HC Deb 15 January 1979 vol 960 cc1459-70

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

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)

On 19th January 1968, the London borough of Havering's plan to build a new Squirrels Heath infants school on a green field site in my constituency was stopped dead in its tracks. On that date, the Department of Education, as part of a programme of reductions in public expenditure, withdrew approval for all projects not contractually committed. Eleven years later, we are no nearer seeing a school on that site.

The project to replace the infants school was eventually reinstated in the 1973–74 programme of the local authority, but again economic crisis intervened and the project was halted in early 1974. Five years more and we still can see no prospect of that school being built, at least for two years and possibly beyond then. That is the background to my raising this issue tonight

The junior and infants schools occupy one site. They were built in 1911. Two permanent classrooms were added to the infants school in 1960 and no fewer than five temporary demountable classrooms have been placed on a very restricted site to accommodate the increasing numbers of children. Inevitably, there has been serious overcrowding, particularly in the junior school. Therefore, although the immediate objective is the replacement of an infants school, it is needed in order to relieve the serious and potentially dangerous over-crowding at the junior school, which would have much greater space for its own pupils if the infants school were to be moved to the site in Balgores Lane

Events reached a head at the beginning of the current school year, when parents of new pupils were angered by what they saw as the inadequacies of the school. Parents past and present, as well as those of children already in the school at the time, were equally apprehensive. Considerable pressure has built up on the local authority to proceed with this long-awaited new infants school. Unfortunately, the local authority has found it impossible and so far has been able only to carry out small expedient measures and not to meet the main need of a new school

Six of the 14 classes in the junior school have numbers of pupils which exceed the borough's own maximum of 35. Several of the classrooms are like a page out of Dickens in their dimensions, with less than a square yard of space for each child. An additional problem is that half the classrooms in the junior school surround and enter into the assembly hall. As that hall is also used for class work, and particularly for physical training, it makes for a further source of congestion

The narrow corridors make single file a necessity. Children who are unwell have to sit in the draughty entrance lobby. There is a chronic lack of storage space. In one classroom I saw heavy musical instruments perched precariously on shelves over the children's heads

The corridors are lined with lockers. That has given rise to fears that if there were a fire there would be a considerable hazard. The local authority has gone some way to relieve these anxieties by bringing forward plans for a new automatic fire alarm but, with the present overcrowding, there is anxiety, even if the present arrangements meet the local fire officers' standards. For example, should the main exit be blocked, children in the classrooms surrounding the assembly hall would have to make their way out of the windows which have high ledges

I turn to the problem of the toilet facilities. Improvements have been made as a result of parental pressure. But I plead particularly for the teachers—mostly women. They have to queue to visit the lavatory in their well-earned lunch hour. That is not a reasonable condition of employment these days

It is a tribute to the professional dedication of the teachers that even with overcrowded conditions and inadequate facilities they earn high praise from the parents. It is ironic that the parents do not show any inclination to take their children from the schools. But they do want reasonable standards for their children. By modern standards the site is restricted. The school stands on less than one-third of the acreage which would be required were the school to be built today. That is an indication of the way in which these children suffer a disadvantage compared with others who attend new schools.

It is no surprise that parents, teachers, governors, teaching associations and non-teaching unions are agreed about the urgent need for the replacement of the infants school. However, that has not proved to be possible. It looks less possible as the years go by.

If one examines the building programme allocation which is available to the London borough of Havering one can have little confidence that the borough will be able to undertake this project in the foreseeable future.

At Question Time on 12th December the Minister said that it was for the local authority to decide which schools it proceeded with. She said that if the borough, as a result of an extra allocation of money, felt able to go ahead with the project, that was a decision for the borough.

An examination of the initial allocations for the last two years and of the provisional allocations for the next two years shows the difficulty involved in the borough attempting to accommodate such a large-scale project in its forward programme.

Currently the project is estimated to cost £250,000. Judiciously rounded up, it might cost £300,000. That might be a wise estimate because of rising costs. The initial allocation for 1978–79 was £260,000. For the year 1979–80 the allocation is £214,000, of which £65,000 is earmarked for energy conservation. The provisional allocation for the next two years is £149,000 and £142,000 respectively. Likewise, a figure of £65,000 in each of the two years must be put aside for energy conservation. Against this background, it is impossible for the borough to embark on a replacement of the infants school at the capital cost of £250,000. To have done so in the current year would have committed all the available borrowing powers to that one project.

However, this does not give the full story. If we examine the current year in more detail, we see that the initial allocation of £260,000 was subsequently increased by £83,000 to a total of £343,000 in March last year—a matter of a few days before the new financial year. By that time the borough had already decided to plump for the work on Bosworth, another borough primary school which had problems with its high alumina cement. That was to cost only £208,000 and was a reasonable proportion of the amount then available. Since then additional moneys have become available through SPAR, the special programme for assistance in reorganisation, amounting to £33,000 and £19,000 through energy conservation measures. Moreover, the Department is now looking at some of the expenditure on Bosworth as abnormal and this has released further moneys.

Therefore, from the Department's point of view, it might be said that the London borough of Havering has not done too badly in the current year. However, it is not possible to plan a major project within the resources of a London borough architect's department without having at least nine months' notice of a firm intention to proceed.

Again one can see a similar story developing in the forthcoming year in which, even though £42,000 extra has now been made available, it still leaves £191,000 in the forthcoming year available for all projects of its kind. Therefore, to say that the borough has a choice is not altogether valid and is to a degree misleading. As to future allocations, which are likely to go either up or down, the situation is even less reassuring.

This makes it impossible to plan projects. Inevitably money that has been announced as likely to be made available in advance is put to relatively smaller schemes which can be commissioned at shorter notice. Therefore, I call on the Department to recognise the outstanding need of these two schools, and in particular the claims made because of the poor conditions in the junior school.

It is a matter for regret that, even now, the borough cannot see its way clear to proceed with this project. The numbers are holding up, and while that situation continues overcrowding will take place. Parents want to be reassured about the position and they deserve some earlier idea as to the allocation.

The borough's bid for borrowing powers in the last two years has made Squirrels Heath infants school replacement, plus £200,000 for minor projects up to a value of £75,000, a priority, but yet the borough has received only about half of that total sum initially and not much more thereafter. There should be some indication in advance that it will be possible—if not in the next financial year, which would be preferable, but at least in the foreseeable future—that this school, which has been the long-standing ambition of the local authority and which is very much needed by the children in the area, will become a reality.

This is why I seek to raise this important local issue on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister in replying to this debate will not refer to another option that faces the borough—namely, the drawing of money from its own resources. If she has a quiet word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, she will find that as a result of his allocation of rate support grant this year Havering is one of the half dozen worst affected authorities in England and Wales and is already facing massive financial difficulties.

The parents, teachers and children of Squirrels Heath junior school deserve a clear indication of what the future holds for them. They would like some assurance that the educational conditions will improve as a result of the Department's change of heart.

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson)

I listened with care and interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). As he will readily recognise, it is not so much a change of heart that he is seeking as a change of available finance. The history that he has sketched—of building projects scheduled and deferred, and of the difficulties faced by pupils, teachers and parents at this school—is, sadly, all too familiar. It exists in many parts of the country.

I expect that the hon. Member is familiar with a document published by my Department last year. It was a survey of school stock in this country and of the problems faced in many places. An indication was given therein of the financial cost of housing adequately all the children whom we seek to educate. Perhaps he will draw this document to the attention of his constituents, not because it provides an adequate answer to their difficulties and complaints but because it may show them the dimensions of the problem with which we must deal nationally and the implications which are felt not only in Romford but in many other constituencies.

I recall that the sum required to replace the school building stock throughout the country as a whole and to bring it up to the level that all of us would like to see is about £1,500 million. That sum is not readily available.

The hon. Member is already aware from my answer to his Question on 12th December, in connection with these schools, that it is for each local education authority to determine its priorities for the school building projects that it wishes to undertake. I take the hon. Member's point that although Havering might have been able to find money for this project in 1979–80, it has, for a variety of reasons, felt that it could not undertake this project. It feels that some of the difficulties and delays that it has encountered may be laid at the door of my Department.

I recognise that this is a problem for local authorities, but it is one that all local authorities encounter and one of which they must take account and are well aware. It recurs year after year. That must be in the minds of the authorities in deciding how to proceed with school building projects.

In view of the concern expressed by parents of children attending the Squirrels Heath schools the local education authority recently undertook a detailed review of the facilities and accommodation there. The report to the schools and general purposes sub-committee has been supplied to my Department and has been the subject of consultation with the authority's officers. I understand that the authority has written to parents explaining what action it is taking on these problems, and there is an awareness of the difficulties by the schools themselves.

Part of the problem is that the infants school shares the site with the junior school and consists of permanent and temporary buildings. Accommodation is adequate for the pupils currently on the roll and, subject to an improvement in the toilet arrangements for the under-fives, there is no reason why the borough's policy on admissions should not continue to be implemented.

Some improvement work on the lavatories has recently been completed, at a cost of about £3,000, and the authority plans to build a new toilet unit especially for very young children, at a cost of about £11,000. I am told that a temporary difficulty would arise if some of the summer-born children were admitted before they reached compulsory school age. However, the authority is intending shortly to offer places for these youngsters at a nearby school, with transport provided, for one term only, in the 1978–79 academic year. These places will be offered in the expectation that numbers at the Squirrels Heath infants school will decline and that as from September 1979 it should be able to admit all its pupils.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the presence of temporary classrooms on the site. I am told that the authority considered providing an additional temporary classroom. As the hon. Gentleman said, the school site is already restricted. It was felt that the alternative proposal to admit the children to a different school for a period was in the best interests of all the children, in view of the restricted nature of the site.

The hon. Gentleman said that the junior school was overcrowded. He referred to the size of the classes. The authority's target is a maximum class size of 35. Although six of the classes are just above that size, I understand that that is to the extent of only two children. There are two small remedial classes that are less than 50 per cent. of the authority's maximum class size. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that although we consider it undesirable to have classes that are extremely large, the way in which classes are arranged sometimes has an impact, and that may be part of the reason in the instance to which he referred.

A part of the school's problems stems from its popularity with parents. There is a certain amount of evidence that part of the accommodation problem is attributable to the reluctance of parents to transfer their children when they move from the area. They wish their children to stay at the school. There are about 40 pupils at the school who are in that position. In addition, there are popular secondary schools in the area and parents move into the district in anticipation of places for their children at those schools when they transfer to secondary schooling.

In recognition of this difficulty, I gather that the authority proposes to review its arrangements for admission to the junior school. However, it is clear that there will continue to be pressure on accommodation at the school for some years. This is principally because it is a popular and presumably well run school.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to indicate the likely future for the school. I understand that the authority has reserved a site for a replacement school and that it is planning it as a project for its 1980–81 building programme. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that he is seeking. It is not in my power to do so. Nor has it ever been in the power of any Minister in the Department of Education and Science to seek to commit resources of that sort so far ahead, or outside the current year.

One slight reassurance that I can offer the hon. Gentleman—he referred to the provisional allocations for 1980–81 in the context that he felt that they would be inadequate to allow for the replacement of the school—is that the elements of the programme that have been outlined so far deal only with basic need and energy conservation. I cannot give a firm commitment on what the size of the programme will be in future years.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the amount set aside for energy conservation in the years under discussion. It may be that it has not been made fully clear to him that only energy conservation and basic need—that is, roofs over heads—have so far been included in the programme. Whatever element there might be made available in future for improvements and replacements has not been outlined. The hon. Gentleman must consider the programme with the idea in mind that if there is to be an element of improvements and replacements in future years it will have to be added to the sums that he has seen outlined already. That may be of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 30th November, we intend to allocate increased resources for the replacement of old primary and secondary schools over the next three years. The Havering authority will get its reasonable share of these sums. Replacement of the infants school will alleviate, or even eliminate, the problems at the junior school. That is the most that I can offer the hon. Gentleman by way of an indication of what will happen in advance programmes.

I have an assurance from the authority to the effect that it is intending to effect a number of other minor improvements well within its minor works resources.

I understand that the staff of the school have been encourage to review a variety of arrangements to deal with shortage of materials and so on, in an effort to make the school run more smoothly and enable it to cope with some of the effects of the overcrowding.

I understand that there are to be joint efforts to improve the care and maintenance of the premises. Fundamentally, the problem of the provision of extra money for the replacement of this school is bound up with the overall problem of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman seeks my acquiescence in advance for the funding of this project. He spoke sincerely and with strong conviction about the feelings of parents in his constituency who believe that these schools should be replaced and that the children are being educated in undesirable conditions, a premise with which I cannot disagree.

It is the wish of the Government to make more resources available for public expenditure, so that projects of this kind may be tackled. To be blunt, this is a policy that has brought us a good deal of criticism from Conservative Members. The hon. Member is asking me to give an assurance to the parents in his constituency—in particular to the parents who have children at these schools—which I am not in a position to give. I can tell them that the level of public expenditure now current, and which we envisage for the future, can be supported only through rates and taxes which will come from people such as themselves. This level is something that can be maintained only if we as a community have the will to maintain it.

Although I have great sympathy with the pleas of the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will make his case for maintaining and increasing the programme of public expenditure not only to the Government—we are fully in agreement with it and are hindered only by some of our economic problems—but to those within his own party who have said at length and with vigour that they believe that the programme of public expenditure which we already sustain is too great.

Mr. Neubert

Does the Minister accept that in recent years sufficient money has been available within the programme? The problem has been that not sufficient notice has been given that that money was available, so that the borough has not been able to maintain its priority for the replacement of Squirrels Heath infants school. Although I accept her point, I do not believe that she has altogether addressed herself to the point that the borough needs approximately nine months' notice in which to do the preparatory design work to place this school replacement in any given year.

Miss Jackson

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but frankly I am a little surprised by it. I referred earlier to the question of notice and the difficulties which, understandably, authorities face in seeking to deal with programmes which cannot be announced far enough in advance. These are difficulties faced by every authority. Within my comparatively brief experience in the Department—although it is longer than many who have recently served at my level—there have been many authorities which have planned ahead. They have plans ready at the drop of a hat so that they can go ahead with projects should money be granted. It is within my experience that a number of authorities have been particularly fortunate in building allocations precisely because they have been in this state of readiness and have been able to say "We have a project on the stocks with which we can go ahead immediately ". I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that this is not the case with Squirrels Heath.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point and acknowledge that there is a difficulty here. I suggest that he might discuss with his local authority whether there is anything it can do to alleviate difficulties on its side so that when, as we hope, at some future date the money for a new school at Squirrels Heath might again become available, the difficulties which clearly have been encountered in the past do not afflict it in the future. Then there will be no need for the hon. Gentleman and I, or any successor of mine or his, to hold a similar debate on the future of this school, because it will have been replaced and all concerned will be content.

Even accepting the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the difficulties faced by the authority because of the method of proceeding with public expenditure programmes, it remains the authority's decision what priority it gives to a project. Ultimately it lies with the authority to decide where and how to implement its programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.