HC Deb 20 December 1968 vol 775 cc1791-800
Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that I am working strictly to time. This debate will end at 4 o'clock at the latest. Mr. Davidson.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington)

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance in my constituency. I appreciate, Sir, that you yourself have a great interest in education, and that it is not, perhaps, surprising that two of today's debates are about education.

We in Lancashire have this week, due to your courtesy, had rather a bumper Parliamentary week. We have had many Questions about the North-West. Yesterday we had a debate on the New Towns Bill, part of which was concerned with the Leyland-Chorley New Town, and you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to call me early, so that I was able to make some points which are of interest to those in North-East Lancashire.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member will not be out of order if he talks about the subject that I have chosen for him to talk about.

Mr. Davidson

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I felt that it would be remiss of me not to express my gratitude to you for your usual kindness and also your particular kindness to me this week.

The problem of education in Accrington must be set against the background of the whole North-East Lancashire region. Ever since the Industrial Revolution one of the ills of North-East Lancashire has been its high predominance of old buildings. My main purpose is to urge the Government in general and my right hon. Friend in particular the need for urgent action to be taken to replace some of the old, decaying, dilapidated buildings in my constituency, in particular those concerned with primary education.

I want to give my right hon. Friend the background to the educational position in my constituency. The Lancashire No. 7 Division Education Committee, which covers the main part of my constituency, has a population of 65,000 and a school population of 9,600, with a teaching staff—including infants, junior secondary and nursery—of 406. In addition, we have one college of further education which provides education for over 5,000 part-time and full-time students.

We are reasonably well off as regard secondary education buildings. We have two grammar schools—one for boys and one for girls—and four secondary modern mixed schools. All these, I am happy to say, are housed in imposing, relatively modern buildings, two of which were completed in 1958–59 and the other two in 1967–68. I should be even more delighted if I were able to paint a similarly rosy picture of primary school buildings. Unfortunately, only one primary school has been built in my constituency since the war.

I am voicing a criticism of my right hon. Friend about the Government's exclusion of one primary school—St. Peter's—from the coming school building programme, but I am entitled similarly to indict the previous Administration for their neglect of this region, and on their primary school building programme, throughout their period of office. The building of two completed primary schools since the war is hardly a proud record and needs no elaboration from me. There are also two schools in their first phase of completion.

One of the problems which particularly beset primary education is the constant need to evacuate existing buildings. In recent years no fewer than three primary schools have been evacuated because of the dangerous state of the buildings.

Recently, St. Oswald's Roman Catholic Primary School was evacuated. I shall not dwell upon this, because, happily, a replacement school was included in the 1967–68 programme. I mention this school only because the building collapsed a little later than St. Peter's School, which, unhappily was not included in the replacements programme.

I want to refer to the sad story of the St. Peter's School. This is a Church of England controlled primary school and had to be evacuated just over two years ago. The headmaster, Mr. Barton, was kind enough to contact me. I can do no better than draw my right hon. Friend's attention to some of his observations. This school stood in Willows Lane. Owing to the subsidence of its foundations, the children had to be hurriedly evacuated and rehoused. The antiquated but conveniently vacant building of the former St. James's School in Cannon Street was used as a temporary school. As the school was without a building of its own, it was included in the projected minor building programme for 1967–68.

Unfortunately, the headmaster and others concerned were informed a little later that a larger building than had been expected was necessary and, therefore, the replacement school would have to be transferred from the 1967–68 programme to the 1968–69 programme as a major works project. In the meantime, some money was spent on prettying up the premises a little. My right hon. Friend can imagine how disappointed we in Accrington were at the decision to delete St. Peter's replacement from the 1968–69 major building programme.

As a result of the representations made to me, I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, with his usual courtesy, replied to me in these terms: I sympathise with Mr. Barton and can understand his disappointment that work on the new St. Peter's School was not authorised to start in this financial year. I am afraid there is no possibility of additions to the current building programme because final allocations to authorities have now been made as I told the House of Commons on 20th June. I should like Mr. Barton to be assured that so far as I am concerned this project has been deferred, not "axed". The Lancashire Authority told us that work on the new school could not start before February, 1969. If work is authorised for 1969–70 it could begin in April and so would have been delayed only a matter of weeks. It is even possible that the new school could open at the time originally envisaged. We have invited authorities to support proposals for the revised 1969–70 building programme. You will appreciate that I can make no firm promise until I have studied Lancashire's proposals and priorities for that year. The answer which I received somewhat raised the hopes of those concerned in Accrington that a replacement building would be started at the earliest opportunity. We were, therefore, doubly alarmed when the project was not included in the 1969–70 major building starts programme. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will go into the case of St. Peter's in some detail.

I should like to pass on to my right hon. Friend the observations of the Reverend Packwood, who is the vicar of St. Peter's. He says that he is aware that a certain amount of capital has been held in reserve to aid certain schools which have not found a place on the approvals list. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State will do their utmost to ensure that St. Peter's school is included in the forthcoming reserve list. The case of St. Peter's is of great concern in my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend will treat, as a matter of urgency, the need for this school to be replaced.

However, it is not only the problem of St. Peter's which concerns my constituents and I. I have also raised with the Secretary of State the question of the Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Primary School. This was another school which had to be evacuated, as recently as November, because of disturbing reports received by the managers of the school about the structure of the building. It had to be evacuated as a matter of urgency and children were rehoused, not in Oswaldtwistle, but in Accrington, in a building some distance from the site of the previous school, the former grammar school building in Blackburn Road.

I know that the Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Primary replacement school is in the 1970–71 building programme preliminary list. I should like an assurance that the needs of this school are very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend. Apart from the provision of the best possible education for their children being a matter of concern to parents, the fact that the school has had to be evacuated and rehoused some distance away from the original site poses great financial problems. One constituent tells me that additional travelling expenses of 13s. 4d. have been added to the budget of many parents of children going to the school.

I realise that the county education committee provides travelling facilities for children under eight years of age who live over one mile from the school and that a conveyance can be provided by the authority for children between the ages of 8 and 11 years if the distance from home to school is over two miles. But there are many children whose homes are perhaps a quarter or half a mile or less outside these arbitrary limits. Therefore, it is a matter of financial as well as educational concern for parents.

That is not the whole story. I am assured that architects have recently reported on the state of two or more primary schools in the constituency and said that some remedial action is needed if they are not to fall down. Thus, while there is no immediate danger, heavy capital outlay will be necessary to patch up old buildings, of which there are far too many in my constituency, rather than building the bright new modern buildings which are desperately needed.

May I state now what is on the credit side. I know that a school for the education of subnormal children is to be built in the 1969–70 programme and that one further new school in the educational priority area is to be included in the 1969–70 programme. That is St. Nicholas' school, which will be built on the Dill Hall site. I am delighted to know that the necessary safeguards for children attending school, arising out of the nearness of the site to main roads and river, have been agreed to. I am delighted that a new youth centre is to be provided next year to give much-needed facilities for the young people of Accrington and district.

I pay tribute to Mr. Rees, the divisional education officer, who is the finest example of a progressive, dedicated educationist in the best tradition of the impartial public official—and I hope that he does not blush if he reads those words. He has kept me fully informed and fully in touch with the educational problems of the district throughout.

I should also like to pay tribute to what is being done by the local education authority for education in many fields. I believe that the annual budget on education is about £1¾ million and that about 1,039 people are engaged in the education service. That is eloquent testimony to the concern felt for education in the region.

I also pay tribute to the local education authority for what they are doing in the education of immigrants. I commend their humane and progressive attitude and inform my right hon. Friend that there are excellent facilities for teaching immigrants and the children of immigrants not only in primary and secondary schools but also in the field of adult education.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for attending the debate. I know that she will go into the matter in some detail and will give it her usual careful consideration. Before I was stopped by Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the decision to build a new town. The fact that the Leyland-Chorley New Town is to be built makes the need for replacing old buildings in the older towns such as Accrington even more urgent, because if we are not to lose our young people to the brighter buildings which will emerge from the new towns, Government policy must provide for replacement school building as soon as possible. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will give very careful consideration to what I have said. I believe that on education and human grounds I have made a case to show that there is an urgent need to provide as much capital as is available to help build new educational buildings for our children.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science

(Miss Alice Bacon): rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The right hon. Lady will need leave of the House to speak again, as she has already spoken in this debate.

Miss Bacon

Then, by leave of the House, I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson)—and I think that no one will say "No".

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend presented his case and for his moderate tone. The subject is school building in the Accrington constituency but, as he knows, Accrington is not a separate local education authority but is part of Lancashire County Council. Therefore, we do not make an allocation for school building to Accrington as such, but to the county council after consideration of its proposals for the county as a whole.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recently received a deputation from the Lancashire County Council about its school building programme. I think I can say that, having regard to the economic situation, the deputation went away well satisfied with the programme it is being allowed in 1969–70. In the 1969–70 period, we have allocated to Lancashire a major building programme of £5.7 million—by far, the largest made to any local authority.

In addition, in that year, Lancashire will be spending, on seven major projects, half of the £900,000 allocated under the scheme for educational priority areas. One of these is for the replacement of three Church of England schools in the Accrington constituency. Another £820,000 has been allocated to Lancashire for minor building works in 1969–70 and approval will also be given to minor projects at Lancashire's aided schools which will probably cost about £90,000.

Taking all these together—the major school building programme, the educational priority programme, the minor building works and the rest—in 1969–70 the Lancashire Eudcation Authority will have permission to start school building to a total value of nearly £8 million—more than Lancashire has ever been allowed in any preceding year and which will be the largest allowed to any local authority in the country.

Even so, I do not suggest that the programme, large as it is, will solve all Lancashire's problems, especially the problem of replacing old and unsatisfactory schools. I visited Lancashire recently, and I know that Lancashire has at least its fair share of such schools and that my hon. Friend may consider with some justification that an undue proportion of them is in his constituency.

But we cannot solve the problem of sub-standard schools in a few years only, even with the help of the educational priority building programme. The bulk of Lancashire's programme has to be devoted to providing new schools in areas where the population is growing, particularly as a result of housing overspill from the county boroughs.

My hon. Friend said that the fact that there is to be a new town made it even more necessary that the old schools in the old towns should be brought up to standard. It may be more necessary, but I think that he will realise that, if we have a fixed amount to spend on school building, the fact that Lancashire will have to provide schools for new towns and new overspill will probably mean that it will have less to spare for the replacement of old schools.

Bearing in mind that the school population in Accrington is not increasing significantly and certainly not as rapidly as in the new areas of the county, I do not think that the constituency has been unfairly treated. A school extension for 280 pupils is authorised in the 1968–69 programme, and I have already mentioned the major project in the special programme for educational priority areas, which will allow three old schools to be closed and replaced. In addition, as my hon. Friend himself has pointed out, a new special school for 120 educationally subnormal pupils will also be started in 1969–70.

Together with projects on the county minor works programme and minor projects at aided schools, this means an expenditure of about £¼ million in Accrington on school building in the two years. There is, as my hon. Friend said, a £50,000 project on the Accrington further education college which will release the annexe of the old grammar school now used by the college.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the schools where he fears the building is unsafe. I would not wish children to stay a single day in such buildings, and I can assure him that we make no difficulties about putting schools in the programme to replace them, always provided that there are no vacant places in other schools or empty buildings available where the pupils can be accommodated.

My hon. Friend asked for further schools to be put in the 1969–70 programme. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told him, we cannot do this. Although he says that we kept a little money back for special places, I think he will agree that, having regard to the very big building programme for Lancashire in 1969–70 we could not add to that £8 million.

Turning to the future, I shall be considering for the 1969–70 design list, on which the programme of starts in 1970–71 will be based, four schools in the Accrington area. These are the Rishton Methodist Controlled School, Holy Family Roman Catholic Secondary School, Oswaldtwistle Hippings Methodist Primary School and St. Peters Church of England (Controlled) Primary School. One of these is for the replacement of the Holy Family Catholic School. This is an old project which, as my hon. Friend said, failed to start before April this year and was caught up in the revision of programmes, but we had to revise the school building programme because of the taking out of £30 million for the raising of the school leaving age. The authority now tells me that the justification is stronger than it used to be, and I shall consider this when coming to a decision.

I could not say today, indeed it would be unfair on the rest of Lancashire and on the rest of the country, whether this and the other three replacement projects will be approved for the design list, but Lancashire has submitted these four to me, and I shall have to consider them against the 93 other schools submitted by Lancashire, and the authority's views of their relative priorities as well as those submitted by other local authorities.

My hon. Friend will realise that these will include replacement schools which have also been deferred from earlier programmes, but I can assure him that I will give all his schools the most careful consideration, taking account of what he has said today. He realises, as I am sure we all realise, that we cannot get rid of the old schools immediately and that we have to give priority to new areas where there would be no school for children to go to unless a new school were built; this is the dilemma that faces all local authorities. I have it in my constituency where the children living in the old houses are still attending the old nineteenth century schools, and where those who move away to a new housing estate also get a new school, and this seems unfair, but we could not leave children with no school to go to.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend, I understand his difficulties. I am sorry that I cannot promise to add anything to Lancashire's very big programme for 1969–70, but I assure him that we will give the most careful consideration to what he has said in preparing the design list for 1969–70, which is the building programme for 1970–71.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

Before the right hon. Lady sits down, will she give me an assurance that she will look very closely once again at St. Peter's School, in view of what I have told her? I know she cannot give me a definite comment about it now.

Miss Bacon

Yes, certainly. I will do that and let my hon. Friend know. On the present information it would be impossible to add it next year, but if there is any change in the situation, obviously we shall look at it again.