School Building Programme (Hansard, 1 May 1963)

§ 13. Mr. Lawson
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the reductions in the school building programmes submitted to him by the Scottish education authorities that he has decided to impose; and if he will make a statement.

§ 20. Mr. Ross
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the cuts he has made in the programmes of educational building proposed by Scottish education authorities.

§ Mr. Noble
I would refer the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) to the figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 24th April.
The educational building which authorities have in recent years proved capable of starting has fallen so far short of their initial proposals that authorised starts to a much smaller value have enabled all essential projects to proceed that were in fact ready. My initial authorisations in the current financial year should suffice to maintain, if not increase, the present level of educational building, which is higher than ever before: and I shall seek to approve further projects in the year as circumstances may require.

§ Mr. Lawson
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) reveal a cut of more than 60 per cent. in the proposals as distinct from the 1055 approvals? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of my hon. Friends, and certainly many people in Scotland, believe that he has made these severe cuts on this occasion because he suspects that the education authorities can carry out this building very substantially and he is finding a new justification for preventing the work being carried out?

§ Mr. Noble
This is most certainly not so. The authorities' proposals this year may be at least as optimistic as in previous years. Only at the end of the year is it possible to say whether projects have been held back as a result of restriction on capital investment. In the past no projects have been held up for this reason.

§ Mr. Ross
Local authority proposals reflect the needs of the areas. Is it not a condemnation of the Secretary of State and of his predecessors that they have not been able so to organise building labour in Scotland that the need for Scottish schools can be met? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether what he has decided to authorise is an increase or a decrease on what was actually started last year?

§ Mr. Noble
The position is simply that it is not a question of available building labour. In the past not one project has been held up through lack of authority for starting it. This is the position. It is not a savage cut in any sense. The local authorities have done this year what they have done every year, which is to produce a list of schools. In agreement with them we have arranged what they should start, and these are initial starts and not total programmes.

§ Mr. Clark Hutchison
Is it not a fact that if we look at the programmes as a whole, including the building of technical colleges and teacher training colleges, the building programme is a record?

§ Mr. Noble
Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The building being undertaken this year is around £50 million worth, which is a record for Scotland, and this includes expansion both in the teacher training college programme and in the further education section.

§ Mr. Ross
With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that he is misleading the 1056 House? Is he aware that the number of places provided in all categories of schools last year was less than it has been since 1955? The right hon. Gentleman will find that in the table in his own Report. It is no good talking about the amount of money spent when that, because of inflation, disguises a decrease in the number of places provided. To return to the original Question, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these cuts were made in agreement with the local authorities?

§ Mr. Noble
Having agreed the amount that was reasonable, the schools which should proceed have been broadly agreed with the local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] If it is not true, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will bring forward any particular cases, because my Department has had discussions with, not every local authority, but many local authorities which have approached the Department and have agreed the priorities which they wanted within that framework, which is exactly what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members rose
—

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we should pass on to the next Question.

§ 15. Mr. Rankin
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with Glasgow City Corporation before deciding to reduce its proposed educational expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

§ 21. Mr. Bence
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with Dunbarton County Council prior to a considerable reduction in its school building programme; and if the decision was agreed.

§ Mr. Noble
The regulation of educational building is a continuing process in which consultation is not confined to any particular stage. Each January, authorities submit programmes for the three following financial years with the approximate dates at which they hope to start each project. The authorisations then given list, with regard to the authorities' own order of priority, the projects which may proceed in the coming financial year as soon as they are ready. Authorities are free at any time to seek approval to change one project for another, or approval to start additional 1057 projects which become ready. A meeting of this kind has already been held with representatives of Dunbartonshire County Council.

§ Mr. Rankin
I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer that no such meeting was held with Glasgow City Corporation. Is he aware that the Glasgow City Corporation had prepared a planned educational building programme over the next four years to the value of £9.4 million and that he, without consultation, in one brutal cut reduced that amount to £3.8 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Corporation was seeking to get rid of slum schools, to modernise old schools and to build new secondary schools which are desperately needed? Will he reconsider his action, or does he want to make the slum school a permanent feature of Glasgow's educational life?

§ Mr. Noble
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, no request has yet been received from the Glasgow education authority to meet my Department. It may well be that Glasgow wanted to appeal to the public rather than to my Department, but this is the fact.
With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, this is covered by various other Questions which will arise later.

§ Mr. Bence
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to what he said about consultation with the Dunbarton County Council, I have had serious complaints from the Burgh of Kirkintilloch and from Cumbernauld New Town about the fact that the primary programme for Cumbernauld New Town is to be continued but that the secondary programme for Kirkintilloch—

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Gentleman reach a question at some time? That is all we are allowed.

§ Mr. Bence
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secondary programme for Kirkintilloch, which takes the secondary school students from the new town, is being savagely cut? Will he look into this matter again and see that both in Lenzie Academy and St. Ninian's adequate places are provided for the new pupils coming along in the new town of Cumbernauld?

§ Mr. Noble
The position is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the education authority has had a meeting with representatives of my Department. Broadly speaking, they were in agreement on what should be done within the limit which they have, and if more money can be provided later I am sure they may be able to use it.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a Question of mine which he has answered is bound up with other Questions, and that points that I have raised are covered by Answers to these other Questions. In view of that fact, may I put another supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid not. Multitudinous supplementaries and long supplementaries are very unkind to other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Bence
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory state of secondary education in Kirkintilloch, I give notice that I shall take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

§ 16. Mr. Small
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for speeding up new school building and modernisation of schools in Glasgow.

§ 23. Mr. McInnes
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has cut the Glasgow Corporation's plans for school building.

§ Mr. Noble
With my encouragement, Glasgow Corporation has now become a full member of the C.L.A.S.P. consortium; and I have authorised it to begin new schools in the current financial year to the value of £2.5 million. This is £400,000 more than the value of schools started last year, and is as large a share of the available investment as can be allowed at the moment. It is not possible at this stage to extend it to cover the Corporation's proposals for modernisation to the value of £300,000.

§ Mr. Small
While I am grateful for that Answer, in view of the human urgency of the matter will the Minister assist in getting rid of the over-sized classes and proceed with the modernisation of the primary schools in his minor works programme?

§ Mr. Noble
Certainly. If we can move a bit in this direction later in the year we shall, but I think Glasgow Corporation and my Department felt that at the beginning of this very considerable programme the money should be spent mostly on new schools which are urgently needed.

§ Mr. McInnes
Is the Minister aware that Glasgow sought approval for £7,900,000 and was granted approval for only £2,500,000? Does he not appreciate, as all previous Secretaries of State have appreciated, the need for phasing such a programme over a period of two or three years? This does not necessarily involve all the expenditure taking place in one year. The right hon. Gentleman is adopting a stupid attitude.

§ Mr. Noble
It may well be that in the future, because of the success of these consortia, we shall be able to move to a different method of building, but I do not think one can say that it is stupid to increase the already very substantial allocation that Glasgow has had by the amount we have done this year. The consortium cannot operate to any major extent on any building in this programme.

§ Mr. Ross
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is totally inadequate for the needs of Glasgow and that it has been consistently so over the years? Will he bear in mind that his own Report, to which I refer once again, shows that Glasgow has 12.6 per cent. of its classes overcrowded at present and that a special effort requires to be made by the Scottish Education Department, if not by the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure that the educational programme is maintained in Glasgow?

§ Mr. Noble
We are doing our best to maintain educational progress, and we have given Glasgow more as a start this year.

§ 17. Mr. Manuel
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the three-year school building plan proposed to him by the Ayr County Council; and what was the cost of the programme he has allowed.

§ Mr. Noble
The total proposed for the three years 1963–66 was £7.3 million. 1060 This included £2.3 million for 1963–64, of which I have so far approved £1 million.

§ Mr. Manuel
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very grave cut and that over the period in question the total is less than half what the county council considers is required for the educational building programme? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an even more grave aspect to this matter, namely, that by his lack of agreement with the Ayr County Council he is now causing it to ignore the statutory obligation to provide a sufficient number of school places for the children under its care? What reply has he to that allegation?

§ Mr. Noble
I think it is not unfair to say, although I am not keen to delve back into the past, that in 1961 the Ayrshire education authority spent only £100,000. In offering the county council £1 million for a start this year, that is quite a considerable increase.

§ 22. Mr. Hannan
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following his decision to reduce by over £5½ million Glasgow Corporation's plan for educational building; and whether he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Noble
None, Sir. My Department is always available for a discussion of details of school building programmes.

§ Mr. Hannan
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it ill becomes him to allege in a sneering way, as he did earlier, that the local authority probably wanted to make a public appeal rather than an appeal to his Department? Is he aware that the association through which these local authorities act is at this moment preparing such an appeal to him? Since children have to be conveyed from the outlying housing estates into their former schools in Glasgow, with consequent increased pressure on transport, will he reconsider the decision he has made?

§ Mr. Noble
I was merely recording a fact when I said that there had been no representation. I am sure that Glasgow Corporation will in due course make 1061 representations to me, and I shall then consider any points which it makes.

§ 24. Sir M. Galpern
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much he has reduced the school building programme for Glasgow in respect of new schools, modernisation of schools, and extensions of existing schools, respectively.

§ Mr. Noble
The difference between Glasgow's proposals and my initial authorisation, is for new schools £3,045,000; for modernisation of schools £297,000 and for extensions of existing schools £1,653,000.

§ Sir M. Galpern
Does the Secretary of State recall that in Comnd. 603, Education in Scotland—The Next Step, the Government characterised the continued use of antiquated and unsuitable buildings, many of the nineteenth century, as being one of the most serious shortcomings in their educational provision and asked the local authorities to deal speedily with the problem? How does he reconcile this policy of severe cuts with that declaration?

§ Mr. Noble
I have tried to make clear to the House that the policy is not one of severe cuts. The position is no more one of severe cuts than if I had offered the local education authorities an enormous sum of money and, if they failed to spend it, as they would have done regularly in the past, it would have been fair for me to say that they had let down the whole educational system. The authorisations are in line with what education authorities have been able to do in the past. If they meet their target, or look like meeting it, we shall then try to give them some further authorisations if we can.

§ Mr. Ross
Will the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind on whether it is a question of money or a question of building resources? Is he aware that, while he was a black-faced sheep farmer before he came to the House, before I came to the House I was a pale-faced Glasgow school teacher? Will he think again about cutting down on the modernisation programme? Some of the conditions in some of these schools are really scandalous.

§ Mr. Noble
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in implying that it is one 1062 or the other. It is obviously both. It would be completely uneconomic to allocate a very large amount of money which authorities could not spend because that money would not be available for other developments in Scotland. It is also a question of resources, because local authorities are having increased expenditure not only on schools but on housing, roads and all the other things, and resources must come into it.