PRIMARY SCHOOL, HYDE

HC Deb 02 March 1955 vol 537 cc2199-210

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.22 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

It is a farcry from the hydrogen bomb to the subject which I wish to discuss tonight. I wish to raise the case of the Oakfield County Primary School, Hyde—a name without a school. I make no apology for detaining the House on this purely constituency matter because my constituents in Hyde are very bitter about the way they have been treated. I do not suppose that there is any school in the country which has been in and out of the building programme with such frequency as this particular school.

I hope that what I have to say tonight will persuade the Minister to reconsider his last decison. Naturally, I am not expecting a promise for a new school to be given in an Adjournment debate, though, of course, I should be delighted if that happened. However, I shall be satisfied with a pledge of reconsideration.

The Minister is acquainted with the history of this case, but I should like to recall to his mind one or two of the main features. The school was first included in the 1950 reserve building programme but was later placed in the 1950 actual building programme. The site for the school was acquired from Hyde Corporation and approved by the Ministry of Education as long ago as January, 1950, though the actual purchase of the site was not completed until 30th December, 1950. Statutory notice of the building of the school was given in February, 1950, and finally approved by the Ministry on 16th May, 1950.

In January, 1951, estimates for the building of the school in "Intercon" construction were approved, but then a further delay occurred because the Cheshire County Council asked the Ministry for an extension of the time limit to enable it to obtain tenders for traditional brick construction. However, even with that delay, the regional building committee authorised a starting date for December, 1951, and the county architect hoped that work would begin in January, 1952. However, in October, 1951, a Conservative Government were elected, and a moratorium was placed on the building of all new schools which had not actually been begun.

We realise, of course, that in this respect we received exactly the same treatment as others, but the fact remains that if there had not been a change of Government the Oakfield County Primary School would by now have been completed. There may be some political advantage for me in that fact, and when one has a very small majority one usually welcomes such a situation, but I am far more concerned about the provision of this very necessary school than with any political advantage.

Apart from various letters between myself and the Ministry of Education, the story then moves on to 30th July, 1953, when, in answer to a Question, the former Minister of Education in formed me that she had included the new school at Newton Hyde in the reserve programme for 1954–55. That decision was not because I had been pressing the claims for this school, nor was it because the Hyde Town Council had made representations through the town clerk. It must have been made on the advice of the officials of the Ministry, who must have been convinced of the need for the school.

One very important fact emerges from the action of the former Minister. It is that the proposed school came within the terms of Circular 245, and, therefore, it should not now be possible to quote that circular against its construction. Some correspondence passed between the Minister and myself during the course of the year, and on 29th July, 1954, I asked a Question in the House as to what extent schools included in the reserve list for one year were included in the actual building programme for the following year.

The Minister replied, and here I quote her exact words: … authorities can assume that it will be included in the following year's main programme unless there has been a marked change in circumstances"— and that has not happened; if anything, the circumstances have deteriorated, for a start has been made with a further 192 houses in that area— or they satisfy me that alternative arrangements can be made to accommodate the children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July. 1954; Vol. 531, c. 671.] I shall refer to that part of the Minister's reply later.

I then asked whether that answer meant that the proposed new school at Newton Hyde would be included in the building programme for 1955–56, and the Minister said that she would have to refresh her memory. I immediately wrote a letter to the right hon. Lady, who informed me, in reply, that the local education authority had satisfied her that the children could be accommodated without the provision of a new school at this stage.

I understand that part of the Minister's case is that the Cheshire Education Committee has not included the Oakfield Primary School in a proposed building programme since 1951–52, and, in a letter which I have here the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education says: When they submitted their proposals for the 1955–56 programme, the Cheshire authority were able to show that, although there would probably be a deficit of 250 or more places at Newton Church of England School, Hyde, by 1958, there would be an overall surplus of primary school places in the area as a whole. I have no evidence about the years 1952–53 or 1953–54, but, in answer to what the hon. Gentleman said in that letter, I would point out that, on 28th September, 1954, the Cheshire County Education Office Staffing Sub-Committee passed the following resolution: That the Hyde and Longdendale Divisional Executive be informed (a) that this school"— that is, the Oakfield Central Primary School— was included in the list of projects submitted to the Ministry of Education by the Authority for consideration in connection with the 1955–56 building programme, and that final information regarding the projects to be included in this building programme is awaited from the Ministry of Education; (b) that all decisions regarding the inclusion, or otherwise, of projects in the Authority's building programme are made by the Minister of Education. So the county education authority have passed the ball to the Minister.

I discussed this question with the hon. Gentleman, who kindly gave me a full statement from the Ministry's standpoint, although I must say that I could not agree with the figures he submitted for the estimated surplus or deficit at various schools. They do not agree with any statistics in my possession, and I have quite a lot.

I then saw the Minister, with very high hopes, because I thought I had a good case, but unfortunately he turned it down. The substance of the Minister's case was that, taking Hyde as a whole, there is sufficient accommodation. I cannot deny that, but I would make the following comments. First, one must take into account the movement of population. Two-thirds of all the new housing in Hyde has been erected in the Newton area and, secondly, one cannot decide, merely by glancing at a map of Hyde that certain schools are suitable alternatives. Children do not travel as the crow flies, they have to follow the normal routes. It is not much use moving people out to the periphery and then bringing large numbers of children back into the congested centre at busy hours.

I would point out to the Minister that, radiating from the centre of the town are important roads to Manchester, Sheffield and Stockport as well as roads busy with local traffic to the neighbouring towns of Dukinfield, Stalybridge, and Ashton.

Then the Hyde Town Council again entered the arena, and I have here a copy of the motion which it submitted to the Minister. I should like to read it: That this Council is profoundly shocked"— I should like to stress those two words "profoundly shocked"— at the decision of the Ministry of Education on information provided by the Cheshire County Council not to include Oakfield County Primary School in the building programme of the Cheshire Local Education Authority for 1955–56. In view of the inadequate accommodation at the only school in the Newton area for the permanently increased population, and the wasteful daily travelling thereby incurred by children from this area to schools in other parts of the borough, this Council requests an urgent reconsideration of the decision. The Ministry, in its reply, reduced to two the schools to provide possible accommodation for excess children, that is, Flowery Field and Leigh Street. In my view the only school which can reasonably be considered along with the present Newton school is Flowery Field. This school—an excellent school, I might say—is a corridor school. By that, I mean that it is impossible to pass from one part of the school to another without going through classrooms. In any case the school is full. When at a recent meeting of the Hyde and Longdendale Divisional Education Committee a member asked how many vacancies there were at this school the answer of the divisional education officer was "None, sir."

I would also refer here again to the further 192 houses which are being erected in close proximity to Flowery Field School. It has been suggested that the position may improve in the future, but let us consider the following details of children under five at present resident in the area. They are, 0-1, 168; 1-2, 150; 2-3, 167; 3-4, 179; 4-5, 179. According to the Cheshire County Education Committee's scheme the intake of children at Newton is limited to 45 and at Flowery Field to 90, making a total of 135 for the two schools.

In order to make myself fully conversant with the problem, I visited Flowery Field and Newton Church of England School. At Newton, one class is, by the co-operation of the managers of the nearby Methodist Sunday School, accommodated there. The fact that the Cheshire Education Committee would be willing to rent further accommodation there if it could be obtained rather disposes of the travel argument.

At Newton, the playground is small, unsuitable because of its size either for games or physical training, and its surface is a danger to life and limb. Cracks are appearing in the building, but I am told it is only the foundations settling. I should have thought that that would have taken place last century. Some improvements have been made internally. Three wash-basins have been installed in one cloakroom and four in another. There was no room for more. There are seven basins, fitted with cold water only, for more than 300 children. As for the lavatories, I should hate to think that any child of mine had to go anywhere near them. The closets are sufficient to give a child a complex for life about the natural functions of the body. The boys' latrine reminds me of a tilted pig trough.

We are very grateful to the Church authorities for their great contribution to the cause of education in this area and the many sacrifices which they have made, but prices have risen, and the Church authorities no longer find themselves able to carry the financial burden. The school, therefore, has become controlled, and the local education authority will be faced with fairly heavy expenditure, even if no new school is provided.

I beg the Minister to have this problem thoroughly investigated on the spot and not to settle it in London merely by looking at a map and a list of statistics. I suggest that whoever undertakes the investigation should take a walk from Flowery Field to Leigh Street, or any other school considered as an alternative, and then imagine the walk being undertaken by a child of five.

I apologise to the Minister for having taken up so much of the time available, but as far as I am concerned the Minister need not long be out of his bed. If he will confine his reply to the one sentence, "We will have another look at the problem," I shall be satisfied. Of course, if he makes his reply briefer and says, "Yes," I shall be still more satisfied.

10.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper)

The invitation of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) is very attractive, but I feel that I must reply to some of the points which he has made tonight. As I think that he is aware, I have considerable sympathy with the case which he has presented to the House. Although I have reason to believe that there are many schools in the country which are needed as much as the school which the hon. Member mentions, I agree that there can be few, if any, where the people concerned have been so near getting what the want only to find themselves repeatedly unfortunate.

I have no cause to disagree in principle with what the hon. Member has said about the history of the school. It is a fact that it was included in the 1950–51 programme, but, owing to construction and cost difficulties, for which my right hon. Friends' predecessor can accept no responsibility, it was deferred until the end of the 1951–52 year, by which time it was overtaken by the recasting of the school building programme.

I am sorry that the hon. Member sought to bring politics into that decision. It was a decision, of course, of this Government, made in the early days. It was made because the school building industry, and the building industry generally was overladen, and steel was in short supply; for this the present Government cannot accept responsibility. However, the decision had the effect of enabling the Government to complete 220,000school places in 1952 compared with 159,000 in 1951. Therefore, from the general educational point of view, the moratorium was effective, but it had the effect of delaying this particular school still further.

When the Cheshire authority came to recast its own school building programme, it decided, in the light of Circular 245, that it could accommodate all the children of primary school age within existing schools and, therefore, for the year 1952–53 it did not resubmit this school.

The next stage, as the hon. Member said, was when my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) decided to include the school in the reserve programme for 1954–55. She did this—this is in reply to the hon. Member's point—because she was provided with local information through the inspectorate that there was a need for the school. However, when the authority came to consider the proposal for 1955–56, it was able to convince the right hon. Lady that provision for the primary children could continue to be made in the existing schools; and for that reason the Cheshire authority did not wish to propose the school high up in its main building programme for that year.

It is a fact that for the programme for 1955–56, which is due to commence in the coming weeks, the Cheshire authority did put forward the school, and for that reason it is mentioned in the estimates. But the school was at the bottom of the list submitted. Every authority in the country puts forward more proposals than can possibly be contemplated, and any proposal that comes forward at the bottom of the list has little or no chance of being included when final approval is given. As Circular 245 was still in operation, it was not possible for the Minister to give approval to the school at the bottom of the programme when the authority itself said that it was able to provide sufficient school places within the area.

Therefore, while I agree with the hon. Member that the school has had an unfortunate history, I do not think he would wish me to decide the case tonight upon that fact alone. It must be decided in the light of present circumstances. It is with these that I now wish to deal.

On 30th November last my right hon. Friend was able to announce considerable advances in the field of school building, the principal among them being that local authorities would now be able to undertake the provision of secondary education for all children in rural areas, and the second one—possibly the more important to the hon. Member—being that authorities could undertake as many minor works—projects up to a ceiling of £10,000—as they wished in the coming years.

But, while it was generally agreed by all interested in education that these two advances—in the direction of secondary education for all and of an extension of the minor works programme—were first requirements, the Circular used these words: The pace at which the advances announced can be achieved and be followed by further advances depends directly upon the strictest control over both current and capital expenditure. We are not yet ready to tackle further projects which would give the hon. Member what he wants, that is, to provide schools either to relieve overcrowding, or because schools are dilapidated or old.

My right hon. Friend, in his speech on 30th November, said that we must get rid of the whole lot and by that he meant the dilapidated and overcrowded schools. But these two categories must take second place to the provision of school places for the additional children and to the completion of provision for secondary education. The alternative is that some children would not be able to go to school at the age of five.

I do not think that the hon. Member has disputed the fact that in the Borough of Hyde there is sufficient overall accommodation for the children concerned. He rests his case on arguing that the accommodation is either unsuitable, or it is old, or it is in the wrong places in the town. It is with those arguments that I now wish to deal.

Of course, I admit that the Newton school is an old school—I think that it is even blacklisted—and as soon as we can replace dilapidated schools that school must be replaced. That is not a matter in dispute, but it is not yet possible, as I have already said, to rebuild schools simply because they are old. Then he argued that it is overcrowded. I have not time to dispute, nor would I wish to, the figures which the hon. Member has presented, but I bring three points to his notice.

First, I do not dispute the fact that there are more children in Hyde schools than is desirable in a perfect world of education. Secondly, I have reason to believe that the position in Hyde is no worse than in any other comparable town or borough in Cheshire, or in many other parts of the country. Thirdly, and I think that this is important—the hon. Member did not mention it—this year is the peak year in primary schools, particularly in Hyde. According to the figures given to me, there will be a fairly rapid drop in the primary school population during the coming years. Therefore, it is difficult on present policy to provide a new school simply because the numbers in the existing school are now above the statutory limit. I have here a list of every class in all the primary schools in Hyde and I admit that some of them are above the maximum, but there is no class in Hyde above the number of 50.

Mr. Blackburn

It is no use considering most of the schools in Hyde as being possible alternatives, because practically all the building is taking place in one area. To get to that area the children have to go through the busy centre of the town, and that is dangerous for young children.

Mr. Vosper

I was coming to that point. I was dealing with the argument that schools are dilapidated and overcrowded.

No child going to any primary school in Hyde has to travel more than two miles, that is to say, they are all within the statutory walking distance. But I fully appreciate that in the Borough of Hyde there are difficulties, because of the nature of the town. I can suggest only that the Minister has power to approve transport where there are special traffic difficulties, or particularly dangerous areas. In the case of Hyde, it is a fact that no application has yet been made for special transport by the local authority.

At the moment, there is no justification for this school on the ground of additional numbers and that is the only way the local authority can justify this school in its coming building proposals. The hon. Member mentioned the construction of new houses, but these are almost entirely for the existing population of Hyde. It is a shift from one portion of the town to the other, admittedly; but the overall school population, according to my figures, will not increase but decrease. As yet there is no firm evidence that the Manchester overspill building, which would completely alter the picture, is likely to develop here.

My right hon. Friend, however, gave the hon. Member this assurance: I have already promised to reconsider the project if there is a major change in the circumstances, and I will certainly keep a close eye on developments in the area. The hon. Gentleman said that what he wanted tonight was reconsideration. That is really not at present within my right hon. Friend's province. The Cheshire Education Committee are meeting to discuss their 1956–57 proposals this week, I understand. I will at least make the promise that I will send a copy of the hon. Member's speech and my reply to the Director of Education, but I can give him no assurance that the authority, in the light of the existing policy, will be able to do what he wishes.

I would only suggest that—while a new school will most certainly be provided as soon as it can be to replace Newton school—to alleviate the present distress to his constituents possibly something could be done to provide transport facilities in the difficult areas, and quite a deal could be done in the form of minor works in those schools not due for replacement, to remedy the conditions which the hon. Member stressed in his final remarks.

I know that that is a disappointing reply, but, in conclusion, I would say to the hon. Member that during the last years the area which he represents has done reasonably well in the provision of schools, and I hope that it will continue to do so.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.