opened. One of the reasons why I was asked to go round this school was to try to bend the ears of your Lordships and therefore to make sure that ILEA should continue to be elected. Having visited that school, I should tell your Lordships that we ought to be proud of it. It is a particularly good school. The fact that some of the political announcements of Frances Morrell and her friends have detracted from the quality of some of the education in Inner London schools is something that we should try to put behind us. Can we, therefore, congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues for having come round to the view that it should be an elected rather than an appointed authority?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.