HC Deb 16 March 1961 vol 636 cc1901-10

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

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney (Hammersmith, North)

The subject which I wish to raise tonight is one of great concern to many of my constituents who are members of the Roman Catholic Church. The size of the problem is so great that an answer from the Minister with regard to the provision of further Catholic schools in my constituency would be more than welcome.

As the Minister knows, my constituency is a dormitory area with a highly concentrated population. There are about 220,000 people there occupying an area of about 2,300 acres. Throughout that entire area, there is only one existing Catholic school, a primary school which is already over seventy years old. As a result of lack of accommodation at this existing school, over eighty pupils have to be refused admission annually, and, as a consequence, their education is interrupted and they have to be fostered out to other schools in the locality.

Two years ago, the issue was directed to the primary school only, but since that time my researches into the problem have proved that not only is a primary school necessary but a secondary modern school also is urgently needed.

One of the great difficulties in an area of this character is that almost all the land is built on or claimed for one purpose or another. This matter was taken up two years ago with the L.C.C., through the medium of the Catholic authorities—clergy and school managers. The problem was admitted and its urgency was recognised by the education department of the London County Council. The difficulty of providing a site is still with us, to some extent, although we have at last seen a hope of these children being accommodated.

Large numbers of Irish immigrants are coming into West London. The Government's open door policy towards the Commonwealth has also to be taken into consideration. The majority of those who come from the Commonwealth are of the Catholic faith, and most of them come to the large cities. A lot come to London. This increases the general problem.

The prospect of a piece of land being made available came to my notice about three months ago. The open space at Wormwood Scrubs, comprising some 200 acres, has a parcel of land on the south-east corner, at the back of St. Clement Danes Grammar School, of approximately six acres, and it is vested in the L.C.C. I took this up, by Question and Answer, with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and confirmed that the land was vested in the L.C.C.

This land was loaned to the War Office in 1939 and has been used for training and storage and as a gun site to this day. This means that for twenty years access has been denied to the public, though it might not have been used much by the public even if it had been available. So far as I can trace by talking to people who have lived in the area for forty years, it has never been greatly used.

It is an admirable site for building one or two schools, and for the Catholic authorities it would solve the problem of the education of their children. There is no secondary modern school on the west side of the area for over six miles. There is one available at Fulham, over four miles away, and one in North Kensington, which is outside the immediate catchment area. The problem of both primary and secondary education need not, however, be explained any more by me.

Over eight hundred scholars are being denied the type of education to which they are entitled. In the White City area there is probably the largest conglomeration of flats in any one place in London, housing over 2,000 Catholic families. Mothers have to take their children many miles to a Catholic school, where it is not always possible to admit them.

I ask the Minister to use his endeavours to acquire this piece of land for the purpose I have outlined. I have mentioned the density of the population and the ever-growing problem of concentration. It may be said that this problem will rectify itself in time and that school places will become available in the existing schools; but the present records do not indicate that. The various Ministries concerned should ask what, in justice and equity, should be the answer to this problem. A large body of ratepayers and taxpayers are being denied what they consider to be the proper type of education for their children, with no possible remedy in the foreseeable future. Here there is a strip of land of six acres which would serve a dual purpose.

The Catholic authorities are aware of the provisions of the Act and the necessity for them to find their own site and provide the capital outlay, but here there is land available. The local education authories admit that there is a real problem. What should be the attitude of the Minister? These people cannot continue to be treated in this way. There will be an ever-growing concentration of people removed from slum clearance areas in the East End and from other parts of London, and this process will continue for the next twenty or thirty years. This is the only piece of land in the borough which is suitable. All kinds of suggestions have been made, even to purchasing large houses and demolishing them and placing upon the London County Council the responsibility for rehousing the tenants of such properties.

At a meeting in 1958 the Education Officer of the London County Council said that he would investigate the possibility of using this land, if and when it became available. It will become available within two months. There is no reason why it should not be used for this purpose. The Minister of Education has admitted the existence of this problem. There is no reason why the various Ministries should not get together with the Catholic authorities to remedy this long-standing grievance of my constituents, which will not grow less.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

My hon.. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has spoken so concisely that there is time for me to support him, and he has spoken so effectively that I think it right to do so. I have been watching the Parliamentary Secretary and his appearance has been sympathetic. I have recognised on other occasions that he and the members of his Department have tried to exercise the priorities as fairly as they can, and I hope that in this case the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House that he will intervene, because the most effective point made by my hon. Friend was the availability of the site.

One knows that a practical difficulty in a case like this is that, if an opportunity is lost, it will be a long time before another opportunity arises. For that reason I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he and his Department will use their good offices to see whether the site can be made available in this instance. One knows the difficulties when there is another Department interested in it and when the L.C.C. itself is interested in it, but I think justice would be done in this case if this land were made available for this new school. For that reason, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us, without perhaps committing himself to the result of the negotiations, that his Department is anxious to afford all the facilities and encouragement to see that this site is built upon as soon as possible and a new school provided.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson)

I have listened with great interest and great sympathy to what has been said in the two speeches which have been made, and I approach this problem with a mind which, I hope, is no less sympathetic now than it has been said to have been on other occasions.

There are very few more difficult problems and occasionally contentious ones than the problem of making decisions about what kind of new schools we should provide and where they are to be. The needs of local authorities vary from time to time and from place to place. My right hon. Friend starts with an agreed overall building programme for England and Wales within the limits of which be has to try to satisfy some very varied and differing demands in different parts of the country. His first consideration is and must be always to see that there are sufficient school places available for the total known child population. That is his first job. Places have got to be where they are wanted and when they are wanted, and they must be appropriate to the age and educational needs of the children, with a due regard to the wishes of the parents.

I think: that the House will want to acknowledge the successful efforts the London County Council has made to see that the schools are provided to meet those needs. I am glad to say that in the area to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has referred tonight there is no shortage of school places. Indeed, in some ways, as I shall show in a minute, the particular difficulty to which he has referred is the outcome of the successful efforts of the authority to provide schools to meet the needs before there was any question of establishing a Roman Catholic school.

I must remind the House that my right hon. Friend has not yet received any proposal from the promoters for the establishment in North Hammersmith of a Roman Catholic school under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944.

Mr. Tomney

I understand that has gone in. I have a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in which he says: The Council have not made any provision for this school in the development plan which is now before the Minister but they have said that it has not been possible to define every school site that may be required. This matter has been taken up and is in progress.

Mr. Thompson

I must deal with the statutory position as I know it within my Department, and I must repeat for the benefit of the House, and perhaps for the information of the hon. Member, that there are at this moment no specific proposals in my Department for the establishment of this school under the appropriate Sections of the Education Act. I am aware of the correspondence that has passed between the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and I have copies of that correspondence with me.

I think that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends well know that before the promoters submit specific proposals to my right hon. Friend the recognised procedure is for the promoters to discuss the situation with the local education authority. These initial discussions normally are on such points as the catchment area which the school has to serve, the availability of a site for the proposed school, the estimated numbers of scholars for whom the school would be provided, and so on.

After submitting proposals along these lines to my right hon. Friend under Section 13, the promoters then have to give public notice of their intention to establish a new school. During the two months' statutory period which follows the publication of the notice, ten or more local government electors or the governors or managers of any voluntary school affected by the proposals have an opportunity to submit to my right hon. Friend any objections they may have. Any objections so received are, of course, taken into account before a decision is reached. Before making a decision my right hon. Friend must also be satisfied that the promoters are able and willing to meet the various commitments that they would incur under the Act. This particular case has not yet gone beyond the stage of discussions between the L.C.C. and the promoters, and it cannot get any further until a site has been found for the school.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the duty of the promoters of a new voluntary aided school to find a site, although, of course, it is true—and I am happy to acknowledge it—that local education authorities throughout the country show themselves ready and willing to help in finding sites where they can. This willingness has been no less evident in North Hammersmith than elsewhere in the country, but so far without success. Even before the L.C.C.'s education development plan was drawn up in 1947, the area we are considering this evening was being built up, but the Roman Catholic diocese did not then put forward any proposals to earmark land for a Roman Catholic school site. The subsequent completion by the L.C.C. of the White City housing estate has made the finding of a suitable site even more difficult.

The hon. Gentleman has given the House a number of figures about Catholic children in North Hammersmith. I have no intention of disputing them tonight. These children, however, have plenty of room in neighbouring county schools, so I am assured. I know, and I willingly acknowledge, that many Roman Catholic families hold strongly to the view that education can be provided only in a Roman Catholic School. I respect that view. I have always been convinced that the dual system upon which our educational provision rests has conferred very great benefits upon our society. My right hon. Friend is bound to have regard to the wishes of the voluntary bodies in considering any proposal under Section 13 so far as these wishes are compatible with efficiency and economy in the education service.

But, having said that, I must return to the practical difficulties that face the Roman Catholic families in this area at this time. As I have said, when the White City area started to develop as a housing estate no allocation was made for a site for a Catholic school and no suitable site has since been found. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider the use of the former gun site at Wormwood Scrubs for this purpose. I have looked into this. I learn that the gun site was dedicated to the Council as part of a public open space, subject only to its temporary use, if so required, for military purposes. When those temporary purposes come to an end the land returns to its original purpose as an open space. That is what is happening now. My right hon. Gentleman does not have the power to direct that this land should be used for educational purposes. There might easily be considerable public opposition aroused against the taking of public open land for any other purpose at all. A good deal of thought has been given to examining this question, but, I am sorry to say, without success.

Another suggestion that has been made is that since the Catholic children are accommodated in nearby county schools, and since there is obviously, therefore, room for them, it might be possible to re-arrange the distribution of all the children, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, in a way that would free either a whole school or a sufficient part of a school to enable this to be handed over to the Catholic authorities for their use for the Catholic children of the area. This proposal, too, has been considered by the local education authority; but there are great difficulties here. Children are more than numbers on a school registrar. They cannot be moved about like counters without due regard to their personal interests and convenience. I am told that the numbers of children who would be involved in moves in the process to which I have referred would be large and the amount of disruption and inconvenience would be corresponingly great—if indeed the changes could be accomplished at all.

I must emphasise that any arrangement of this sort must in the first instance depend on the local education authority's initiative. My right hon. Friend has no power to close a county school under Section 13. Nor can he require a local education authority to put part of the premises of a county school at the disposal of a voluntary school under Section 109 as "temporary accommodation". In any case, Section 109 cannot be used to establish an entirely new school in premises provided by the local education authority, but only to extend an existing one.

I hope that I have said enough to assure both the hon. Gentleman and those on whose behalf he speaks that the L.C.C. has devoted much time and care to their appeal. I can only add that the education authority is at present engaged on a comprehensive review of the school provision right throughout its area. I understand that this examination will include the need for denominational schools as well as that for county schools. The needs of North Hammersmith will be taken into account in the course of this investigation.

There is, of course, an important general question underlying the case that the hon. Member has presented, although at the same time somewhat distinct from it. Once proposals for building voluntary schools have reached my right hon. Friend, he must bear in mind two sets of considerations.

Firstly, for those proposals that appear eligible for my right hon. Friend's grant under Sections 102 and 104 of the 1944 Education Act and under various Sections of subsequent Education Acts, the normal building programme priorities, as I have often explained to the House, must apply. I am sure the House will realise that it is just not practicable at present to programme proposals to meet denominational needs which at the same time are not essential on grounds of general needs in a particular area. My right hon. Friend cannot give preference to such proposals as these over those needed, for example, to provide additional places in areas of new housing or to reorganise all-age schools.

Mr. Tomney

The existing schools in North Hammersmith more than meet the situation regarding scholars. In regard to the availability of land, I would point out for the Minister's information and for the record that there are two other sites in the borough, one of about two acres which is occupied by prefabs, and one in Wood Lane which is occupied by the Parachute Regiment.

Mr. Thompson

I am pressed for time, as the hon. Gentleman realises, but what he says illustrates how vitally important are these stages which I have gone through, and which may seem a little long drawn out, and how essential they are. It is precisely because proposals of that kind might come forward that the matter should be discussed with the local authority in the first place. Quite clearly, any site occupied with prefabs, for example, at the present time cannot possibly be the concern of my right hon. Friend unless it is that the powers of the Education Department are much wider than have so far been revealed to me. These are very much matters that concern the promoters and the local education authority.

I was coming to the second of the two considerations that my right hon. Friend has to bear in mind in considering proposals of this kind. My right hon. Friend has to consider voluntary school proposals that are not eligible for his grant and that do not, therefore, have to find places in annual building programmes. In considering these proposals my right hon. Friend has to be guided by the wording of Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944. Precisely where the balance is struck between the parents' wishes, efficiency and economy, must depend partly on the facts of the particular proposal, partly on the circumstances of the time when it comes forward, including just how much of the national resources we can devote to educational building.

My right hon. Friend's practice is to examine each of these outside-theprogramme proposals very carefully and see what the additional cost of maintaining the new school would be. He has, as I have said, to be satisfied that they would be consistent with reasonable economy and efficiency. My right hon. Friend is not in a position to predict what the circumstances will be ten or twenty years hence, or where his successors will strike the balance.

I can only repeat the assurances that I have given before to the House about our determination, as expressed in the White Paper "Secondary Education for All," to see that the denominations continue, and are helped to continue, to play their full part in providing educational facilities. I am sorry that I cannot add anything that will be immediately helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I hope that he will believe that their wishes are not being overlooked or lightly cast aside.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.