HC Deb 19 April 1962 vol 658 cc677-80
28. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Education what was the total value of the school-building projects submitted by local education authorities for 1963–64; how many projects were involved; what total value and how many projects he has approved; and if he will give the detailed figures relating to Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme, respectively.

Sir D. Eccles

Over England and Wales as a whole about 1,200 projects estimated to cost about £127 million were proposed; actual starts will amount to about 550 projects costing £55 million.

The Staffordshire local education authority submitted for the 1963–64 school building programme thirty-three projects estimated to cost £3,400,000, including four estimated at £450,000 in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Of these, nineteen projects estimated at £1,300,000, including two estimated at £240,000 in Newcastle-under-Lyme, were accepted for the programme.

Mr. Swingler

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shocked reaction in the country to the drastic cuts he constantly makes in local authorities' education proposals? He is constantly talking about the need for more invest- ment but is bringing his axe down on the building programme, which is vital to the future expansion of our education system. Will he not reconsider the proposals which the local authorities have put forward because they are really necessary for the future development of education?

Sir D. Eccles

This is not a new situation. Every year the local authorities put forward proposals—quite rightly, from their point of view—of what they think they need of approximately two and a half times the investment that is available for school building. This is a good thing because it enables us to sort out the priorities with them from one year to the next. The hon. Gentleman's county and the town which he represents have got more than the national average.

Mr. Swingler

How can the Minister know better than those who are serving on the local education authorities what is necessary to provide a better educational service by way of new school building?

Sir D. Eccles

This is not a question of knowing which schools are needed in general but of planning, which I thought the hon. Gentleman supported, namely, bringing the school building programme for any one year within the financial ceiling of the pubic sector of investment.

Mr. Willey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is speaking with two voices; he is setting up a survey of old buildings and, at the same time, is making nonsense of that survey if he discourages local authorities when they put forward their proposals based on present knowledge?

Sir D. Eccles

Not at all. The survey is for a different purpose which, I thought, we might discuss in the debate after Questions.

30. Dr. King

asked the Minister of Education what was the total amount of new school building programmes submitted by local education authorities for 1962–63: and how much of this he has decided to permit.

Sir D. Eccles

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 13th July, 1961.

Dr. King

Is the Minister aware that that Answer showed that there were cuts in that year of a similar magnitude to the cuts in the current programme? Does he realise that the cuts he made outraged educational opinion throughout the country and that even the loyal Daily Telegraph was worried about them? Will the right hon. Gentleman stand up to the Treasury and fight for education? If he does he will have the support of most hon. Members and the whole of the country.

Sir D. Eccles

The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is impossible to plan educational investment unless local authorities ask for more projects than we have money for, which they would do in any case. This is the only sensible way, year by year, to establish the most urgent priorities.

Mr. S. Silverman

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be prudent for the local education authorities to multiply their requests by three in order that the Minister could then divide them by three, so that they would get exactly what they want and he, too, would be satisfied?

Sir D. Eccles

It is remarkable how some local authorities, even within a single county, are realistic while others are totally unrealistic. That is why these global figures do not mean very much.

31. Mr. Willey

asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the school building programme for 1963–64; and whether he will review this programme in view of the representations he has received from local education authorities.

Sir D. Eccles

Since my statement of 27th February on the 1963–64 building programme I have informed the local education authorities of their respective allocations. I cannot increase the programme at present but, as I said in my previous statement, this is a possibility if the longer term economic prospects improve and further investment in the public sector can be authorised.

Mr. Willey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of unrealistic authorities and that over all he has more than halved the estimates put in by the local education authorities and that that, on top of the cuts in minor works, is thoroughly discouraging to the education authorities? Is he aware that they think that they can do this work and that it is only the right hon. Gentleman who is preventing them?

Sir D. Eccles

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. A large proportion of education authorities know quite well that they could not carry out a much bigger programme than that which they are given. I repeat that I have an assurance that if the long-term economic conditions improve and it is possible to add to public investment without overloading the building industry, then education has a very high priority.

Mr. Willey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we want is action now and that it is no good to have programmes approved now unless we can have them finalised now? Is he not aware that it is nonsense to say that London County Council could not carry out the work which it wants to do? He knows quite well that it could if it was allowed to do so.

Sir D. Eccles

The population of London is dwindling and London needs no new schools for additional child population, so that all its allocation is for replacing existing schools. Replacement is not so urgent as schools which are required in areas where children would not otherwise be in school.

Mr. Willey

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.