§ 16. Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the amount of money available for school building in 1974–75; how this compares with 1973–74; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Monro£54.5 million which is £10.1 million more than in 1973–74. The increase includes £5.5 million as the first instalment of the programme for nursery education building. With permission, I shall give details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. MacArthurIs my hon. Friend aware that I should like to discuss the school building allocation for Perthshire with him on some other occasion? Having said that, I congratulate him on the progress which the figures show. Can he give some more information about the progress of his plans for the development of nursery school education in Scotland?
§ Mr. MonroI am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am always glad to talk to him about any difficulties he may have in Perthshire. The nursery education programme is going ahead as fast as possible. Some of the money available was announced in the last White Paper and upgraded with relation to the cost of building. As regards the criticism of some local authorities, the bids from local authorities for the main programme in 1973–74 amounted to £62 million, of which £26 million was available. This year the bids were no less than £108 million, of which an increased sum of £29 million was available. In many cases they are asking for the moon and are complaining about cuts when in fact they are receiving more.
§ Mr. David SteelDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that the local authorities were led by the December 1972 White Paper to expect an augmented programme? Is he aware that the Roxburgh education authority feels particularly disappointed that the money for the Tweedbank School has been included as part of the normal allocation instead of as a separate project, as was earlier expected?
§ Mr. MonroI appreciate that the Roxburgh County Council has written to my 1520 Department. We shall look very carefully at the complaints which it has made. It would be wrong for me to go further than that.
§ Mr. SillarsIs the Minister confident that the 1974–75 programme is secure and that, when the Government come to resolve the contradictions of their consumer-led growth and balance of payments deficit, there will be no substantial cut-back in the Scottish education programme?
§ Mr. MonroAs the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been no cut-back in the education programme even with the recent cuts in Government expenditure. Those cuts did not touch education, and there is no reason why the programme I have announced should not go ahead.
§ Mr. DempseyDoes the Minister agree that Lanarkshire has had much less than half the money it wanted? The amount Lanarkshire has allocated for secondary school building in 1974–75 will preclude any expansion. For that reason the education authority has asked to meet the Minister. Could not something be done to eliminate the chaos due to the shortage of secondary school places as soon as is humanly possible?
§ Mr. MonroNo Government, past, present or future, can ever fulfil all the wishes of local authorities in educational building. We must be practical about this. Lanarkshire is receiving nearly £6 million—£5,981,000—towards school building. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, individually or with other hon. Members representing Lanarkshire constituencies, to meet me subsequent to the discussions between the Department and local officials, I shall be happy for him to do so.
§ Following is the information:
| 1973–74 £m. | 1974–75 £m. | |
| 1. Main programme of primary and secondary school building other than primary school improvement | 26.2 | 28.8 |
| 2. Primary school Improvement programme | 9.8 | 12.2 |
| 3. Nursery schools and classes | — | 5.5 |
| 4. Minor works | 4.2 | 4.2 |
| 5. Special schools | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| 6. Hostels | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| 44.4 | 54.5 |
§ 21. Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has received from education authorities in Scotland in relation to the financial allocations for school buildings; and what replies he has sent.
§ Mr. MonroNine education authorities have asked for meetings to put forward a case for a larger allocation for the 1974–75 school building programme. These representations have only recently been received and I shall be considering the position with each of the authorities concerned.
§ Mr. EadieSurely the Minister must agree that it does no good to try to create the impression that there is not uproar in the educational system because of the Government's proposed financial school building allocation. Is he aware that in the county of Midlothian three-quarters of the proposals put before him for school building have been cut? Bearing in mind the demands of the new town and the noises which the Government make about nursery school education and building provision in that respect, is it any wonder that education authorities are beginning to question whether the Government are in earnest about providing the proper facilities for educational purposes in Scotland?
§ Mr. MonroThe Government are most certainly involved in providing extra facilities for education. In 1973–74 Midlothian asked for £553,000 for its main programmes and following increases in building costs and improvement schemes it will receive £1,006,000. This year it applied for £5.2 million and it will receive at the end of the day £1.32 million. Thus, it is getting £300,000 more than it received last year. Therefore, it is wrong to say that there are building cuts.
§ Mr. James HamiltonIs the Minister aware that Lanarkshire in respect of its school building programme has received only £2.1 million and that representation has already been made to him seeking an urgent meeting? Bearing in mind the great urgency of the school building situation, will he take another look at the matter since all local authorities seem to be dissatisfied with what is happening?
§ Mr. MonroI know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter in relation to Lanarkshire. I have asked my Depart- 1522 ment to discuss the immediate position with the Lanarkshire Education Authority, and I shall meet the hon. Gentleman and other Lanarkshire Members if they are still dissatisfied.
§ Mr. MacArthurIs my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland we still have a long way to go to overcome the deficiencies in the Labour Government's educational policies? Will he recognise that, welcome as is the increased allocation for Perthshire, it is inadequate to meet the needs in respect of completing the building of Perth Grammar School and other secondary extensions and buildings, which are now matters of pressing urgency in providing secondary education for the county?
§ Mr. MonroMy hon. Friend is a per sistent advocate for the schools of Perth. After my Department has discussed the situation with his education authority—and if my lion. Friend is still dissatisfied with the situation—I shall have another talk with him about the matter.
§ Mr. CarmichaelHas the Minister made any allowance for the staggering inflation in school building costs? Does he realise that he has already had to increase the 1971 figure by 13 per cent. and the 1973–74 figure by 30 per cent.? Has he allowed in his calculations for the even greater increase in inflation?
§ Mr. MonroThe figures for 1973–74 and 1974–75 include a 22 per cent. increase in school building costs.