EDUCATION (SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME) (Hansard, 14 May 1962)

§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

In my first Adjournment debate in May, 1950, also just after midnight, I raised the question of the inadequacy of the school building programme and I regret that I have had to keep raising it in the House ever since. The postwar building programmes have been tremendous but always inadequate. There have been revolutions in school building technique and I want to pay tribute to the Ministry for its fine work in this field. Relations between the Ministry and the local authorities have become excellent. Nobody can complain that some local authorities are penalised and others favoured. Not even the long-suffering L.C.C. makes that charge against the Minister.

The late George Tomlinson set up in 1948 a working party on school construction. Its fruits have been striking economies, though I believe these economies have been pushed too far. We certainly get more for our money now than we did in the years just after the war when local authorities were beginning to build with only pre-war experience to guide them. My criticism is not of administrative detail. It is much more fundamental. Indeed, I would say that administrators in this story have been always ahead of the politicians. We have never sufficiently appreciated just how much is needed to carry out the 1944 Act, either in the supply of teachers or in school buildings. There has never been in any year since the war an adequate school building programme.

The first post-war years were understandable. Then school building began to gather momentum and went up to £58 million in 1949. The Korean war gave a setback, but since then the Minister and his predecessors have moved by fits and starts—a cut in 1951, expansion in 1956, a cut in 1959–60, expansion in 1961–62 and now the cut about which I am protesting tonight. Everywhere in the country there are oversize classes.

1107 On 4th May, 1950, the present Home Secretary said: … I calculate that no fewer than 1,450,000 new places will be wanted by 1953."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950: Vol. 474, c. 1912.] and he called on the then Labour Government to double the number provided each year.

A little later, on 25th July, 1951, Dame Florence Horsbrugh lamented that there were 2,400,000 children in oversize classes and said rightly: … it is impossible … to teach children in those numbers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 222.] —a few months before this lady imposed a moratorium on the school building programme and dealt it its first blow.

We have now more oversize classes than we had when Dame Florence Horsbrugh spoke—64,000 in 1961 and 70,000 in 1963. As I am always fair, I would say that most of these are secondary classes where oversize means over 30; but still there are well over 2¼ million children in schools with oversize classes, one-third of all the children at school.

In November, 1946, before the first bulge emerged, the Ministry's own committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir William Cleary, told us that we needed a £70 million building programme each year for fifteen years if we were to get classes down to the right size and clean up the worst old school buildings. We have never touched that figure of £70 million, even in our modern debased currency. At the moment the Government are losing ground. The programme has gone up and down—£41 million in 1952–53, £61 million in 1956–57 which was the golden year when my Tory friends said that the Minister was now making my speeches for me, back to £46 million in 1959–60, then a promised five year programme of £300 million, or £60 million a year, with next year's programme, like this year's programme, cut back to £55 million.

During the past ten years the cost per school place has gone up by 25 per cent. Secondary school costs have gone up from £240 to £310 a place. The Ministry's £55 million for 1963–64 is no more than the £41 million of 1952–53. 1108 Moreover, the Home Secretary was much nearer the mark when he talked of 1.45 million new places needed than the Ministry was at the time with its figure of 1.15 million. Indeed, the most important fact today is that the old myth of a bulge which would ultimately completely recede has vanished, as some of us ten years ago said it would.

By 1953 the school population had increased by over 1 million, but between 1953 and 1962 it had increased by a second million. The figures are: 1953, 5,970,000; 1962, 6,981,000. The projected figure for 1970 is 7½ million, or another half million increase—2½ million extra children in all—and that before the third bulge starts, when the first bulge children begin to have their own children. No wonder that against such a background local authorities year by year face the desperate problem of finding rooms for bodies, of merely coping. They were dismayed this year when the Minister, for the second time, cut their proposed programme by a half.

If the Ministry has one fault, it is its failure to appreciate that when local education authorities prepare lists of new projects they really mean them. Those of us who sit on education committees know what an agonising job it is to get our priorities right and send to the Minister only those schools which are desperately needed. But the Minister has again slashed our demands by a half.

The second distressing feature of the cuts is that in the minor works programme. When the Minister gave us, some years ago, the green light to go ahead for minor works and for the reorganisation of all-age schools, it was about the best of many good things he has done in his chequered Ministerial career. Local authorities were beginning to transform some of their worst slum schools, and all of us have seen such transformations. But last year the Minister imposed a moratorium on the minor works programme and followed it with a cut.

The problem is nationwide and fundamental. The building industry was engaged in 1961 in £1,500 million worth of work on new construction: houses, hospitals, factories and schools. The experts say that by 1970 we shall need not £1,500 million worth of new work 1109 but £2,000 million worth. Builders and architects must step up their productivity by at least 5 per cent. per annum if we are to cope with the basic needs of the British people—and I mean basic needs and not luxurious ones—always bearing in mind that about 40 per cent. of all new building will be needed to house our ever-increasing population.

Part of the Minister's case is that he can have only a fair share of the building capacity. Equally, part of the battle between us is, what is that fair share? To his argument that we can get only a part of what the building industry can produce we say, first, that the building industry's capacity must be increased. The responsibility for this falls not only on the Government and the building industry but also on the local education authorities. Some of us pleaded ten years ago that local education authorities should pool their best ideas and resources and make every use of the Ministry's expertise. That is only just slowly beginning to happen. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the success of the joint venture, "clasp", shows what can be done in speeding up the economic production of new schools by co-operative effort on the part of local education authorities. I urge all local authorities to follow the example of those authorities which are coming together into consortia.

At the same time, Britain should be using her building resources more intelligently. My county of Hampshire is engaged on a terrific project of housing about 100,000 of London's overspill population by expanding three Hampshire towns. All that work is being made nugatory by the prolification of huge offices in the Metropolis which will attract to London more people than Hampshire, by its efforts, will take out of London. And while luxurious offices go up, London's programme to clean up its worst old schools is being slashed to ribbons by the Minister.

I have brought with me tonight a collection of Press cuttings which tell the same story all over Britain; programmes slashed, desperately needed projects deferred and education suffering in the process. London's programme for 1960–63 has been cut from £12 million to £7¼ million and the 1963–64 programme, as the House knows, has been similarly 1110 cut. A northern county has sixteen projects planned for 1963. So far only two have been approved by the Minister. It wanted sixty-five minor works projects in a three-year programme. Only the ten most important will be carried out.

Today children are divided into two classes, those who use the old buildings, grim and inadequate—and usually these have been handed over to the primary children—and those who are in good modern schools. But even the new schools are overcrowded almost on the day they are opened. Here are a few examples: Assembly hall holds one-third of school only. Girls in assembly on every third day. Practical rooms—only one laboratory, inadequately equipped. Gymnasia and playing fields—none at all. Very strong criticism recently in H.M.I.'s report after full inspection. Then there is this one, of a school built as a four-form entry school and re-scheduled in 1960 as a five-form entry school, at present housing a six-form entry. Again and again we read of assembly halls being used as dining rooms and gymnasia and in some cases as form rooms. I have come across a school built in 1930 for 350 children which has now 600 on the roll. These are not exceptions.

Middlesex's programme has been cut back from £4½ million to £1.4 million. In Essex, twenty-four out of forty-seven projects have been cut out by the Minister. Hertfordshire, the county which is expanding more than any other in the country, has had to postpone improvements to thirty-three schools. I quote from the Press report of a meeting: The projected work, including the demolition of a number of external lavatory blocks … and in rural areas, Elsan sanitation and primitive teaching conditions were to be removed. Essential accommodation for teaching purposes will have to be denied. A church school at Newdigate, Surrey is the subject of a church council report, which says: Work continues in conditions which would not be permitted in factories today. The Salop Education Committee blacklisted nineteen schools and put six on a special black list because they could be possibly be made suitable. A member of the Committee said that if a review took place many more would be put on the black list.

1111 At Sidbury the dining room is a converted cartshed, the gift of a generous squire. An assembly hall and kitchen were on the way, but they have been cut. The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald writes, of a bad school in Marlborough—not the one that most hon. Members would think of: surprisingly enough there is considerable esprit de corps in this school. Well over 90 per cent. of the pupils wear the school uniform, and they take the leaks and cracked glass, mended doors, flooded gymnasia, and all its grey drabness with a certain equanimity. I echo the tribute paid to children and teachers who work magnificently despite such building handicaps.

A letter in the Daily Telegraph of 11th April, from the chairman of managers of Durweston School, Dorset, speaks of ninety pupils with really only one classroom; the other is also a dining hall. The Glamorgan programme has been cut by half. Wallsend wanted two new schools for 1963–64, but both have been cut. In Don Valley eight major improvement schemes had been slashed. Gateshead, doing a magnificent job to catch up years of leeway, speaks of a £750,000 programme cut to ribbons. The projects of County Durham have been cut to one-third, and in Lancashire ninety-eight projects have been deferred.

The Ministry Report for 1948 describes some of the old school buildings, and architects who: uncertain as to whether their model should be a church, barracks or a railway station, created something solid, serviceable and ugly. It showed how minor works could transform some of these schools into schools which the children said were "smashing". Many of these old schools remain to be transformed, and I urge the Minister to restore the minor works cuts and let the transformation go on apace. But the 1948 Report also said, about the major programme: Like Alice and the Red Queen, we have to run faster and faster, even if we only want to stand still … but it will not be enough to stand still. We are just about standing still.

I am grateful to the Minister for his kindness in answering this debate at such an inconvenient hour. I appeal to him with all the force I can to reconsider the cuts he has made both in the minor and the major works programmes of local authorities.

§ The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles)

In the short time available to me I cannot say a great deal, but I will say that that was one of the worst speeches I have heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) who knows a great dealt about education. I shall have to come to his accusations in a moment but first I should tell the hon. Member that I am glad that he approached this matter from what he called a fundamental point of view.

One has to answer the question, "Does education gets its fair share of public investment?" I cannot say much about that tonight except that if we compare what we have with what housing, hospitals and roads have had anyone can see that we have done pretty well. In the last two years, 1960–62 the starts in educational building have been £222 million, that is in the programme for which I am responsible in my Department, leaving aside the universities. That is 30 per cent. more than they have ever been before.

Whatever may be our share, do we allocate it well as between the different parts of education? Here we have to realise that the universities are taking more and more and, secondly, that in the allocation of the building programme I must put expansion before replacement. Any Minister would have to do that. Very well, then, how can the hon. Member make a speech like the one he made and not realise that the training college programme has to have all the money that it needs? We started a programme of 24,000 places. We thought that it would cost £36 million. It will cost £44 million. Therefore that programme is sacred.

We have then the technical college programme. In 1956 we took a risk. We planned to expand our technical colleges ahead of demand. The students were not in sight, but in spite of that great programme, because the provision itself has stimulated demand and because there is a national interest in technical education, we are now faced—and I am glad of it—with too small a provision for the students. Naturally, therefore, the technical college programme must go ahead, because otherwise we should be sacrificing expansion in order to replace old buildings.

1113 When we come to the school building programme itself it may look as though that programme is in danger on account of the fact that it is necessary in a programme that is growing every year to give more to the growing points in education; but the schools do not really suffer because we are working to a £300 million programme laid down in the White Paper of 1958 to take place in five years. In that programme also we laid down the priorities within school building. First was roofs over heads. Where children would have no school, one, of course, must build the school. That is the first necessity. Then there are the movements of population, the increasing number of children staying after 15 years of age, and the drift from North to South. That is the first priority. It now takes half the school building programme.

Our second priority, everybody is agreed, is to reorganise all-age schools. It follows from that the third and last part of the school building programme is the replacement of old schools. It is there that any reduction must come but we have kept our pledge. Our programme for 1963–64 of £55 million starts in schools brings the total number of starts to £240 million in four years, or exactly four-fifths of our pledged programme of £300 million.

The local authorities know perfectly well the priorities under which we allocate our annual instalment. I ask local authorities to bid each year, and the hon. Gentleman knows very well that this is unique to the Ministry of Education. We do it simply to have the information on which to determine the urgency of the needs between one type of school and another, and between one local authority and another.

Suppose that I did not ask for those bids, and did what is done in other programmes, and inside the Ministry of Education we cut up the annual instalment, which is more or less one-fifth of £300 million. The gap between what local authorities say that they would like to do and what they can do would never be revealed. Just because for the sake of good planning we ask them to do it, we have thrown at us that we have cut the programme.

For example, the Middlesex local authorities know that they could not do 1114 everything. They know that my programme is about £60 million—£55 million one year, and last year it was £64 million. How could they get £6½ million for Middlesex? They know that that is unreasonable, and because I give local authorities the chance to make this bid so that for the sake of the children of this country we may be able carefully to consider one project against another, I reveal that there is a gap—I am not complaining about it—between what they would like to do and what they can do.

Let the hon. Gentleman consider what would happen if local authorities were asked to bid each year for all the council housing starts that they would like; or the health service authorities for all the hospitals that they would like; or the transport people for all the roads that they would like. The programme would be far larger than could be carried out in any year, and there would be Parliamentary Questions and the kind of speech that we have had tonight, pure politics, trying to make out that because we go through a sensible form of planning we are deliberately cutting down the programmes of local authorities, when, as I said before, the total of the educational programme has gone up every year and we are attempting to do in a scientific and rational way what we could quite well do behind closed doors and avoid all the Questions that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) puts to me and the sort of speech that we have had tonight.

I shall not go back. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not retreat. I shall not go back to unscientific methods of planning educational building because I am worried by the kind of questions and the kind of allegations that are bandied about, as they were tonight. It is my duty to try to shape the educational programme as well as I can, and I know that if I did not have the order of priorities of the projects of each year which the authority concerned itself considers is the right one, I should not get my central planning right.

There may one day be a Minister of Education who, because of the kind of criticism that we have had in the last month or two—connected largely with the local authority elections of course— 1115 will give in and retreat, in which case we will not have speeches like we had tonight, and no Questions like we have each Thursday. But I shall not be that Minister. As long as I am here I will try to do my best by the schools, whatever hon. Gentlemen may say about the cuts.

There are local authorities which know that the national programme is £300 million over five years, which know what the priorities are, which know that if in their areas the school population is declining, as it is in London, and the re-organisation of their all-age schools is complete, they have no case under present policy for a building programme. Indeed quite a number of small authorities do not get a programme at all, perhaps because they had quite a good allocation the year before, and the local authorities understand this.

The accusation about cuts comes from the political side. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but all I have to do is to give up the system of asking local authorities to put in bids. I do it simply and solely because we want in school building to look ahead, to give local 1116 authorities the greatest amount of time we can for the architects to prepare the plans and the rest of it. For that it is necessary to know what they consider the most urgent projects over the next couple of years. But they know perfectly well that the programme has to add up to one-fifth of £300 million a year. We have stuck to that in spite of the fact that the other parts of the programme—I cite again the teacher training college expansion and the technical college expansion—go rolling forward all the time.

I really think that the history of educational building in the last ten years is one of which any Government can be proud. To be told that we are now a Government who slash this, that and the other all round the country when the country started £222 million worth of educational building in two years—1960–62—30 per cent. more than we had ever done in two years before—that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.