Schools (Capital Expenditure) (Hansard, 15 January 1991)

§ 4. Mr. Hoyle
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make an announcement on capital expenditure for schools; and if he will make a statement.

§ 6. Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his criteria for funding capital improvements and tackling disrepair and dilapidation in schools.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar)
My right hon. and learned Friend announced his decision on the 1991–92 annual capital guidelines for local education authorities, and grant to voluntary-aided schools, on 17 December. In that announcement we gave priority to agreed committed expenditure, the provision of new school places and cost-effective projects to remove surplus places.
The remaining resources are distributed to contribute towards capital improvement work at schools and £109 million will be available for such work this year—an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the sum available in the current year.

§ Mr. Hoyle
Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State's statement showed a drop of 9.6 per cent. over the previous year in Cheshire schools' capital expenditure? Surely he is not surprised that parents in Cheshire are extremely concerned at that vast reduction. How can he justify that cut?

§ Mr. Eggar
Cheshire had a very good settlement. Its annual capital guidelines include almost £1 million for improvements to schools and for other work. In addition, there was an allocation of almost £2 million for capital expenditure by governors of voluntary schools.

§ Mr. Cohen
Why has the Government's education capital allocation been so inadequate that it has failed to stop the rundown of schools, and why do some—such as Newport junior school in my constituency—receive such exceptionally low priority? Under the Department's guidelines, even the slightest modernization—such as dealing with leaking roofs and dangerous windows and floors—is classed as an improvement and is therefore deemed to fall outside the Department's basic needs allocation. Is not the truth that the Government do not give a fig for our school children and that they are forcing a slow death on many of our most-loved schools?

§ Mr. Eggar
I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman is worried about Newport junior school, he knocks on the door of Waltham Forest local education authority, which did not include that school in its bid to my Department. It is up to that LEA to provide the funds—and to ask for them if they are wanted.

§ Mr. Thornton
My hon. Friend will be aware of successive reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate showing a direct correlation between the quality of the environment in our schools and the standard of education in them. Although I welcome the extra £109 million that is being made available, against the background of an estimated £3 billion of outstanding repairs, will my hon. Friend and his colleagues talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether anything can be done to increase the release of capital receipts to local authorities—which could perhaps be ring-fenced—to bring about important improvements in the state of our schools?

§ Mr. Eggar
As my hon. Friend recognises, in addition to the annual capital guidelines, it is possible for LEAs to raise capital and to spend it on their schools—and a considerable number do so. About £2.6 billion has been spent by LEAs since the annual survey to which my hon. Friend referred.

§ Mr. Harris
Does my hon. Friend recognise the deep disappointment felt in Cornwall at its capital allocation for the coming year? It is felt not only by members of local education authorities but among many parents. Will he review the criteria for drawing up allocations, because it seems to us that it does not take sufficient account of the need, for example, to replace old Victorian village schools, of which there are many in Cornwall?

§ Mr. Eggar
I am aware, from representations that my hon. Friend and others have made, of the special problems in Cornwall and of the difficulties of local education authorities. Of course, the criteria have been agreed with the local authority association. If at any time it wishes to reconsider those criteria, or to discuss them with us, we shall be happy to meet it.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor
Despite what the Minister said, many people will find it hard to understand how those criteria work. Despite the overall increase, many local authorities have seen dramatic cuts. Devon has had a big cut and in Cornwall, where £100 million of spending is needed to get up to the Government's standards, the allocation was cut to a little more than £6 million this year. Will the Minister review the figures? Will he review the allocation given to Cornwall? Does he expect that, having already delayed it once, he will have further to delay implementation of the Government's minimum standards for school buildings and the environment in which children are taught?

§ Mr. Eggar
Of course, we are prepared to listen to suggestions for changing the criteria, but those criteria have to be appropriate for all local authority associations throughout the country for them to be recognised generally as being fair. From time to time, some authorities benefit from the way in which those criteria are drawn up and some do not benefit. That is inevitable when one has objective criteria. As we have already announced, we shall be reviewing the premises regulations shortly.

§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
My hon. Friend must know that many local education authorities, in common with other departments, think in multiples of what they know they can expect from the Department. They include a range of minor capital works which there is no way that any Minister would specify or ring-fence. Is there no method of bidding for capital spending which will stop local authorities from blaming the Minister for every shortcoming in their areas?

§ Mr. Eggar
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. Some local education authorities play political games with their applications. It is for the LEA to decide how to spend those capital guidelines and other borrowing amounts that it has at its disposal in the way that it thinks appropriate. It is answerable to the governors and parents if it refuses to go ahead with capital works improvements and others that it has suggested.

§ Mr. Fatchett
The Minister seems remarkably complacent in his answers about the £3.5 billion of outstanding repairs in our schools and the fact that tens of thousands of children are taught in dilapidated buildings. Does he reject the proposition by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) that there must be a link between low-quality buildings and an inability to provide high-quality education? In an earlier response the Minister seemed to accept that it was all right for school buildings to be of a low standard because it had no adverse effect on education. Thousands of parents up and down the country do not subscribe to that view.

§ Mr. Eggar
The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the figures. This year there is 15 per cent. more capital guideline expenditure than last year and there is a 21 per cent. increase in the spending available for voluntary-aided schools on the figure for last year, when there was a considerable increase on the year before. Massive amounts of additional resources are being made available by the Government for spending on capital equipment and on improvements as well as new build.