St. Vincent's Primary School, Redbridge (Hansard, 25 October 1985)

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are 21 Bills on the Order Paper that were moved originally under the ten-minute Bill procedure. All are important, though some are more important than others and I am particularly concerned about the Pensioners' Heating and Communications Bill.
Why does a Bill of great importance and enormous concern to millions of pensioners appear to have been manoeuvred out of the way by the Government naming today as a day for Government business rather than a day for dealing with a number of these important Bills? The House must reflect the views of people outside and the enormous worries about this matter, because of the onset of winter, with the hardship that many pensioners will face through having to meet fuel bills.
The Pensioners' Heating and Communications Bill would alleviate the hardship that many pensioner households are facing with dread. We look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for help and guidance on how, in the dying days of this Session, the issue can be debated.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
I do not question the importance that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends attach to the Bill, but they know that at the start of each Session the House itself decides how many days—and which dates—should be allocated for debating private Members' legislation. This is not one of those days.

§ Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all understand that there is a shortage of time for private Members' legislation, but I do not understand why Bills appear on the Order Paper if they are not to be read out. Under what Standing Order does that happen? The Bills are apparently able to be moved, if not debated.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am following the practice that the House has followed in all the years that I have been an hon. Member. The outstanding orders and notices of motion are put on the Order Paper. We are doing nothing different from what has been done in every Session in the 21 years in which I have been an hon. Member.
I hope that the House will bear in mind that we are now eating into the time allocated for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand what you are saying to the House. You are really saying that it has always been done like this and it will go on like this for ever. We are trying to suggest that it is time that some changes were made. As you know, Mr. Speaker is in charge of certain matters in the House. We have just come back after a long recess and the whole place has been furnished. Thousands of pounds has been spent on new carpets at £30 per sq yd—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be fair to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment. I understand the concern that has been 638 expressed about the Pensioners' Heating and Communications Bill, but this is not the occasion to make speeches about expenditure in the House.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will bear in mind when he is expressing his concern about the need for change that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the House and it will be a bad day when the Speaker tells the House rather than the House telling the Speaker. I urge the hon. Gentleman to walk round and see the wise words of Mr. Speaker Lenthall in the No Lobby. I hope that we can now get on, rather than deprive the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) of his Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have not finished. I was trying to explain that the comforts of the people in this place are always looked after. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was trying to discuss a Bill to look after the comforts of pensioners and get rid of standing charges. It is a scandal that money can be found to look after Members of Parliament and God knows how many other members of the Establishment, but when we try to look after 9.5 million pensioners who find it difficult to live it is a different story altogether. That is my point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but this is not the occasion to make the speech that he might have made if we had been discussing that Bill.

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your indulgence. I agree with my hon. Friends that it is an abuse of the procedure for the Government to use the last Friday to discuss Government business when so many important private Member's Bills have not yet been dealt with—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have made it clear that the House itself decides at the beginning of each Session how much time will be allocated to private Members' Bills and the dates on which those Bills will be discussed. We have exhausted that time. The remedy lies with the House. I cannot try to vary a decision by the House. I have answered the point of order.

§ Mr. Cohen
I accept that, but an important element requires your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When Second Readings appear on the Order Paper normally we have an opportunity to shout, "Object." Usually, the Government Chief Whip does that. At least the Bill is then sorted out. Because of Government business, there is no—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The points of order are being made at the expense of time allocated for the Adjournment debate to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who, I have no doubt, wishes to raise a subject important to him. It is for the House to decide, not me or the Government. The House has decided that this is not a day allocated to the discussion of private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Chris Smith
I do not wish to detain the House. My point of order is related, but slightly different. The House might have decided a long time ago that 639 Government business should take place today, but why is the list of private Members' Bills printed on the Order Paper, giving many of my constituents the impression that they would be discussed? I know that you are concerned for the interests of Back Benchers. Will you discuss with Mr. Speaker the way in which the Order Paper is prepared and the impression that is given to people outside the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that what is happening today is no different from the usual practice. The designated Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions appear on the Order Paper because that is precisely what they are. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the protests that he and other hon. Members would make if we followed his suggestion and omitted them. That is not a matter for me but for the House and perhaps the Procedure Committee.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Banks
It is different but related, naturally. Since Whips representing the Government business managers are present, will they explain whether we shall have a chance to debate any of the issues before the Session ends on Wednesday? If we are not to be given that opportunity some important prospective legislation will be buried by Wednesday. That seems to be what the Government intend. We are entitled to know whether these important issues can be raised on the Floor of the House before Wednesday.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
My task is to ensure that Standing Orders are observed and that the conventions are recognised. We are doing nothing different today from what we have done on other occasions. It is wrong, because it is not in the order of business for the day, for hon. Members to seek to discuss private Members' Bills, or a particular private Member's Bill. I hope that we can move on.

§ Mr. Cohen
On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be as brief as possible. On the Order Paper stands my Bill dealing with racial harassment, which is an important matter. There have been a number of racial attacks in the east end of London—one only last night in Waltham Forest. Many citizens live in a constant state of fear of racial attacks and harassment.
This vital Bill stands on the Order Paper for today, but the House is discarding it. That adds insult to injury for those affected by racial harassment. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find a way under the conventions of the House to extend this sitting or to make time available before the House completes its Session next Wednesday, so that the Bill can be properly considered by Parliament.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have the power to do neither of those things, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. Equally, he knows that there are many Bills outstanding on the Order Paper, no doubt all of them dear to the hearts of the hon. Members who proposed them. None of them can be discussed because we have exhausted the time that the House allocated at the beginning of the Session to private Members' motions. We are about to 640 start a new Session, and when we discuss these matters then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the points that he has put to me today. I can do nothing about these matters now, and I hope that we can get on with the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South)
I deplore the fact that more than one third of the time allocated for consideration of my constituents' problems has been consumed by Labour Members of Parliament raising matters that could quite properly be raised elsewhere — and, on your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should have been dealt with in that way.
I shall therefore immediately turn to the problems that have arisen because of the current position at St. Vincent's Roman Catholic primary school, Waldegrave road, Redbridge. The school was built in 1929 and the only alterations since then have been the addition of an assembly hall and a kitchen, which were added in about 1964.
The children's main toilet facilities were built at the same time as the school, and there have been no major alterations or improvements since the parents' association roofed in the area in 1980–81 with clear PVC corrugated sheeting that leaks and gives no protection against the cold.
The toilets are unheated and poorly lit. Washing facilities are not immediately available near the toilet area, and the children must re-enter the school before washing their hands, with the risk of spreading infection on door handles and the possibility of their forgetting to wash their hands.
Mrs. Judith Gleeson, the present extremely able and competent head teacher, took up her appointment at the school in July 1984. She was appalled to discover the state of the toilets, which she considered to be unsuitable. She requested the local education authority to clean and repair them before the school re-opened in September, to avoid the need to advise the chairman, Monseigneur McKenna, and the governors that the school should be closed until the toilets were fit to use.
During the extremely cold spell that lasted several weeks at the beginning of this year—and during similar cold spells in previous years—the toilets were frozen almost every day and the caretaker had to carry many buckets of hot water to defrost them. Each night through the winter months it is necessary to drain the entire system to minimise the risk of freezing. The caretaker has carried out such duties since he came to the school 11 years ago. Almost every year he needs to spend a considerable amount of time during winter months taking care of the toilets so that they are available for the children.
The total cost of the project to provide new toilets and internal remodelling is £70,207 in the current financial year. That requires a grant of £63,000 from the Department of Education and Science under the planned grant earning expenditure as opposed to committed grant earning expenditure.
On 4 March of this year, the Department wrote defining the categories under which the distribution of resources to voluntary aided schools were determinded. One referred to basic need, but it referred only to new or expanded schools. Surely, basic need should include the provision of adequate hygienic toilet facilities for children at school.
The Minister wrote to me on 7 March saying: 641 You will appreciate that owing to pressure on resources generally, it has been necessary for the Department to place a strict limit on the number of new building starts which can be accommodated in any given year. It is also, unfortunately, the case that the level of committed expenditure falling to be met in the coming year in respect of projects already in hand has proved to be substantially higher than was originally anticipated. As a result, it has proved possible to programme only those new projects which are required in order to meet basic need of population growth or shift and those required in order to implement proposals approved by the Secretary of State under the Education Act, 1980. In consequence, the work now proposed at St Vincent's school…could not be found a place in the 1985–86 programme. In his letter, the Minister added an assurance that the project, if resubmitted by Redbridge LEA, will be very carefully considered in the process of formulating the new programme for 1986–87. The Health and Safety Executive inspector was then consulted and informed Mr. David Squires, the assistant diocesan education secretary, under health and safety legislation, that there was no legislation referring to toilet provision for children in schools. Surely children deserve such protection. The assistant diocesan education secretary wrote on 10 January 1985 to the Department: Our proposal at St. Vincent's School, Becontree Heath, constitutes a minor works scheme and although the Authority has supported the project, the Department of Education and Science has not made an allocation available. At this school we are dealing with a very serious health and safety matter. I think you will agree that we had indicated to the Head Teacher and Governors that because this case was so urgent it was highly likely that the Department of Education and Science would support the scheme. Over the last few days I have spoken to the Head Teacher and she informs me that during this very cold weather the caretaker and teaching staff have had to spend a considerable amount of time pouring boiling water down the lavatories to defrost them. The toilets in question are extremely unhygienic and I think it is likely that they will very soon have to be taken out of use. There are no other lavatories in the school for the age group that uses the external toilets and the closure of the toilet block in question will lead to an extremely serious deficiency in toilet provision in relation to the School Premises Regulations 1981. This matter was raised first by Mr. Squires on 31 July 1984, when he wrote to Mr. Radcliffe, director of education services for the London borough of Redbridge, saying: Following our recent telephone conversations regarding St. Vincent's School, Becontree, we are including in our submission a bid for the replacement of toilets and other improvement works. As you know, these matters are most pressing and we hope that an allocation will be forthcoming in 1985–86. It seems extraordinary that in 1985, when we are speaking of the need to provide in the majority of schools computers and other important facets of modern technology to prepare youngsters for an effective and constructive role in society, that we should be so neglecting this basic hygienic need. Is not the need for hygiene a basic concept of life?
I recently had the honour to visit Nepal; the Minister is aware that I am chairman of the Anglo-Nepalese all-party parliamentary group. In that country the schools are of an extremely basic nature. People must club together to build their own schools and finance them for five years before they are taken over by the Government. Thank goodness, we in Britain have long passed that state of affairs.
At the same time, hygiene is an important and essential element in the education of the children. The conditions that were just acceptable when my hon. Friend and I went to this type of school many years ago are entirely unacceptable now. As recently as 1945, perhaps as many 642 as a quarter of homes in Britain had no internal toilet facilities. I believe that the figure has now fallen to less than 2.5 per cent., thanks to major schemes to make internal toilet facilities available through the 1950s and 1960s. That is undoubtedly an important improvement in our general standard of living. There is a grave need for toilet facilities to be adequately provided, especially in the training of young people in a formative period in their life.
The cost of the scheme is likely to have risen to about £90,000 in the next financial year, but we should not lose sight of the fact that building works are an important aspect of the employment programme. Building works, are labour-intensive and the Government should surely he paying great attention to spending money in a way that will help to alleviate employment problems as well as improving conditions for our children.

§ Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for £90,000 to be spent at a Roman Catholic school in his constituency. Is he aware that the Catholic church itself, in the shape of the diocesan schools commission, wants to spend £1.3 million on a Catholic school in Birmingham so that it can close the Archbishop William's school in my constituency, which does not need any money spent on it at all?

§ Mr. Thorne
I know that the Catholic church is keen on education and that it pays its appointed share. I know also that it has every intention of doing so in the case which I am raising. It is extremely keen that the facilities that I am talking about shall be provided for the children in my constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will have some good news for me and my constituents that will ensure that the Dickensian conditions of which I have spoken are banished from the schools of Ilford, South as quickly as possible.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for raising a number of important matters. Unfortunately, due to the consumption of time on points of order earlier, I shall not be able in the time available to me to respond to all the matters that I might have dealt with had I had more time. I regret that I cannot give public undertakings on some of the issues to which my hon. Friend has addressed himself. I undertake to write to him on any matters which I am unable to cover in the short time that remains to me.
I am grateful for the close interest that my hon. Friend has shown in St. Vincent's Roman Catholic primary school. His constituents should know that he has written many letters and lobbied me quite valiantly in its cause. I hope that the people of Ilford, South are fully aware of the tribute that they owe to him for his efforts or, their behalf.
The House will know that there are different types of voluntary school and that the most numerous are the voluntary aided. More than 50 per cent. of voluntary schools are of the aided type, whereby certain capital building and external repair work remain the responsibility of the school governors, who are generally entitled to seek an 85 per cent. grant from the Department. The House will know that, in the context of my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, St. Vincent's comes within that category.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South spoke strongly in support of the case for a building project to 643 replace toilet facilities at St. Vincent's Roman Catholic primary school. I can assure my hon. Friend that I fully sympathise with the difficulties created by the present outdoor facilities which the infant children have to use, and I should like to see the facilities replaced. Much as I would like to help St. Vincent's, however, it has not yet been possible to allocate the resources to cover this project.
The House should know that the level of existing commitments on aided school projects estimated for 1985–86 was higher than earlier information had shown. There are a number of reasons for this. For example, in some cases costs have risen beyond the approved level, initial estimates may have turned out to be too low and work may have gone ahead faster than expected. Although the provision made in 1985–86 for all work at aided schools was over £50 million—nearly 12 per cent. higher than last year's expenditure — governors' plans for projects at aided schools totalled more than £90 million. Inevitably that meant that a large number of schools had to be disappointed. Priority clearly had to be given to those projects that fell into the categories referred to by my hon. Friend. I have to repeat a point made many times — that the resources available for capital expenditure in the voluntary aided sector have to be limited to what the country can afford.
If, later this year, resources become available through the delay or cancellation of a project, either in Redbridge 644 or elsewhere, we shall look at the claims of St. Vincent's again, but I can hold out no promises. Any resources that become available will have to go to projects where the need is greatest, and, while I sympathise with the case made on St. Vincent's behalf by my hon. Friend, many schools have a common problem and we can help them only if other priorities are not more pressing.
As to prospects for 1986–87, my hon. Friend knows that I cannot make any promise that resources will be available for St. Vincent's. All bids, including that submitted by Redbridge for the work to replace toilet facilities at the school, are being very carefully considered, and we expect to be able to inform local education authorities of their allocations for 1986–87 close to the end of this year. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot go any further at this stage.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that my speech is, of necessity, brief. I am grateful to him for securing the debate and I shall undertake to do what I can to assist.

§ Mr. Neil Thorne
Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to make one promise? I do not know whether he looks at all these cases personally, but will he do so in this instance before any decision about 1986–87 is made?

§ Mr. Dunn
Inasmuch as my powers may go as far as that, I shall do what I can to assist my hon. Friend. On behalf of the House, I thank him for securing the interests of his constituents so well this afternoon.