§ 11. Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of local education authorities have now returned completed survey forms concerning building improvement needs; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. DunnLocal education authorities were asked to return completed survey forms to my Department by 1 April 1986. At the end of May, 44 per cent. of authorities had made either complete or partial returns for the sample schools in their areas. In all, about one-third of the total number of forms due have been received so far. Authorities which have not made their returns as yet are being heavily pressed by my Department to do so as soon as possible.
§ Mr. PikeWill the Minister assure the House that when this survey is completed he will respond positively and make funds available to local authorities to enable them to deal with repairs and maintenance of their school buildings? Does he accept that Lancashire county council has already proved that it needs an extra £44 million over the next five years to bring its schools into good order? Will he make extra money available now to Lancashire to deal with that problem?
§ Mr. DunnMy right hon. Friend's predecessor undertook to inform the House of the outcome of the survey, and I dare say that action and debate will follow from that. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I point out that Lancashire's prescribed capital expenditure allocation of £12.5 million was the third highest in England after Hampshire and the Inner London education authority, and represented 58 per cent. of the authority's bid against the average for England as a whole of 43 per cent.
§ Mr. LathamWhile no Conservative Member thinks that there is a limitless pot of gold for this purpose, will my hon. Friend bear in mind when working out his allocation of resources that if maintenance work is left too long it becomes more and more expensive as the years go by?
§ Mr. DunnI agree with my hon. Friend. Between 1981–82 and 1984–85 spending nationally on the repair and maintenance of school buildings increased by 13 per cent. in real terms.
§ Mr. PavittWill the Minister give special attention to Brent education authority and consider that authority's returns? For the past 15 years there has been such a dereliction of buildings that the expenses are now astronomical. As this is an inner city area and was rate capped for some time, does he accept that insufficient rate support grant is being given to allow the education authority to carry out the job that it wants to do?
§ Mr. DunnI understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Opposition parties must bear a fair share of the responsibility for the decline in the repair and maintenance of the quality of our school stock. I am old enough to remember the time when a Labour Secretary of State for Education responded to the allocations of funds to local authorities with a bias against those authorities which would not go comprehensive as they were being forced to do. That was the start of much of the problem for many local authorities.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettOn reflection, the Minister will realise that that is rubbish. The real point is that there is insufficient spending on school buildings. Unless those resources are spent, we shall have to spend more in the future. Will he accept that there is overwhelming evidence from the trade unions, the Building Employers Confederation and from HMI reports about the appalling state of our schools? When will he allow local authorities to spend some money and employ large numbers of unemployed building workers to put our schools into a decent state of repair?
§ Mr. DunnI must state straight away that what I said was not rubbish. It was true. We must accept that the state of our school stock is the cumulative result of inadequate spending on the repair and maintenance of the building stock over many years. The bias against Shire counties imposed by the Labour Government, supported at that time by the Liberal party, is one of the manifestations with which we have to cope.