§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
10.1 pm
§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)I welcome the opportunity to raise a subject which is important for hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies. This is not the first time that I have raised the issue in the House, but the situation facing us is more critical than at any time in the past few years. If we do not get an adequate response tonight from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, I shall continue to raise the issue, time and again, until we get what the people of Lancashire are entitled to.
During the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 24 July I was called to speak at 7.58 am on the Friday morning, with only two minutes available to me. Of course, I was not able to develop my case, but I threw out a challenge to the Under-Secretary to see for himself the problems in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman readily accepted that challenge, but in the end the Secretary of State made the visit. We welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman visited Lancashire, but we should have been equally glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State.
We believe that the problem is there for all to see and that it speaks for itself. That is why we are appalled at the situation facing us. The capital allocations were announced in January. My first reaction when I met the county council's chief executive, Mr. Brian Hill, and the leader of the council, Mrs. Louise Ellman, was that the figure must be a mistake. If the Minister will tell us that the figure one should be placed in front of the allocation of £5,994,000, I shall sit down and not pursue the matter.
I was a member of the all-party delegation that put the case to the previous Secretary of State last year. The county council presented a video showing that it needed £44 million of extra resources over the next five years to deal with the problem of Lancashire's crumbling schools.
We have two main problems. The first is that many of the county's schools were built before 1914 and, because of their age, are deteriorating rapidly. In many cases, it is an expensive uphill battle to keep them in use. The county council is doing a magnificant job, but it is not the easiest of tasks. I believe that the county council is sometimes forced to waste money because it is not able to deal with the problem in the appropriate way. In many cases there is a need for new buildings rather than renovation of existing premises.
The second problem is with school premises with flat roofs built in the 1950s and 1960s. The House will be aware that flat roofs cause problems throughout the country. After a number of years, problems occur internally as a result of that kind of structure. In many cases the roofs require fairly expensive treatment to remedy the problems. In Lancashire, where the rainfall is slightly above the national average, flat roofs can cause even more problems than in some of the more fortunate parts of the country.
I believe that the figure of capital allocation announced must be a mistake. The county council capital allocation bid for 1987–88 was £18.8 million. As I have said, the allocation is £5,994,000. That is 32 per cent. of the figure that was bid for. It has to be said that the figure for 1986–87 was £12,538,000. In cash terms, that is the largest 785 reduction for any local education authority in the country. After the representations made, I believe that even this Government cannot be serious if that is the allocation.
If a mistake has been made, whether it was a mistake by the county council or the Department, let us get the matter cleared up and agree that more resources are needed so that we can solve the problem. If the Government really believe that the allocation that they have made is sufficient to meet the problem, it is an insult to the people of Lancashire and it is an appalling and despicable way in which to treat that county. I will be generous and say at this stage that I believe that some mistake has been made and that additional resources must be made available.
The problems from area to area are not necessarily always the same. In some areas the aided schools are the biggest priority. Sometimes it is the primary schools and sometimes it is the high schools or secondary schools. That is partly for historic reasons. Burnley was a county borough and concentrated first on the renewal of secondary and high schools. Most of our aided schools are in good condition. The biggest problems in Burnley are the county primary schools.
I have made the debate cover a wider area than Burnley deliberately because I recognise that the problems differ in other boroughs and districts in Lancashire. The capital allocation for aided schools to enable the governors to do necessary work has gone down. In 1985–86 the figure was £2,244,000. It has now gone down to £1,302,000 and it is £793,000 for 1987–88. That will create a problem for the parts of the county where the aided sector needs to take priority.
In my borough early last year Burnley Wood school had to be closed. I visited that school during the Christmas recess, just before Parliament reassembled. I wanted to see the scale of the problem. I was appalled. In spite of the fact that the county had tried to keep it presentable and attractive, dry rot had taken over so that large sections of the school were quarantined and could not be used. Shortly after that visit the school premises were closed. Burnley Wood school still exists but is now in different premises. Part of it is in Fulledge at Todmorden road school and part is in Coal Clough primary school. That is not the best solution and it cannot be allowed to continue. Yet the capital allocation places the scheme for the renewal of premises in jeopardy. I believe that the county council has decided that the project should still go ahead, having reconsidered the matter closely. It may be subject to county council confirmation at a full meeting. But it is an expensive project, and for every project that one leaves in, others have to go out. Whether it is Burnley or other parts of the county that have to exclude other schemes, it is an equally appalling and unacceptable state of affairs.
When the Secretary of State visited Burnley during the summer recess, he looked at Stoneyholme county primary school, which occupied two buildings adjacent to each other. There is a dry rot problem. The county is spending money trying to deal with it, but it is unable to eradicate it permanently. In addition, the school is in a growing population area and urgently needs new premises. If the county council decided to spend money on modernising those premises, it would be wasting its money because it would not be able to combat the prevalent dry rot in the in the building. Even if, for a moment, we assumed that 786 it could, we are still faced with the problem of the old-fashioned premises, the insufficient capacity to meet the needs of the population and insufficient resources for the staff who have to work there.
Other schools in Burnley with other projects are also placed in jeopardy. Hargher Clough county junior school needs a replacement kitchen. Burnley Wood Top Church of England school needs a scullery and Burnley Barden county infant school is in need of a connecting passageway and the refurbishment of its toilets. Several projects need to be done at Burnley college. The same can be said throughout the county. There are projects at Rawtenstall Alder Grange county secondary school for extensions following secondary reorganisation. I could read out a lengthy list of all the schemes that are placed in jeopardy at present.
All those schemes, wherever they are in the county, are urgently needed. We need more resources. Only the Government can help us to deal with the problem. I know that in theory the county is able to spend 30 per cent. of its capital receipts from disposal of premises, but it is not a solution in an area such as Lancashire, where land values are low and the disposal of such sites yields only a very low income. It could be said that even if the council could spend 100 per cent., which could be fully justified, it would still fall short of helping Lancashire to deal with this pressing problem.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will recognise the seriousness of the problem. I know that Conservative Members are as concerned about the issue as my hon. Friends. It is an important issue. We look forward to receiving a favourable response and to action being taken to deal urgently with the problem.
10.13 pm
§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for the way in which he has led the campaign for improved allocations for school buildings in Lancashire. I thank him for this opportunity to speak briefly in this Adjournment debate.
The Minister must explain why Lancashire has been so discriminated against in the allocations. Let us take Essex as an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley extracted the figures from the Minister in a written answer. Essex is of a similar size to Lancashire. Its allocation has been around £11.6 million for three years, including next year. Lancashire had £15 million in 1985–86 and £12.5 million this year. It will have £5.9 million next year. That is the biggest cash cut as well as the greatest percentage cut, second only to Northamptonshire. Why have Lancashire's needs not been recognised as they should be? It is a well-administered county. There is no fat to cut in the county. Building workers are out of work there. There are people who need work. Work is crying out to be done in Lancashire's crumbling schools.
It is simply crazy for the Government to refuse to make the allocations available to Lancashire. Only a Government who cared more about cutting tax for the better off than about ensuring that our school children had decent accommodation could have reached such a ridiculous decision. I hope that we shall hear tonight that the Minister will increase the allocation for Lancashire, as he should.
787 10.14 pm
§ Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn)I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on raising this important issue in this Adjournment debate. When the announcement was made it was greeted with incredulity by all the people in Lancashire, who thought that £5.9 million was simply unacceptable. We could not understand it at all. The press and television blamed the Government and it seemed that once again Government cuts were responsible. However, it now appears that the truth is that the county council has been grossly negligent in either making the applications in the wrong categories or filling in the forms incorrectly.
Money was available if the council had applied for it correctly. That fact should be stated. There should be an inquiry at the county council at the highest level to put the matter right. Millions of pounds more were available. That money could have gone to our schools, but it will not because it was not applied for.
The Department of Education and Science is not without criticism. Two years ago my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) led a deputation to the Secretary of State. Last year I led a similar deputation. We asked to see the Secretary of State when the allocation was £12.5 million. Therefore when an application was received for £5.9 million, someone must have realised that something was wrong and inquiries should have been made.
Surely these applications are not dealt with by a junior clerk. They must be dealt with by an official who really should have had the intelligence to realise that something was wrong. He should have queried the application. Apparently, that did not happen and the Department allocated all that it could in the circumstances.
Whoever is to blame, Lancashire school children and Lancashire ratepayers will suffer. We should have an urgent meeting of everyone involved—the Department, the county council and the Members of Paliament representing Lancashire—in an attempt to sort matters out because this is a monumental cock up.
10.16 pm
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for allowing me to take part in this debate. I find it disturbing that there should have been a massive piece of crass incompetence by the officials in the way in which applications were filled in for capital grants to the Department of Education and Science.
Too often, Labour councillors in Lancashire have been quick to blame the Government, and in this case they went straight to the media and complained. When we consider the application carefully, we find that two thirds of it is filled in in non-priority areas, knowing that two thirds of the current year's grant was provided for in priority areas. As a consequence, in the first area—with regard to school capital grants—when the Government told Lancashire 12 months ago that it could have £5 million, it only applied for £2.8 million. With regard to new work, in the current year the council applied for £1.5 million, but for 1987–88 it only applied for £62,000. It is no small wonder that when we trace the application through, the matter of the low figure comes to light. The council did not make a correct application. Because of that, I fully support 788 the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). There must be a detailed inquiry in Lancashire county council to deal with the matter and heads must roll. This must not be allowed to continue. If nothing is done, every child in Lancashire will suffer as a consequence of the incompetence of these officials and councillors.
I must stress to people in Lancashire that the chairman of the education committee is not a Conservative. I appreciate the difficulties that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science faces in helping us in this matter. However, will he do all that he can to try to find additional money to get Lancashire out of the mess that it has created for itself?
10.19 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for raising this matter tonight, and I listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) here to support the debate.
There are strong feelings in Lancashire on this topic. There is also a good deal of misunderstanding about the Department's procedures for making capital allocations for education and about the way in which Lancashire education authority's allocation was determined. Therefore, I am pleased to have this opportunity to clear away those misunderstandings and to put the record straight. The hon. Member for Burnley mentioned the shortfall in Lancashire's capital allocation for 1987–88 compared with that for the current year, and I shall explain in some detail why the authority's allocation for next year is so much lower. But before I do, it might be helpful to the House if I spend a moment putting Lancashire's position in context.
As hon. Members will know, allocations in respect of prescribed capital expenditure on education are made annually to all local education authorities under the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Education is one of five services for which authorities receive block allocations; the others are housing, transport, social services and other environmental services. An annual allocation is also made specifically for the urban programme.
The total net provision in the Government's capital spending plans for education in the local authority sector has increased by some 18 per cent. over the 1986–87 plans. The total available for allocation in respect of education capital expenditure in 1987–88 has, however, in common with the totals for other spending blocks, been fixed at a level which takes account of the increased spending power from receipts by which authorities may supplement their allocations and of other flexibilities in the system. Overall, there is an estimated £2.8 billion spending power from receipts available to authorities in 1987–88. In consequence allocations have, across the board, been fixed at a level which would, if trends in the use of available spending power continue, bring local authority capital spending up to the cash limit.
For education, individual authorities' allocations are calculated by assessing their capital expenditure plans, 789 which they supply to the Department each year in a common form, against a consistent and well-publicised set of criteria. The purpose of this is to ensure that authorities receive equitable treatment. The criteria have been drawn up with the aim of encouraging local education authorities to recognise national priorities, for example in removing surplus school places; they are also designed to ensure that no local education authority which observes those priorities should be unable to fulfil its statutory obligations.
The annual allocation made to an individual local education authority does not, therefore, represent our view of what that authority's capital expenditure on education should be. It is the authority's share of the education element of an overall figure which, together with available receipts, provides total spending power for local authorities of more than double their total allocations.
Lancashire's allocation for prescribed education capital expenditure in 1987–88, for schools and further and higher education, was £5.994 million. This compares with a figure of £12.538 million for 1986–87. With regard to the schools part of the allocation, this reflects a change, not in the way the Department compiles allocations, but in the composition of the authority's plans. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me here if I go into some detail about the nature of Lancashire's bid for 1987–88 and about how it compares with its plans for the current year, since it is only by doing so that this alleged injustice can be explained.
First, let us look at committed expenditure—by which I mean the second and subsequent years' spending on projects which have already started. When we wrote to Lancashire a little over a year ago to tell it of its 1986–87 allocation, we also told it, in line with our normal practice, that, other things being equal, we should be prepared to include in its 1987–88 allocation rather more than £5 million worth of such expenditure. Commitments of this order would be what we would expect to flow from a schools building programme of the size suggested by our allocations for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
§ Mr. HindDoes that mean that when the money was paid for the current year Lancashire was aware that it would be entitled to £5 million for that part of the programme? Despite the fact that it knew that, it applied for £2.4 million, thus losing about £2.5 million of potential grant.
§ Mr. DunnThat is quite right. We expect commitments of about £5 million to flow from a schools building programme of the size suggested, as I said, by our allocations for 1985–86 and 1986–87.
When the Lancashire authorities submitted its plans, its commitments for schools were shown as only £2.8 million. Plainly, we could not allocate more than the authority had asked for. In effect, Lancashire lost over £2 million.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be as surprised as I am that an authority should conduct its capital programme in a way that guarantees that the allocation is over £2 million less than it might have been. I am bound to say at this point that this low level of commitments also suggests that, despite the authority's continuing complaints about the inadequacy of its schools allocations, it 790 may none the less have chosen to divert part of those earlier allocations to other purposes—in my view, a surprising strategy in the light of its present protestations.
Referring now to Lancashire's allocation for new work starting in 1987–88, I have to say that once again the shape of the authority's plans was markedly different from those that it submitted for the current year. For example, it told us that in the current year it intended to expend over £1.5 million on new projects which would remove surplus school accommodation. This, as the House knows, is work to which we give high priority, not only because it results in savings in local authorities' current spending, but because, by removing some of the worst buildings from use and bringing others up to standard, it helps towards the achievement of a higher quality stock of school buildings. Lancashire's stated priorities thus coincided with our own, and its allocation for the current year reflects that. But its plans for new work in 1987–88 show expenditure of only £62,000 for this type of work—a drop of 96 per cent. Again, we could allocate only what the authority asked for.
The allocation also covers virtually all the authority's planned expenditure on new projects designed to meet "basic need"—that is, new or expanded schools in areas of population growth.
These three categories are the ones to which the Department must give priority in formulating allocations, as they involve statutory or contractual obligations upon authorities. Of Lancashire's plans for 1986–87, around two thirds of expenditure fell into these categories. Its plans for 1987–88, however, placed two thirds of expenditure into lower priority categories. In allocating in respect of this work, the Department distributes what remains by means of a formula that takes into account both the local education authority's expenditure plans and the incidence of substandard school accommodation in its area.
As for work at voluntary aided and special agreement schools, Lancashire fared much better this time around than last time. In fact, it did very well indeed. The allocation for 1987–88, as well as meeting in full the authority's plans for committed expenditure, also meets over four fifths of its plans for new major building work, including the projects at Blackburn St. Bede's Roman Catholic school and Blackburn Our Lady and St. John's Roman Catholic school.
§ Mr. PikeI carefully listened to the figures that the Minister gave. Obviously, this is the first occasion I have had to consider the figures. If a delegation from Lancashire county council seeks to meet either the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman to discuss these issues, will he be prepared to meet such a delegation? I am sure that the county council has another version of what the hon. Gentleman has put to us.
§ Mr. DunnI know Lancashire. I am a Lancastrian by birth, or at least I was born in that part of the area known as Greater Manchester. I hope that what I have said satisfies the House that Lancashire's allocation was a fair one that took the fullest possible account of the authority's plans as represented to the Department.
§ Mr. DunnThe hon. Gentleman must contain his eagerness.
I am concerned that the Lancashire local education authority should have been so surprised by the size of its 791 allocation for 1987–88, bearing in mind the nature of its expenditure plans. Therefore, I have asked officials of the Department to discuss with Lancashire various aspects of its capital expenditure plans so that, if possible, we can 792 avoid compounding the authority's difficulties in future years. I shall bring the request of the hon. Member for Burnley to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.