§ 24. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education in what terms he requests local education authorities to submit for his approval school building programmes for each year.
§ Sir D. EcclesMajor developments in building policy are announced in circulars from time to time; the most recent was Circular 342 which accompanied the White Paper of December, 1958, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. When there is no change in policy I invite proposals annually in a circular letter referring to the most recent statement of policy.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it not clear that the local authorities are asked to submit programmes which they regard as really essential to meet the educational needs of their area and that the Minister imposes very heavy cuts on these programmes? Should not the Minister either agitate to raise the ceiling and have a bigger programme or else show evidence why the projects asked for by the local authorities are not in his view essential?
§ Sir D. EcclesIt is perfectly true that the limiting factor is the total programme. If the hon. Member wants to attack that, it is something that is worth while discussing. But, having got the total programme, I am bound to try to be fair between one local authority and another.
§ Mr. SwinglerIn view of the right hon. Gentleman's invitation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
§ 27. Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what was the amount requested by all local education authorities for the year 1961–62 for minor works building programmes; and what is the amount by which he has reduced their estimates.
§ Sir D. EcclesFor the years 1961–62 and 1962–63, local education authorities in England and Wales asked for allocations totalling £23.7 million and £22.8 million. have made allocations of £14.2 million and £16.6 million, the latter provisionally. In addition, between £2 million and £3 million in each of the two years is available for work carried out by the managers and governors of voluntary schools and non-maintained special schools.
§ Dr. KingIs the Minister aware that when he raised the figure of minor works programmes the local authorities began excellent programmes which are transforming some of the worst of the older primary schools in the country, and making additions of blocks of buildings to the older secondary schools? Why is he now jeopardising, for the second time in his career as Minister of Education, an excellent programme which he himself started?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe answer is that the building industry has been fully occupied, and is now, in all but a few of the L.E.A. areas. If it is possible to increase the total, I shall be very glad to do it.
§ 28. Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what was the capital cost of the major works building programmes for 1960 to 1962 submitted by local education authorities; and by how much he has reduced their programmes.
§ Sir D. EcclesLocal education authorities submitted proposals for schools costing £214 million for the years 1960–61 and 1961–62 which were dealt with together. The approved programmes for these years amount to £55 million and £60 million. The total of £115 million is higher than for any previous two years.
§ Dr. KingIs the Minister aware that those who, like myself, go around visiting the local education authorities of the country find that practically every local education authority at the moment is in protest against his action in imposing 778 savage cuts on building programmes which they had carefully worked out? Will not he give this matter another thought? Does he not agree that it is better to have new schools, even if it means sacrificing a few new offices in London?
§ Sir D. EcclesThere would be something wrong if local authorities were not protesting against the school building programme, but the fact remains that it is still larger than it has ever been before in our history.
§ Mr. WilleyWould not the right hon. Gentleman recognise his responsibility within the Government and the plain truth that faces us that the Government are not according sufficiently high priority to educational building?
§ Sir D. EcclesNo one can be satisfied, but if the hon. Gentleman will compare my investment programme with that of other Departments, he will see that I do not do too badly.