School Buildings: Condition (Hansard, 19 November 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, we keep no detailed information on the state of school buildings, which are the responsibility of local education authorities and governors of voluntary aided and grant maintained schools. Plans submitted by LEAs and governing bodies in connection with bids for capital expenditure on schools, to which the DES responds with annual capital guidelines and grants to voluntary-aided schools, provide an indication of needs.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the deep concern among the people involved regarding the deterioration in the fabric of many schools in the public sector? Bearing in mind that the city technology colleges are to receive £31 million in the current financial year for their building programme, would it not be fair and just for the local authorities to be allowed to operate under the same system? Is the Minister aware that if that happened it would substantially reduce the number of schools that require their fabric treating, which would be to the benefit of all?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord is suggesting that local authority and maintained schools should operate under the same system; in other words, that they should be allowed to raise substantial sums of money from the private sector. That is what happens with CTCs. Regarding the maintained sector, it is estimated that £2.6 billion was spent between 1986–87 and 1989–90 against deficiencies identified at £2 billion.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government have abandoned targets that they set in legislation introduced in 1981 to bring schools up to standard by 1991? Is the Minister aware that that condemns many pupils and teachers to work in appalling and squalid conditions in our schools?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Baroness is, I believe, referring to the premises regulations that were required to be in place by 1991. They are under review for a number of reasons. One reason is that priorities have changed substantially over that time; for example, the building of changing rooms may not be a priority compared with the updating of science laboratories to conform with the national curriculum. 566 It is therefore timely to consider possible extension of the dates and to consider priorities within that extension.

§ Baroness Fisher of Rednal
My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are not aware of the problem of disrepair in school buildings? From my own knowledge I can say that schools have closed in Birmingham because roofs fell in and because toilets were still located outside in school playgrounds. A whole host of other reasons exist. Even when a school is burnt down through arson there is great difficulty finding the money to replace it. Surely the Government obtain information of that kind. Or are they not aware of the problems that exist throughout the country?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the Government are well aware that there are problems regarding the repair of public buildings. However, the rise in expenditure from £352 billion in 1989–90 to £485 billion represented a 37 per cent. increase; the rise from 1990–91 to the coming year 1991–92 is a further 11 per cent.; and the increase per pupil over a period of 10 years has been 16 per cent. in real terms. That is an indication that the Government recognise that more resources are required.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, the noble Baroness quotes many figures. Has the Minister actually visited any schools recently? The best evidence is that obtained with our own eyes. Does the noble Bareness not agree that if one visits a large number of schools in our country one sees that they are desperately in need of refurbishment? Is it not also the case that that is an extremely efficient way to invest our resources? If we do not refurbish them they will fall down, and the cost in due course will be that much higher.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have visited a large number of schools over the past 14 or 15 years. I am aware of a number of matters. One is that the management of maintenance in some authorities is better than in others. There is therefore an issue of management of funds. There is also an issue regarding how those funds that are received are applied. The noble Lord criticises me for quoting statistics. The statistics I used are actual statistics; they represent real moneys going to schools to address this very problem.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my first question I was attempting to establish the different criteria used for city technology colleges as against local authority education establishments, bearing in mind the distribution of government funds? I was not speaking of the private sector. I was suggesting that if the local authorities were financed in the same way it would go a long way towards helping them reduce the serious and adverse conditions that exist in some schools. Will the Minister plead with the Secretary of State for something to be done in that regard?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, perhaps I may correct something I said earlier. I believe I used the word "billions" when I should have said "millions". However, the £31 million mentioned by the noble Lord needs to be set against the £538 million which is 567 the amount put into the maintained sector. The manner in which the Department of Education and Science sympathetically considers the use of 100 per cent. of capital receipts when specific projects are presented to it for consideration should also be taken into account.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, in the 'fifties, when many schools were built, they were admired by many European countries and educational officers from Europe came to see them. Are those schools in need of maintenance or does the undoubted problem very properly raised this afternoon concern only buildings erected at the beginning of the century?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, there are a number of problems, not least those of poorly-designed schools built much later than the beginning of this century—that is to say, in the late 1950s, the 1960s and 1970s. There are considerable problems, particularly involving schools with flat roofs. Management resources constitute a very real issue. Some authorities have a very good record of managing resources. Clearly, buildings erected at the beginning of the century and before will be in need of restructuring.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, does the Minister really believe that it is acceptable to spend as much as £31 million on buildings and repairs for CTCs, which represent a tiny handful of institutions, compared with only £500 million plus spent on every other school in the country? Does she not agree that that ratio is utterly absurd?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I do not know where the figure of £500 million comes from. The figure of £538 million incorporates restructuring of buildings and the provision of new buildings besides some refurbishment. The figure of £31 million I have not confirmed or otherwise. I simply accepted it from the noble Lord. It is not a figure that I have to hand. The amount of private money that has gone into setting up CTCs is to be commended. The noble Baroness would support a policy of taking the CTCs out of the system altogether. Where the CTCs have been established they are very popular with the local population. They are highly over-subscribed. My hope is that industry, commerce and the DES will continue to support them.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this expenditure lies within the remit of central and not local government?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble friend is not quite correct. The overall allocation is distributed by central government, but the actual deployment of those moneys is very much a matter for local government. The determination of priorities is also a matter for local government.