§ 11. Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education which local education authorities did not receive any allocation on the 1963–64 building programme.
§ Sir D. EcclesTwenty-seven authorities have received no allocation in the 1963–64 educational building programme. 1180 I will, with permission, circulate a list of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. FitchIs the Minister aware that the Wigan education authority is one of those mentioned? Will he see that in the next allocation it receives something? Otherwise, how can he expect the children of Wigan to receive a satisfactory education?
§ Sir D. EcclesI am aware of that. I also understand that the Wigan authority is reconsidering its proposal to plan to extend the boys' grammar school, and I shall be willing to consider revised proposals if they are put to me.
§ Mr. WilleyWill the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at least he will reconsider this part of his cuts in the programme? Can he tell the House what are the architectural staffs of these authorities whose allocations are completely destroyed.
§ Sir D. EcclesThere are always some authorities which have no programme. Indeed, there is one authority which did not even ask for one.
§ Following is the information:
| England: | |
| Barnsley. | Isles of Scilly. |
| Barrow-in-Furness. | Lincoln. |
| Bolton. | Lines. Kesteven. |
| Bury. | Plymouth. |
| Doncaster. | Reading |
| Dudley. | Rotherham. |
| Great Yarmouth. | Smethwick. |
| Hastings. | Southport. |
| Isle of Ely. | Wigan |
| Isle of Wight. | |
| Wales: | |
| Anglesey. | Merionethshire. |
| Breconshire. | Montgomeryshire. |
| Caernarvonshire- | Pembrokeshire. |
| Carmarthenshire. | Radnorshire. |
§ 12. Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Education when he expects to announce the 1964–65 educational building programme.
§ Sir D. EcclesWhen this year's review of public investment has been completed.
§ Mr. FitchWould not the Minister agree that that is a thoroughly unsatisfactory reply? Surely he must agree that if local authorities are to plan ahead, they must know as soon as possible how much money is to be allocated 1181 to them? I realise, of course, in view of the see-saw policy of the Government, that it is possibly very difficult, but surely the Minister should help those authorities by announcing their allocations as soon as possible?
§ Sir D. EcclesI agree that it is good and efficient planning to give plenty of time. I hope that this review of public investment will be completed in the late summer or early autumn and thereafter I shall be able to announce the school proportion of it.
§ 14. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will request the local authorities to re-submit their school building proposals for 1963–64, including only those projects which are immediately necessary to maintain or achieve minimum contemporary standards; and if he will reconsider the programme on the basis of their submissions.
§ Sir D. EcclesNo, Sir. The 1963–64 school building programme is the fourth of the five annual programmes based on the Government's policy set out in the White Paper of December, 1958, and Circular 342. I asked authorities to submit their proposals within the terms of that policy. The most urgently needed projects have been included in the programme and there are no grounds for holding up authorities by asking them to proceed as the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. SwinglerIn view of the fact that the Minister alleges that most of the local authorities put forward inflated demands, and in view of the allegations and counter-allegations about whether authorities are realistic in their assessment of new school needs, could not the Minister resolve this question by asking local authorities whether they would submit realistic assessments of what is immediately necessary so that we can judge this question?
§ Sir D. EcclesThat has to come out of an examination of each authority's programme separately, which is exactly what we do when we have them.
§ Mr. WilleyIn view of the fact that this programme is completely out of phase with the other years in the five-year programme and there is this colossal reduction of £9 million in the school 1182 building programme, will not the Minister reconsider this matter with the local authorities and then go back to the Treasury?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe 1963–64 programme brings the total of the first four years of the five-year programme to exactly £240 million, or four-fifths.
§ Mr. SwinglerHow can an assessment of the real school building needs of the authorities come out of the existing figures in the hands of the Ministry? Does the Minister recall that on 19th April he himself said:
It is remarkable how some local authorities, even within a single county, are realistic while others are totally unrealistic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1962; Vol. 658, c. 679.]Will he ask the local authorities specifically to submit only their realistic estimates of what is required for the next year so that we, Members of Parliament, may judge whether he has granted a proper programme or not?
§ Sir D. EcclesWhat is realistic is a matter for discussion with the authorities. That is exactly what we do.
§ 15. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education if he will state, for each of the last five years, the value of the school building programme proposed by the local authorities, the value of the programme he approved and the value of the programme actually carried out.
§ Sir D. EcclesAs the Answer contain a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. SwinglerI thank the Minister for providing his statistics, but is he aware that statistics given by the Treasury a few days ago showed that the total amount of national wealth allocated to education investment has risen by only three-fifths of 1 per cent. in the last five years? Is not this a shocking reflection upon his administration, and ought not he to be fighting in the Cabinet for a much bigger allocation of resources to education in general?
§ Sir D. EcclesThree-fifths of 1 per cent., of course, is of a bigger total because the national wealth itself has been increasing, as the figures supplied by my right hon. and learned Friend the 1183 Chancellor of the Exchequer show. I do not think that I need assure the hon. Gentleman that I do the fighting that I can.
§ Following is the information:
| Financial Years | Value of major school building projects proposed | Value of starts authorised by Minister | Actual starts |
| (£ million) | (£ million) | (£ million) | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
| 1957–58 | 99 | 55 | 53.3 |
| 1958–59 | 106 | 51 | 50.4 |
| 1959–60 | 96 | 46 | 43.1 |
| 1960–61 | 214* | 55 | 57.2 |
| 1961–62 | 64 | 66† |
§ The values given are of starts of building work only: site purchases, professional fees, furniture and equipment, which together represent about 30 per cent. of the value of the building work, are excluded.
§ Notes
§ * Authorities were asked to make a single submission for the two years 1960–61 and 1961–62.
§ † This is a provisional figure.
§ 18. Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Education whether he will give the values of the school building projects submitted for the school building programme for 1963–64 by each local education authority; and what are the corresponding values of the projects he has approved.
§ Sir D. EcclesWith permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. WilleyAs these figures are appalling, as they reveal cause for dismay and frustration in local education authorities throughout the country, and as the right hon. Gentleman confesses that he has been fighting this matter in the Cabinet, will he now recognise what a failure he has been and that the best course he can take in the interests of education is to resign?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe education programme is going ahead year by year. We should all like it to be bigger, but a good case could be made for a great many other programmes being bigger. I have to take my turn, but I think that education has a high priority.
§ Mr. SwinglerWill the Minister, as a small addendum to his figures in the 1184 OFFICIAL REPORT, put a note at the side of the name of each education authority saying whether, in his opinion, the estimates it gave were realistic or totally unrealistic, according to his previous answer?
§ Sir D. EcclesNo, Sir; but the hon. Gentleman will have a quite shrewd idea by comparing what they got with what they asked for.
§ Mr. WilleyDoes the Minister realise that he has been thoroughly unfair to local education authorities? He destroyed the percentage grant. He is not supporting their building efforts, and now he is preventing them from doing what they want to do.
§ Following are the figures:
| SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME 1963–1964 | ||
| Estimated costs of projects proposed and projects approved* for English and Welsh Authorities as at 3rdMay, 1962 | ||
| Local Education Authority | Estimated cost of projects proposed | Estimated cost of projects approved |
| £'000 | £'000 | |
| Bedfordshire | 1,288 | 793 |
| Berkshire | 1,600 | 560 |
| Buckinghamshire | 1,700 | 895 |
| Cambridgeshire | 370 | 72 |
| Cheshire | 5,500 | 1,955 |
| Cornwall | 499 | 197 |
| Cumberland | 831 | 209 |
| Derbyshire | 1,186 | 694 |
| Devon | 499 | 436 |
| Dorset | 531 | 122 |
| Durham | 6,876 | 1,700 |
| Essex | 3,534 | 1,868 |
| Gloucestershire | 1,041 | 535 |
| Hampshire | 4,000 | 1,600 |
| Herefordshire | 400 | 177 |
| Hertfordshire | 2,500 | 2,048 |
| Huntingdonshire | 657 | 150 |
| Isle of Ely | 279 | — |
| Isle of Wight | 158 | — |
| Isles of Scilly | — | — |
| Kent | 2,370 | 1,300 |
| Lancashire | 4,000 | 3,243 |
| Leicestershire | 1,526 | 309 |
| Lincs.—Holland | 268 | 125 |
| Lincs.—Kesteven | 533 | — |
| Lincs.—Lindsey | 284 | 129 |
| Middlesex | 4,202 | 1,350 |
| Norfolk | 1,914 | 209 |
| Northamptonshire | 704 | 486 |
| Northumberland | 2,199 | 612 |
| Nottinghamshire | 1,238 | 688 |
| Oxfordshire | 464 | 166 |
| Peterborough Joint Education Board | 233 | 177 |
| Rutland | 38 | 35 |
| Shropshire | 635 | 269 |
| Somerset | 703 | 478 |
| Staffordshire | 3,400 | 1,300 |
| Local Education Authority | Estimated cost of projects proposed | Estimated cost of projects approved |
| £'000 | £'000 | |
| Suffolk, East | 557 | 86 |
| Suffolk, West | 305 | 215 |
| Surrey | 3,250 | 1,266 |
| Sussex, East | 461 | 318 |
| Sussex, West | 701 | 483 |
| Warwickshire | 1,500 | 839 |
| Westmorland | 113 | 55 |
| Wiltshire | 1,000 | 855 |
| Worcestershire | 669 | 314 |
| Yorks, East Riding | 225 | 214 |
| Yorks, North Riding | 700 | 326 |
| Yorks, West Riding | 4,000 | 1,400 |
| London | 3,300 | 1,750 |
| Barnsley | 286 | — |
| Barrow-in-Furness | 116 | — |
| Bath | 213 | 43 |
| Birkenhead | 388 | 213 |
| Birmingham | 3,000 | 1,368 |
| Blackburn | 465 | 217 |
| Blackpool | 869 | 262 |
| Bolton | 467 | — |
| Bootle | 170 | 55 |
| Bournemouth | 579 | — |
| Bradford | 1,158 | 340 |
| Brighton | 309 | 146 |
| Bristol | 1,233 | 241 |
| Burnley | 130 | 130 |
| Burton-on-Trent | 217 | 217 |
| Bury | 353 | — |
| Canterbury | 217 | 203 |
| Carlisle | 934 | 195 |
| Chester | 341 | 49 |
| Coventry | 791 | 434 |
| Croydon | 489 | 217 |
| Darlington | 126 | 49 |
| Derby | 947 | 57 |
| Dewsbury | 275 | 55 |
| Doncaster | 325 | — |
| Dudley | 171 | — |
| Eastbourne | 54 | 49 |
| East Ham | 216 | 39 |
| Exeter | 67 | — |
| Gateshead | 372 | — |
| Gloucester | 363 | 111 |
| Great Yarmouth | 177 | — |
| Grimsby | 795 | 143 |
| Halifax | 43 | 43 |
| Hastings | 120 | — |
| Huddersfield | 470 | — |
| Ipswich | 654 | 133 |
| Kingston upon Hull | 922 | 370 |
| Leeds | 1,092 | 319 |
| Leicester | 516 | 116 |
| Lincoln | 908 | — |
| Liverpool | 4,500 | 758 |
| Manchester | 3,311 | 1,060 |
| Middlesbrough | 560 | 112 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 1,405 | 659 |
| Northampton | 283 | 80 |
| Norwich | 235 | 235 |
| Nottingham | 505 | 183 |
| Oldham | 235 | 235 |
| Oxford | 333 | 230 |
| Plymouth | 287 | — |
| Portsmouth | 278 | 79 |
| Preston | 328 | 37 |
| Reading | 282 | — |
| Rochdale | 337 | — |
| Local Education Authority | Estimated cost of projects proposed | Estimated cost of projects approved |
| £'000 | £'000 | |
| Rotherham | 251 | — |
| St. Helens | 424 | 55 |
| Salford | 286 | 85 |
| Sheffield | 956 | 284 |
| Smethwick | 255 | — |
| Southampton | 115 | 55 |
| Southend-on-Sea | 479 | 217 |
| Southport | 297 | — |
| South Shields | 424 | — |
| Stockport | 299 | 183 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | 1,156 | 175 |
| Sunderland | 980 | 49 |
| Tynemouth | 43 | 43 |
| Wakefield | 233 | 49 |
| Wallasey | 267 | 121 |
| Walsall | 906 | 165 |
| Warrington | 413 | 38 |
| West Bromwich | 532 | 201 |
| West Ham | 389 | 110 |
| West Hartlepool | 426 | 275 |
| Wigan | 221 | — |
| Wolverhampton | 408 | — |
| Worcester | 460 | 55 |
| York | 365 | 121 |
| Anglesey | 63 | — |
| Breconshire | 257 | — |
| Caernarvonshire | 324 | — |
| Cardiganshire | 120 | 99 |
| Carmarthenshire | 483 | — |
| Denbighshire | 656 | 110 |
| Flintshire | 310 | 124 |
| Glamorgan | 1,881 | 674 |
| Merioneth | 154 | — |
| Monmouthshire | 658 | 392 |
| Montgomeryshire | 145 | — |
| Pembrokeshire | 473 | — |
| Radnorshire | 64 | — |
| Cardiff | 885 | 441 |
| Merthyr Tydfil | 699 | 146 |
| Newport (Mon.) | 613 | 205 |
| Swansea | 564 | 294 |
| TOTAL | 127,500 | 47,256 |
| *EXPLANATORY NOTE |
§ The total value of projects shown in the third Column is £47m. Starts in 1963–64 will total £55m. The difference is due to a number of factors: the details of all authorities' programmes are not yet finally settled; estimates of costs of a number of projects included in the programmes are not yet available; and authorisations for earlier programmes have allowed for the fact that not all work authorised will start in the year in question.