HC Deb 27 June 1963 vol 679 cc1645-7
23. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Education when he will announce his revised proposals for next year's school-building programme.

Mr. Chataway

My right hon. Friend will shortly approve a limited number of additional projects for the 1964–65 school-building programme. These will in the main provide places urgently needed to keep pace with new housing developments. The final size of the 1964–65 programme depends on the outcome of the Government's review of capital investment and the capacity of the building industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

Mr. Swingler

What is the value of the additional proposals the Minister is prepared to approve? Will there be any addition for the replacement of obsolete schools?

Mr. Chataway

There will be virtually no additions for replacement jobs among this group of additional projects that my right hon. Friend is about to announce, because this money falls within the original total announced. The Government review of investment is still awaited.

25 and 26. Mr. Dodds

asked the Minister of Education (1) if he is aware of the difficulties with which the Kent Education Committee are faced as a result of the limited capital allocation for major school-building projects; and, in view of the general concern in Kent, if he will make a statement on his decision to approve an allocation of £1¼ million for the major building programme for 1964–65 against the proposed programme of over £4½ million submitted by the Kent Education Committee;

(2) in view of the policy set out in the White Paper of 1958, Secondary Education for All, and his Department's Circular No. 342 of December 1958, why he has approved for the 1964–65 programme 14 out of 16 projects submitted by the Kent Education Committee for primary schools but only four secondary school projects, at an estimated cost of about £600,000, out of 25 submitted with an estimated cost of £3¾ million.

Mr. Chataway

My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties facing the Kent Local Education Authority, but in compiling the Major Building Programme for 1964–65 he gave priority to projects required in areas of new housing where children would otherwise have no schools to go to, and to projects designed to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools. All projects submitted by the Kent authority that came within these categories were included in their programme, together with one secondary school improvement project. Since the programme was announced the authority has submitted a number of additional projects, and these are under consideration.

Mr. Dodds

How can the Parliamentary Secretary defend such a scandalous state of affairs? Is he not aware that in Kent there are sub-standard schools; that more families are moving in; that children are staying longer at school, and that in 1967–68 the so-called bulge will, in the secondary schools, be an explosion? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend, who was welcomed as Minister of Education, has now been denounced on all sides and, even for the right hon. Gentleman's low standards, is it not a terrible thing that 21 out of 25 proposals for secondary schools should be rejected?

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that total education building starts have been increased by 43 per cent. in the course of this Parliament, which would hardly seem to justify his language. My right hon. Friend recognises that there are urgent needs still to be met in this authority's area, as in others, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that the fresh applications that have been made by the authority are under active consideration, and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make announcements about further projects in a short time.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Would my hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend that all of us would like more schools—this problem does not apply to Kent alone—but that we appreciate what has already been done and look forward to his constructive proposals for the future?

Mr. Dodds

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.