HC Deb 28 February 1964 vol 690 cc875-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

4.4 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)

In this debate I shall refer in particular to two schools in my constituency, but we are speaking in the context of a number of reports dealing with education of one kind or another which have been published in the last few months. Public imagination has been caught by the proposals in the Robbins Report, the proposal to raise the school leaving age at some still distant date, and a number of things of that nature.

But I come down to rock bottom to a type of problem which I fear rather gets lost among the problems with which pupils and teachers are struggling every day and among the far—reaching proposals which both sides of the House accept as necessary and desire to be carried out as soon as possible. We will lose a great deal of our education expansion programme if we concentrate too much on the wider scope without looking at some of the day-to-day problems in the schools in my own and other constituencies.

The Borough of Islington is an old borough and, therefore, it suffers in many ways. It has old houses, it has congested streets and also, because the houses in the area are old and the area has been populated for some time, it has an undue proportion of old schools. Educationally, it also suffers from the problem, which faces several parts of the country, of having a considerable proportion of non—English—speaking pupils. These are the problems with which teachers are struggling, not only in my constituency, but elsewhere in London and throughout the country, and which should entitle them and the schools to better consideration than they are so far getting concerning the physical amenities in which their tasks have to be carried out.

I was first approached by the managers of the Yerbury and Grafton schools in the spring of 1963 because the experience of the 1962–63 winter had particularly drawn their attention to the inadequacy of the toilet accommodation at the schools, particularly as the major part, if not all, of the provision for the junior schools consists of outside toilets.

I went along with the managers, head teachers and representatives of the divisional education office and looked at the toilet provision at these two schools. For the junior departments, all the toilets were out in the open. For the infant departments, there was inadequate, even minimal, indoor provision, but the bulk of it was also out in the open.

In one of the junior schools, the children had to walk over 100 yards from the school building, right round the school and across a playground to get to the only toilets—outdoors—which were available to them. The toilets are basically the same as when the school was built 70 years ago. They were uncovered and made of rough brickwork. Before going further, I pay tribute to the school keepers and others who are responsible for trying to keep this type of toilet in the best possible condition. Those which I saw were as clean as one could expect toilets of that kind to be. Tribute must be paid to those who have the job of keeping them in good condition.

During the 1962–63 winter, these outside toilets were completely frozen up. They had no washbasins, yet one of the teachers' tasks is to encourage pupils to observe personal hygiene. That is impossible in schools of this nature when the toilet provision is outside, was built 70 years ago and no washbasins are attached to the toilets. Not only that, but in wet weather, with no cover over the toilets, the children have to go across 100 yards of playground in the rain or snow to toilets which are swimming with water and the floors of which are soaking wet. Nothing can be done to stop them getting into that condition in wet weather.

On 29th July, therefore, I wrote to the London County Council Education Officer about this problem. I was horrified to find that not only does it apply to schools which I visited and also to others in my constituency, but that in the London County Council area alone there are 440 county council schools and 150 voluntary schools which have only outside toilet provision of the type which I have described and virtually no indoor toilet provision. The view of the London County Council is that the cost of providing indoor toilet accommodation for all the schools for which it is responsible would cost several million pounds, and I have no doubt that this estimate is right.

In order to try to get some of the work done for 1963–64, the L.C.C. requested permission of the Ministry to spend £650,000 on all kinds of improvements to some of the older—and, indeed, some of the newer—school buildings under its control. This would have included steps to provide indoor sanitation for those schools lacking it. It was, however, allocated just over half the sum requested—£350,000.

I agree that there are physical difficulties in carrying out a vast programme of this nature in a comparatively short space of time, involving architects, surveyors and building labour among other factors. But the L.C.C. was quite confident that it could carry out a programme worth £650,000. My guess is that it could do even better if more money were available. However, it was allocated only £350,000 to do part of a job which it estimates will cost, in the end, several million pounds.

In spring last year, as a result of the experience of winter, the L.C.C. pointed out the number of schools still to be dealt with and the difficulty of persuading the Minister to give a sufficient capital allocation for improvements of this kind and stated: A vastly increased national allocation for minor works will be necessary, preferably in the form of a specific additional sum set aside each year to enable proper indoor sanitary accommadation to be provided. That is one way in which this could be tackled. Local education authorities with this problem—and this applies not only to London but to our other large cities and to the rural areas as well —could have, in addition to their normal allocations for minor improvements, special allocations for the purpose of putting indoor toilets into schools which lack them.

Since then, the managers of these two schools have continued to press their case. Apparently, the schools are not only lacking indoor toilets but are in some ways deficient even on that accommodation in view of the Minister of Education's recommendation in 1959 as to the number of toilets which should be available proportionate to the number of pupils. The infants department at Grafton primary school is short of one toilet and Yerbury is short of four. This applies mainly to the nursery classes. A letter from the Chairman of the Managers of the school to me a few months ago said: As you know we are actively concerned about the lack of washing facilities for the children to use when visiting the toilets. The managers were informed by the heads that dysentery has continued in the schools after the summer holidays although it is to be hoped that the cold weather will mean an improvement. Dysentery is present in the schools and one of the reasons is that there is no washbasin accommodation in the toilets, which are outside and thus get into a dirtier condition, quite inevitably.

During the last month, I understand that the L.C.C. has given very high priority to these two schools in the provision of some indoor water closets and washbasins. But while this work is partly achieving the purpose and is very helpful, it is actually wasteful, in the long run, of resources and money because the job will eventually have to be done properly and will, of course, cost more. I understand that covers are being pat over some of the toilets which have not so far been covered and the maintenance vote is being used to do this.

As I understand it, a local education authority can, in certain circumstances, without having to go to the trouble of obtaining the Ministry's approval, carry out minor works up to value of £2,000. As these two schools are in the one building the L.C.C. can, by a little judicious "fiddling"—which is going on all over the country——spend £2,000 on each in order to put some indoor toilets in. This means spending £4,000 on each school. Yet the L.C.C., the divisional education officer and the school managers know very well that to do the job properly would involve an expenditure of about £10,000 on each school. But they cannot spend £10,000 because that cannot be fitted into the allocation of capital which the Ministry has given.

By fiddling the books they can manage to spend £2,000 in each school and to provide some indoor toilets, although this is by no means satisfactory or up to the standard laid down by the Ministry. In due course—it may be in five years or in 10 years—they will have to bring the indoor toilets up to the number required and up to the Ministry standard. The two sums of money—£4,000 now and the larger sum in the future—will be far more than if they were allowed to do the whole job properly at present.

I recognise that there are difficulties in the large number of schools which the L.C.C. and other authorities have to deal with in this way, but if we are in a position, as we hope, to spend large sums of money on people who are fortunate enough to obtain university places or places at colleges of advanced technology or other institutes of higher education, we should be prepared at the same time to spend reasonable sums of money to make sure that in areas with older properties, in towns such as Islington and other towns throughout the country, children are given at least good physical conditions in which to receive their primary education—conditions which are lacking in these and other schools throughout the London area at the moment.

I hope that the Minister today will announce that there is a chance that these two schools will get their proper allocation of inside toilets in the very near future and that he is prepared to accept the L.C.C.'s suggestion that, in addition to the normal allocation for minor improvements and minor capital work, there will be, for authorities such as the L.C.C., which have many schools without adequate indoor toilets, a special allocation of capital resources specifically to carry out a job which in my view is essential from the point of view of the health of the children as well as to enable them to receive the full benefit from their education.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

May I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds)? I know these two schools from personal experience, and I can confirm the truth of what he said. In my opinion, it is a complete disgrace that these two schools in North Islington—and they are not alone in this position—should still have thoroughly unsatisfactory and insanitary accommodation. In these days in which the Ministry is prepared to spend so much on extended university and technical education, it seems to us quite unsatisfactory and most unjust that conditions in some of the elementary schools in Islington and other parts of London should be allowed to continue as they have existed for over 50, 60 and 70 years —conditions which are thoroughly bad and insanitary and which lead to dysentry and other diseases.

As my hon. Friend indicated, what is wanted is Ministry approval to enable progressive local authorities such as the L.C.C. and others to have supplemental grants so that, belated though it may be, they may put an end to the disgraceful condition in which so many children in elementary schools in London are condemned to spend their school lives—a condition in which there is inadequate and only outdoor sanitary accommodation.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) for raising this subject this afternoon and for giving me an opportunity to say a word or two not only about these two schools but about the wider issues which he raised.

I appreciate the force of the argument with which he opened his speech and I recognise that Islington has particular problems. Much of the area is old and in many of the schools there are a considerable number of non—English—speaking children. He knows that my right hon. Friend has been particularly concerned with the latter problem and that fairly recently we issued a pamphlet on the teaching of English to immigrant children. This is a matter of continuing concern to the Department.

But it is about Yerbury and Grafton that the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) have spoken this afternoon. I accept that there are deficiencies in both these schools. I am told that the provision for the over-fives in all four departments—that is, the junior and the infant departments in both schools —is adequate as to the amount available but that in all cases it is out of doors across the playground. Sanitary provision for the under-fives is short at both infant departments by our Building Regulation standards. Grafton School needs one more closet to bring the provision up to what we consider to be the requisite standard. Yerbury School requires six more. The provision for staff in the Grafton Infants Department and at the Yerbury School is meagre.

I cannot say that these two schools are among the very worst in the country or, indeed, in London. The managers of both schools have been pressing for some time for indoor lavatories. The L.C.C. has decided to undertake a project at each school in 1964–65. These are what are called "mini-minor" projects. They will cost under £2,000. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that local education authorities have complete freedom to embark upon such jobs costing under £2,000. This is not a question of their having that freedom in certain circumstances, or if it involves a wangle, or if it comes off a maintenance vote. This is a specific provision. We give local education authorities the freedom to embark upon any such jobs which amount to less than £2,000. I believe that this is a sensible provision which is welcomed by the majority of local education authorities. I thought from something that the hon. Member for Islington, North said that he was implying that this was an unhappy division of itself. I think that the majority of local education authorities welcome the opportunities that this gives.

The hon. Member for Islington, North put to the House the argument that in these schools it would be better if a larger job could be done at this stage and that in the long run it would be more economical. I have not got details of the work that the L.C.C. proposes to carry out at these schools. I understand that the details of the project have still to be worked out but that the L.C.C. hopes to get down to planning next month. It will aim at providing some closets within the school premises, either by adapting existing accommodation or by making additions. I have no reason to believe that it would be desirable in this instance to embark upon a much larger scale project.

However, the hon. Gentleman implied that, had the L.C.C. been given a larger minor works allocation, it would have been setting about the modernisation of these schools in a different fashion. Perhaps I should therefore say a few words about the minor works allocation. The hon. Gentleman gave the House the figures quite correctly for 1963–64. We were for that year able to give the L.C.C. an allocation of £350,000. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that for 1964–65 we have been able to agree to an allocation of £500,000 for the L.C.C. The overall figure that we have for minor works in 1964–65 is £18 million, as high a figure as the schools have had in the last five years and considerably higher than in the previous two years.

It will be seen that, in comparison with the previous two years, the allocation given to the L.C.C. for 1964–65 will enable the Council to embark upon more minor works projects than it has been able to undertake in either of the two preceding years. There will always be difficulties about the allocation of sums for minor works. I am glad that we have been able to step up that allocation for 1964–65, because I agree that there is a great deal that can be done by means of minor works substantially to improve conditions in some of our worst schools.

The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about the suggestion put to the Ministry by the L.C.C. that there should be a special grant earmarked for the provision of more up-to-date lavatories.

Mr. Reynolds

A grant?

Mr. Chataway

I thought that the hon. Member used the word "grant" on one occasion, but he is right to correct me because the L.C.C.'s suggestion was that there should be an authorisation. I suggest to the hon. Member that this would in some ways be a further limitation on the freedom of local education authorities, because we are anxious to give them as much minor works allocation as we can.

Given that that is our intention, it seems doubtful whether it would be advantageous to earmark a part of that allocation for the provision of lavatories. There is much to be said for the view that local education authorities themselves are in the best position to decide their priorities and that if they are given a global sum for minor works it is best that they should be allowed to decide which projects they will undertake in any one year.

The hon. Member for Islington, North was anxious that the physical problems of primary schools should not be lost sight of and he referred to the need to keep a proper balance between expenditure on schools and capital expenditure on higher education, and I entirely agree with him. The Government's response to the Newsom Report has been as expensive as has our response to the Robbins Report. The Newsom Report rightly pointed out that many schools are in need of replacement or modernisation.

It is not just that many of them are inconvenient, that a number of them are lacking in the dignity one would wish to see in the second half of the twentieth century but that, frankly, a number of them are educationally restrictive. A primary school teacher deploying modern techniques needs space these days and in some of our primary schools that space is not available. We recognise all this and we are anxious to replace and modernise the educational plant as fast as we can. We should be able to say this autumn that half our children are in post-war places and the hon. Member for Islington, North will be aware of the rapid rise in the rate of educational building in recent years.

During the course of this Parliament starts on educational buildings have risen by over 40 per cent. We are now in the middle of a £300 million five—year building programme and we are looking forward to the 1965–68 programme, which will be running about 30 per cent. higher. So on the wider front we can certainly point to a great deal of progress. I agree, however, that we must make as much progress as we can in the provision of better sanitary facilities in these schools.

The two schools under discussion are Victorian schools. They are fairly typical of the school building architecture of that period. Lavatories were provided out of doors in buildings erected just before the war and it is not unknown, even in recent years, for the Ministry of Education to receive suggestions from local education authorities for the building of new schools with outside lavatories.

If we want more convenient arrangements in all these schools we must recognise that there is a great deal to do. I am glad that the L.C.C. is finding it possible to carry out the improvements to which I have referred at Yerbury and Grafton.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half—past Four o'clock.