CONFIDENTIAL
THIS DOCUMENT I S THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
c
(83) 7
1 8
COPY NO
March 1983 CABINET
FUTURE OF THE INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY Memorandum by the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r E d u c a t i o n and Science
^
e
I n n e r London E d u c a t i o n A u t h o r i t y (ILEA) d e t a i l s a t Annex A i s g a l l y a s p e c i a l committee o f the G r e a t e r London C o u n c i l (GLC) . The V o l i t i o n o f t h e GLC would open the way f o r i m p r o v i n g the arrangements f o r d u c a t i o n i n i n n e r London. I recommend a scheme which r e t a i n s t h e advantages °f what e x i s t s and removes i t s w o r s t d e f e c t s . l e
e
a
A s i n g l e e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e whole o f i n n e r London has dvantageous i n two i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s :
proved
1• I t has secured f u r t h e r and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , much o f i t s e r v i n g s t u d e n t s f r o m f a r beyond i n n e r London, which i s d e s p i t e some n o t o r i o u s blemishes i n g e n e r a l good and e c o n o m i c a l l y r u n . 2. I t s e r v e s , much more than t h e GLC, as an i n s t r u m e n t f o r r e d i s t r i b u t i n g f o r l o c a l government purposes t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l y h i g h r a t e a b l e r e s o u r c e s o f Westminster and t h e C i t y o f London: some £400 m i l l i o n a y e a r , which c o u l d o t h e r w i s e be o b t a i n a b l e o n l y f r o m a Government imposed l e v y on these two a u t h o r i t i e s , o r f r o m t h e Exchequer o r o t h e r , p o o r e r , l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s o u t s i d e London, i s made a u t o m a t i c a l l y a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h e e d u c a t i o n p r e c e p t f o r i n n e r London. A
BETTER SINGLE AUTHORITY
3 * n
But as now c o n s t i t u t e d t h e s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y has shown g l a r i n g weaknesses. P a r t i c u l a r i t s s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y t h e secondary s c h o o l s , are n o t p e r f o r m i n g
Wei i
j
.
.
d e s p i t e v e r y h i g h e x p e n d i t u r e and much w a s t e . To t a c k l e t h i s problem I Prop . 1. That t h e ILEA s h o u l d be r e p l a c e d by a J o i n t Board, c o n s i s t i n g e n t i r e l y o f nominees o f t h e 12 i n n e r London boroughs and t h e C i t y o f London. The a u t h o r i t i e s whose r a t e p a y e r s pay t h e e d u c a t i o n p r e c e p t would t h e n i n e f f e c t be r e s p o n s i b l e a l s o f o r t h e e d u c a t i o n element i n t h e i r r a t e l e v y . T h i s b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r o f m a n a g e r i a l and f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s bound t o encourage a g r e a t e r degree o f f i n a n c i a l Prudence. 0 s e
2
T h a t , i f we do n o t decide t o i n t r o d u c e c o n t r o l s on l o c a l a u t h o r i t y r a t e s o r e x p e n d i t u r e , we should c o n s i d e r making the J o i n t Board s Precept s u b j e c t t o c o n t r o l by t h e h o l d e r o f my o f f i c e . This
'¥L
| I
I CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
e x c e p t i o n a l measure i s j u s t i f i e d on t h e ground t h a t , as a u n i q u e l y l a r g e
s i n g l e - p u r p o s e p r e c e p t i n g a u t h o r i t y w h i c h was n o t d i r e c t l y e l e c t e d , the
J o i n t Board ought t o be s u b j e c t t o an a p p r o p r i a t e and w h o l l y
e x c e p t i o n a l e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l . The burden o f t h u s becoming i n v o l v e d i n
the a u t h o r i t y ' s p o l i c i e s w o u l d , I b e l i e v e , be w o r t h the g a i n o f
g r a d u a l l y b r i n g i n g e d u c a t i o n e x p e n d i t u r e i n i n n e r London under c o n t r o l .
More d e t a i l e d work would be needed b e f o r e t h i s p r o p o s a l c o u l d be
implemented.
I do n o t recommend t h e a l t e r n a t i v e course o f a b o l i s h i n g a s i n g l e
e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y f o r i n n e r London. The n a t u r a l way o f d o i n g t h i s would be
t r a n s f e r e d u c a t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t h e e x i s t i n g a u t h o r i t i e s - the i n n e r
London boroughs - so t h a t t h e y would have t h e same f u n c t i o n s as the o u t e r
London boroughs; t h e C i t y o f London has t o l d us t h a t i t would n o t w i s h t o be
an e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y . A few i n n e r London boroughs, l i k e W e s t m i n s t e r , and
Kensington and Chelsea, c o u l d be expected t o become e f f i c i e n t e d u c a t i o n
a u t h o r i t i e s a f t e r t h e upheaval o f t r a n s f e r . But most o f them - Lambeth,
Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich, Camden, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and I s l i n g t o n I ^ l i k e l y t o make as poor a j o b o f e d u c a t i o n as t h o s e o u t e r London boroughs,
ike Newham and B a r k i n g , whom t h e y most resemble, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e they w i l l
nave t o cope w i t h such s p e c i a l problems o f f a l l i n g s c h o o l r o l l s and the
u c a t i o n °f e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s and v a r i o u s l y handicapped c h i l d r e n .
t o
a
e
• U s
Having no s i n g l e e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y f o r i n n e r London would a l s o d e p r i v e
of the advantages mentioned i n paragraph 2.
1. We would g r a t u i t o u s l y b r e a k up arrangements f o r f u r t h e r and h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n w h i c h , a p a r t f r o m t h e w e l l - k n o w n b l e m i s h e s , no-one has
criticised. I t would make no sense t o s e p a r a t e f u r t h e r and h i g h e r
e d u c a t i o n f r o m s c h o o l s eg by l e a v i n g i t w i t h a s i n g l e j o i n t board and
t r a n s f e r r i n g o n l y schools t o t h e boroughs. A l l these a s p e c t s of
e d u c a t i o n a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d and ought t o be r u n by t h e same a u t h o r i t y ,
as t h e y always have been i n England.
2. We would saddle o u r s e l v e s w i t h t h e r e s o u r c e e q u a l i s a t i o n p r o b l e m
which h a v i n g a s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y s o l v e s a u t o m a t i c a l l y . As Annex B
e x p l a i n s , we m i g h t , f o r example, have t o o b l i g e Westminster and t h e
C i t y t o pay over something l i k e £400 m i l l i o n t o o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s on t h e
b a s i s o f c r i t e r i a w h i c h we would have t o i n v e n t and d e f e n d .
a V e
Nor can I recommend two v a r i a n t s o f a b o l i s h i n g a s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y w h i c h
been suggested:
It To c r e a t e , say, t h r e e j o i n t b o a r d s , each composed o f nominees o f s e v e r a l i n n e r London boroughs. An a r t i f i c i a l arrangement w h i c h no P r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e commends would be h a r d t o d e f e n d . I t would s t i l l n e e d l e s s l y d i s r u p t t h e f u r t h e r and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n arrangements. I t would n o t s o l v e the r e s o u r c e e q u a l i s a t i o n p r o b l e m , because Westminster would a u t o m a t i c a l l y f i n a n c e o n l y t h e group o f w h i c h i t was a member, and we c o u l d h a r d l y f o r c e t h e C i t y w h i c h does n o t want t o become an e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y t o j o i n and f i n a n c e a second group. 2. To a l l o w i n d i v i d u a l boroughs t o o p t o u t o f t h e s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y
c o u l d c r e a t e a c a p r i c i o u s and d i s o r d e r l y r e s u l t . I t would l e a v e us w i t h
the r e s o u r c e e q u a l i s a t i o n problem s i n c e W e s t m i n s t e r and the C i t y would
2
L
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
c e r t a i n l y o p t o u t . There a r e grave dangers f o r London and elsewhere i n
a precedent which a l l o w s t h e c u r r e n t l y r u l i n g p a r t y i n a l o c a l
a u t h o r i t y , and n o t P a r l i a m e n t , t o determine t h e p a t t e r n and f u n c t i o n s o f
l o c a l government.
A b o l i t i o n o f a s i n g l e a u t h o r i t y , however e f f e c t e d , has one c r u c i a l
P o l i t i c a l disadvantage. As i n 1981, i t s p u b l i c l y p r o c l a i m e d p o s s i b i l i t y
W o u l d u n l e a s h an o r c h e s t r a t e d p r o t e s t campaign which many p a r e n t s would
support; t h i s would r o b us and o u r P a r l i a m e n t a r y s u p p o r t e r s i n London o f t h e
kudos o f a b o l i s h i n g t h e GLC. My p r o p o s a l s i n paragraph 3 above, though b o l d ,
W o u l d n o t hand o u r opponents a ready-made i s s u e on a p l a t e .
b
My p r o p o s a l s would e n t a i l l e g i s l a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e f f o r t . But
°th would be much l e s s c o m p l i c a t e d and e x t e n s i v e t h a n i f we a b o l i s h e d a
n g l e a u t h o r i t y , and would improve o u r chances o f a c h i e v i n g t h e t i m e t a b l e
have s e t o u r s e l v e s .
S l
W e
CONCLUSION
^'
I i n v i t e my c o l l e a g u e s t o agree t h a t :
1. I f t h e GLC i s a b o l i s h e d , a s i n g l e l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y
c o n s t i t u t e d as a j o i n t board should r u n e d u c a t i o n i n i n n e r London
(paragraph 3 ( 1 ) ) .
2. We s h o u l d c o n s i d e r making t h e J o i n t Board's p r e c e p t s u b j e c t t o
c o n t r o l (paragraph 3 ( 2 ) ) .
K J
Ue
P a r t m e n t o f Educat i o n and Science
1 8
March 1983
3
L
CONFIDENTIAL
r
8
(CONFIDENTIAL) ANNEX A I N S T I T U T I O N AND F U N C T I O N S O F
^6
<
s
'
3
I
ILEA
ILEA i s t h e l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e a r e a c o v e r e d by
t r^ y o f London and t h e 12 i n n e r London Boroughs. I t i s a
a l committee o f t h e GLC, i t s membership c o n s i s t i n g o f :
C l
a l l o f t h e (35) c o u n c i l l o r s e l e c t e d t o t h e GLC from t h e
i n n e r London a r e a ;
1 ,
i-
one member a p p o i n t e d by e a c h o f t h e 12 Boroughs and t h e
C i t y from amongst t h e i r own members.
e<3u J a n u a r y 1981 I L E A was p r o v i d i n g p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y
257 n ' p u p i l s ( E s s e x , t h e n e x t l a r g e s t LEA, had
arid P u p i l s ) and f u r t h e r and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o r 140,000 f u l l
sp * ? - t i m e s t u d e n t s . L i k e o t h e r LEAs i t makes p r o v i s i o n f o r
S e ^ e d u c a t i o n , a d u l t e d u c a t i o n (300,000 s t u d e n t s ) , t h e y o u t h
and t h e c a r e e r s s e r v i c e .
C
t i o n
f
o
r
3
1
4
0
0
0
a r t
e
a
r
l
v
l
c
e
3.
S •'•LEA m a i n t a i n s 45 n u r s e r y s c h o o l s , 812 p r i m a r y s c h o o l s , 179 hig£ Y s c h o o l s , 112 s p e c i a l s c h o o l s , 27 c o l l e g e s o f f u r t h e r and cinrj ^ e d u c a t i o n , 30 a d u l t e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t e s , 116 y o u t h c e n t r e s te^ov. ks,' r e s i d e n t i a l s p o r t s and o u t d o o r c e n t r e s , 2 museums, 54 Lond. ' 24 c a r e e r s o f f i c e s . I t a l s o g r a n t - a i d s t h e 5
e , ^ . P o l y t e c h n i c s and g i v e s f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o 8 s p e c i a l i s t
-•-ishments o f f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n .
6 c q
n d a r
e
ers
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
a
n
d
0
s t
4
-
T 1 9
(in i c
u
. 80/81 full-time equivalent staffing levels d i n g s t a f f i n the p o l y t e c h n i c s ) were:
teaching others
staff
33,500 32,200
i n ILEA
5.
t h e ST ^ ^ i budget and f i x e s i t s own p r e c e p t (which ^ Y b e h a l f ) . I t s n e t budgeted e x p e n d i t u r e i n
Of 7i i s around £775m, f i n a n c e d l a r g e l y on t h e b a s i s o f a p r e c e p t
^ite ?* s compared w i t h a GRE o f £514m. B l o c k g r a n t i s not p a i d
^oid-h / 8 3 t h e i n n e r London Boroughs r e c e i v e d , a f t e r
k , no b l o c k g r a n t i n r e s p e c t o f e d u c a t i o n .
e
a s
t
t
o
A
<
e
r
m
l e v
:
L
n
e
o
s
n
to
i
t
s
w
n
s
3
T
h
i
c
t
Q
I
L
E
I
n
1 9 8 2
a c
I
(CONFIDENTIAL)
.
:
I
(CONFIDENTIAL") T l i E
FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN INNER LONDON
T l i E
PRESENT POSITION
„
,
I
c!
ILEA'S p l a n n e d n e t e x p e n d i t u r e o f some £775m i n 1982/83 w i l l be
ariced w h o l l y from t h e r a t e s . I t w i l l r e c e i v e no g r a n t b e c a u s e i t s
P e n d i t u r e w i l l be o v e r 50% above i t s GRE and, under t h e b l o c k
fit a r r a n g e m e n t s , i t t h e r e f o r e i n c u r s n e g a t i v e m a r g i n a l r a t e s o f
nt. ( i f i t were t o spend a t i t s GRE o f o v e r £500m i t would
red^ £100m i n g r a n t w h i c h , a s t h i n g s s t a n d , i s
t r i b u t e d to other a u t h o r i t i e s . )
2. " The r a t e income r e q u i r e d t o f i n a n c e I L E A i n 1982/83 w i l l not be
West w e e n t h e Boroughs. B e c a u s e t h e C i t y and
i n s t e r i n p a r t i c u l a r have s u c h h i g h ( m a i n l y n o n - d o m e s t i c )
te ^^ r e s o u r c e s , t h e y w i l l c o n t r i b u t e f a r i n e x c e s s o f what i s
Un
r % o f I L E A ' S p o p u l a t i o n t h e y c o n t r i b u t e about 50% o f i t s
Gor ""k° income. P o o r e r Boroughs, l i k e Wandsworth, c o n t r i b u t e
spondingly less.
V S
w
e
l
1
s
h
a
r
t
o
o
v
e
r
l s
e
e
d
D e t
t m
r a t
e
e
a
r e d
e r
n
a
n
c
e
1 0
a t
6
rne
r r e
3, T
th h e r e i s a l s o a s e p a r a t e scheme f o r t h e r e a l l o c a t i o n o f some o f
Gov i t s o f London's h i g h r a t e a b l e v a l u e s under t h e London
t ^ - ^ e n t A c t 1963. The C i t y and W e s t m i n s t e r c o n t r i b u t e some £60m
t scheme; a l l o t h e r i n n e r Boroughs b e n e f i t . The form o f
" th vJ h a r i n g o p e r a t e d under t h i s scheme i s however u n r e l a t e d t o
ty , " l o c k g r a n t p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e t o t a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s by
^ and t h e C i t y f a l l f a r s h o r t o f t h e amounts t h a t would be
*"ed by f u l l e q u a l i s a t i o n p r i n c i p l e s .
e
n
e
f
0
l s
e v
Ue
s
e
6s
t e
i
n
S
t
e
r
l
T'HE
PROBLEM OF BREAK UP
4.
t . V o l i t i o n o f t h e GLC and I L E A and t r a n s f e r o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s
tr ® Boroughs ( o r o t h e r s u c c e s s o r b o d i e s ) would a l s o l e a d t o t h e
ned ° a p p r o p r i a t e s h a r e s o f GRE and o f t h e poundage
^ot i * , s a l r e a d y noted, f o r W e s t m i n s t e r and t h e C i t y t h e
bei r a t e poundage t h a t t h e y need t o l e v y f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s i s
s ^ the n o t i o n a l r a t e poundage i m p l i e d by t h e b l o c k g r a n t poundage 9ov n e g a t i v e g r a n t e n t i t l e m e n t , a new p r i n c i p l e i n l o c a l
»6e,3 t f i n a n c e p r o h i b i t e d by p r e s e n t l e g i s l a t i o n , would be
J?o c, P e l W e s t m i n s t e r and t h e C i t y t o l e v y t h e n o t i o n a l r a t e i m p l i e d by t h e s c h e d u l e . T h i s d i v e r g e n c e would be widened •^EA a n s f e r o f f u n c t i o n s t o t h e Boroughs. F o r 1982/83 GLC and We ^ l e v y i n g p r e c e p t s o f 34.8p and 71p f o r t h e i r f u n c t i o n s . B u t sh s t e r and t h e C i t y c o u l d p r o b a b l y pay f o r t h e i r own d e v o l v e d °f t h o s e f u n c t i o n s w i t h l o c a l r a t e s o f about 29p and l p r
a n
Sc
f
l
e
t
B u t
h
e
a
u
0
c
u;i
e ;
e
r
rnmen
c o m
utl(
t r
a r e
s
l n
a r
Sn
P e c
5, n
e s s
from ? ^ o t h e r m e a s u r e s were t a k e n , t h e t r a n s f e r o f f u n c t i o n s
ub GLC and I L E A t o t h e Boroughs would t h u s r e s u l t i n v e r y
^c»t ^ t i a l b e n e f i t t o W e s t m i n s t e r and t h e C i t y (and t o any o t h e r
^na e? 9°ing out o f b l o c k g r a n t i n c l u d i n g Camden and K e n s i n g t o n
etif ' " ) • i s e x t r a b e n e f i t would o f c o u r s e be r e d u c e d t o t h e
t h a t some f u n c t i o n s o f GLC and I L E A were l e f t t o j o i n t b o d i e s
^hd - ^ e p t i n g powers t h a t would s p r e a d t h e r a t e burden a c r o s s h i g h
° r e s o u r c e a r e a s o f London.
s
e
s t
a
0
ejct
l
r e c
w
S e a
T n
I
(CONFIDENTIAL) I
6. I f i t were d e s i r e d t o p r e v e n t t h e s e u n c o v e n a n t e d b e n e f i t s f° t h e h i g h r e s o u r c e a u t h o r i t i e s from a r i s i n g , and a s s u m i n g t h a t a s y s t e m o f n e g a t i v e b l o c k g r a n t s f o r h i g h r e s o u r c e o r h i g h spendi ? a u t h o r i t i e s i s s t i l l r u l e d o u t , i t would be n e c e s s a r y t o make mo extended use o f arrangements t o e q u a l i s e r a t e burdens w i t h i n London. S e c t i o n 6 6 ( 1 ) o f t h e London Government A c t 1963 a l r e a d y g i v e s t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t v e r y w i d e power make "a scheme o r schemes f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r e d u c i n g d i s p a r i t i e s ^
t h e r a t e s l e v i e d i n d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g a r e a s o f g r e a t e r London";
i n p r i n c i p l e t h i s might be u s e d t o o b t a i n c o n t r i b u t i o n s from ^ W e s t m i n s t e r and t h e C i t y ( a n d o t h e r London a u t h o r i t i e s o u t o f
g r a n t ) f o r l o w e r r e s o u r c e London Boroughs.
11
tJ
3
a
7. The s c a l e o f s u c h c o n t r i b u t i o n s would however be much g r e a t ^ t h a n t h e p r e s e n t l i m i t e d London e q u a l i s a t i o n scheme. The p r e s e n t
and I L E A p r e c e p t s c a n be r e g a r d e d a s t r a n s f e r r i n g about £490m
1982/83 from W e s t m i n s t e r and t h e C i t y t o t h e r e s t o f London. Una
t h e new a r r a n g e m e n t s t h e s e t r a n s f e r s would h a v e t o be made
e x p l i c i t l y by t h e e q u a l i s a t i o n scheme, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e presen
t r a n s f e r o f some £60m. I t seems l i k e l y t h a t t r a n s f e r s on t h i s would r e q u i r e a much more p r e c i s e p o l i c y r a t i o n a l e t h a n t h e p r e scheme, t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f w h i c h might need t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d i s t a t u t e . T h e r e i s no o b v i o u s f o r m u l a on w h i c h a s a t i s f a c t o r y
t e r m p o l i c y c o u l d be b a s e d .
s
t
s
n
l o n y
17 March 1983
2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
