HC Deb 15 April 1993 vol 222 cc1002-10 7.10 pm
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problems of Dovelands school in my constituency. I am relieved to be doing so now, rather than in the early hours of the morning—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. It is extremely discourteous to the hon. and learned Member who is speaking if hon. Members make a great deal of noise when leaving the Chamber. Will they please leave quickly and quietly?

Mr. Janner

Noise or no noise, I rejoice at the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment now, rather than in the early hours of the morning. Whatever little one may have to thank the railroad strikers for, at least we have the knowledge that, together, Government and Opposition Members have conspired to debate the Adjournment at such an early hour.

It is a tradition that on the Adjournment Back-Bench Members can raise the problems of one comparatively small school in one constituency. Even so, in this case those problems are reflected in all constituencies, for I doubt whether there is one in the country that does not have a school that is afflicted with the misery suffered by the Dovelands school in Leicester, West.

What is wrong with the school? There is certainly nothing wrong with the teaching, the pupils or the parents. On the contrary, it is a very fine school. The buildings in which the pupils are taught—the places where the teachers work and the children are required to learn—are the problem. I have visited the school dozens of times since I was elected 23 years ago. It is a happy place, but the school has been allowed to develop through a series of what are called temporary mobile classrooms. I suppose that they are temporary, in the sense that we are all temporary on this earth, but they are about as temporary as the prefabs were. You might just remember the prefabs from your youth, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am referring to a temporary joy which seems to go on for ever, and as it goes on, the classrooms deteriorate. Indeed, some of them are so bad that I have seen them propped up with timbers in the winter, with water dripping in, with damp on the walls and with windows that do not open. One of the temporary mobile classrooms is a caravan that was donated by the parents.

Another, believe it or not, is the sole place in the school where the children can gather. Because the floor of that building is defective, because heaters have had to be fixed and because there are no proper fire exits, only about 100 children of the 300 to 400 in the school are allowed in there at a time. Because it is so defective, the much-praised national curriculum cannot be taught because PE cannot be conducted in the classroom. In other words, four out of five pupils in the school are taught in temporary permanent mobile classrooms that were built in the 1930s.

All 350 pupils at the school use outside lavatories, whatever the weather, and that is a disgrace. There is no sick room in the main part of the school, a perfectly good building that has been allowed to decay. With the windows unopened, roofs leaking and floor damp and uneven, it is the sort of school to which none of us would want our children to go. And that is the real test. If hon. Members said, "It is the sort of building in which our children can be educated," it would be fine for our constituents' children. But if we say, "We will not let them go there because it is unhygienic, below standard and, above all, dangerous," the place is not fit for the children of our constituents.

I will describe some of the dangers. One of the heaters in the so-called main hall caught fire. The caretaker entered the place a few weeks ago to find it filled with smoke. A defective heater had caused another fire. Instead of replacing the classroom, they replaced the heater. A chunk of copper piping about 3 ft long fell from one of the gutters into the playground just after the children had gone back into the school. It would have killed an adult, let alone a child.

I had been planning a wicked little enterprise. The piece of piping is on its way to Parliament. It was due to arrive here at about 9.30 in time for the 10 o'clock Adjournment debate. It was to have been smuggled gently into the Chamber through the main doors and, though fearing a rebuke from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hoped to show the object to the House. It is so dangerous and defective that hon. Members would have appreciated to the full, from seeing it, why the parents of the children who go to the school are up in arms, why the teachers, governors and parents have prepared a parliamentary petition and why the local councillors, whatever their political parties. have come together and said, "We cannot allow this to go on."

I may be asked what good an Adjournment debate is in such circumstances. At least it gives us a chance to explain to Parliament what is going on in a school that is representative of many thousands of schools for which there is insufficient money. We are able, as a result of the debate, to continue the campaign of the parents, governors and teachers to get action before there is tragedy. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will give hope to the school and will assure those who run it and work in it that they will be looked after.

Naturally, I have written to various Ministers about the situation at the school. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote telling me: We are very concerned about the state of Dovelands School. I was glad to hear that, and when asked what he intended to do about it, he wrote: This Government is committed to improving the condition of school buildings generally. That is fine. They intend to improve matters generally; but what about specific problems? If the Government are so committed to improving school conditions and buildings, they should provide money to enable Leicestershire county council and the local education authority to fix Dovelands school.

But the Government blame the members of the local authority and say, in effect, "They have their money and it is up to them to decide how to use it," and the local authority says, "Blame the Government. They do not give us enough money to fix the school, so we cannot do the necessary work." The Government blame the local authority, which blames the Government. The result is that the school is a danger. It is not a worthy place in which children can or should be taught.

What is to happen? The LEA says, "We hope to allocate money in due course, when we have it. We cannot do anything just now because we do not have the cash." I say on behalf of the parents, teachers, pupils and governors that that is not good enough. A commitment to improve the buildings in time will not do. If the Government do not believe that it is a top priority to have school buildings in proper condition, I do not know what is.

It is more important to have school buildings safe than to spend millions of pounds on testing children against the wishes of their teachers, or even in accordance with their teachers' wishes. I am referring to a job that must be tackled at once. The director of education wrote to me saying: The Dovelands project is not the highest current priority, although much needed, as a handful of schools are considered to be even more urgently in need of major investment. One wonders what they are like. If Dovelands is not the worst, the worst must be an appalling slum and an incredible danger.

The Government say that they are concerned about Dovelands, but they do nothing but blame the local authority. The director of education is deeply concerned about the school, but has reported that no money will be available until 1995 at the earliest, and he blames the Government. Each blames the other and nobody gets anything done. Everybody throws up his hands and says, "It is not us. Blame someone else."

I have a horror that stems from an incident in Braunstone, where we begged for a new road to be made safe. No one would spend the money. The Government blamed the local authority, and the highway authority blamed the Government. There was then an awful tragedy when a child in my constituency was killed on that road. Local parents protested, as I did, and within months the money appeared out of thin air so that there would not be another tragedy.

I do not want the same to happen with Dovelands school. I do not want the authorities to wait until there is a tragedy—until there is a fire. In one of the early fires at the school, a child's sari was set alight. By a miracle, she was fine and survived. In another incident, a child had just entered a classroom when guttering fell that could have killed the child. Are we waiting for another tragedy? Then, I guarantee, the local education authority would find the money and the Government would contribute.

We ought not to wait for tragedies. We ought to act now. Dovelands is a fine school with a great reputation. It has an excellent, kind and tremendous head teacher. It has a devoted staff and governors who care about the school. The school has lovely pupils in a happy atmosphere. But no one should be forced to teach or to learn in a crumbling school that is in a disgraceful, dangerous condition. There should be action before there is a tragedy.

7.21 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)

I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for raising this important subject. Having worked with my hon. and learned Friend in Leicester for a number of years, I am well aware—as are his constituents—of his great concern for the education system. He spoke eloquently, as always, about the problems that affect Dovelands school. I am happy to support his excellent work.

Not long ago, we jointly campaigned on behalf of another Leicestershire school, Abbey primary school. My hon. and learned Friend's remarks were very much a reflection of that campaign. His description of Dovelands school reflected also the problems that are to be found in the city of Leicester—crumbling schools, and the inability of the local authority to provide resources to make those schools safe. One cannot underestimate the effect of the condition of those schools on the morale of teachers, ancillary staff and the children themselves.

If we want to produce good citizens for the future, we must do exactly as my hon. and learned Friend says—provide resources to create the climate and conditions that will enable our children to be taught in schools that are happy places in which their education and skills can be developed and enhanced.

I hope that the Minister will accede to my hon. and learned Friend's requests. Is it not true that the resources made available by the Government to Leicestershire county council have declined in real terms over the past few years? That is not the fault of the local authority. Recently, it had to set a budget that will unfortunately mean education cuts. The Labour group was in the forefront of the campaign to ensure that there were no cuts—but that local authority and others throughout the country are having to cut back expenditure on repairing schools and stopping them from falling further into decay as a result of cuts in Government expenditure.

When the Government refuse to make available the resources necessary to allow local authorities to undertake basic maintenance and repair work, the consequences are such as those described by my hon. and learned Friend, and young children—vulnerable members of our society—are put at risk.

I admire greatly my hon. and learned Friend's campaign following the death of a young girl in Braunstone. He said well before that tragedy that there ought to be sufficient traffic calming measures to ensure that there would be no accidents. Nobody listened. It was only after the campaign that followed the death of that unfortunate child that something was done.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give in and will award Leicestershire county council the resources that it needs. Perhaps he will even ring-fence them, to ensure that they are devoted to Dovelands school. There are many schools in my constituency, as in that of my hon. and learned Friend, that ought to be funded. I hope that the Minister will accede to my hon. and learned Friend's request and will grant the resources for which he has asked.

7.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell)

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate. It is a pleasure for me, as a fellow east midlands Member, to respond to his comments. I associate with those remarks the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), although I do not always agree with his comments as to where the blame might lay in this particular case. If it is not inappropriate, I extend my personal felicitations to the hon. Member for Leicester, East on his recent change of status.

Mr. Janner

And to his wife.

Mr. Boswell

Indeed—quite right.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West spoke eloquently about the poor condition of the school buildings and the impact that that has on pupils and teachers. That is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. But his concerns would be more properly addressed to Leicestershire local education authority, which maintains those schools. The LEA is, accordingly, responsible for ensuring that the premises of county schools are safe, in good condition and suitable for their purpose.

Under the local authority capital finance system it is for Leicestershire to decide, within the level of resources available to it, how much to spend on education capital projects. Within that total it is again entirely for the county to decide which projects are priorities. If the Dovelands schools are judged pressing priorities, Leicestershire has the flexibility and the resources to refurbish or replace the buildings.

The hon. and learned Gentleman might find it helpful if I said a little more about how the capital finance system works. Local authorities are given permission to borrow up to a certain level to fund capital programmes for all their services, including education. This borrowing limit, the basic credit approval, is not, however, the limit on local authorities' capital spending. They can also, if they wish, use funds transferred from their revenue budgets for capital purposes. They are also able to invest capital receipts. Leicestershire and other LEAs can take advantage of the relaxation of the rules on the use of capital receipts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement. That effectively means that, until the end of this year, LEAs will be able to spend 100 per cent., rather than 50 per cent., of receipts realised, which will provide valuable additional capital resources for all LEAs.

Leicestershire's basic credit approval for 1993–94 of more than £14 million covers the capital requirements of all its services, not just education. It is calculated by reference to the individual annual capital guidelines—ACGs—issued for each of those services, including education. The county's education annual capital guidelines for the current year is just under £7 million.

In distributing the national total of annual capital guidelines to LEAs in 1993–94, we gave priority to three categories—commitments arising from projects allowed for under previous ACGs; the provision of new places in areas of population growth, which we term "basic needs"; and implementing cost-effective schemes to remove surplus school places.

Within the second priority category of basic need, we also cover projects that are termed exceptional basic need. They cover situations where school premises are no longer repairable in practice and where no alternative provision exists. Leicestershire made a small bid in that exceptional basic need category for part of the Dovelands junior school in 1993–94, which was accepted in its entirety. I shall return to that later.

After the three national priority categories are covered, the remaining ACG resources are largely distributed by formula to contribute towards the cost of improving existing school buildings. These national priority criteria were agreed with the local authority associations and retain the support of LEAs. How the categories are defined and details of how LEA bids will be assessed are set out each year in letters to LEAs inviting bids for ACGs. Generally speaking, these letters are issued in May or June. The deadline for bids is usually in September or October and the ACGs are announced in December for the following financial year.

Leicestershire has done well under the system. Education ACGs alone have totalled over £22 million in the past three years, including the current financial year. While ACG bids from LEAs always exceed the total available, Leicestershire has received a much greater proportion of its bids than the national average—over 42 per cent. compared with the national average of 27 per cent. in the current year. In particular, the county has received substantial cover in the commitments and basic needs categories. In contrast, however, Leicestershire has made few bids in the other high priority category of surplus place removal projects. Reorganisation schemes which remove surplus places generate revenue savings. They also attract sufficient and significant capital support within ACGs for investment in improving the stock of existing premises.

I understand that the county currently has a significant number of surplus places, particularly in the secondary sector where it approaches 20 per cent. of the stock. Surplus places are a drain on the system. They take up resources which could be available for other uses, including refurbishment works. I hope that the county of Leicestershire will look carefully at this issue to see what savings can be made for reinvestment elsewhere.

The county has also done very well recently in the distribution of unallocated supplementary credit approvals. These are resources which are held back each year when annual capital guidelines are distributed in December. They are largely earmarked to cover projects arising from proposals to remove surplus places that have not yet been decided. As some of those proposals are rejected or withdrawn, the supplementary credit approvals are available for redistribution.

These unallocated resources are distributed to LEAs after careful consideration of the bids that have been received. Most of these relate to urgent refurbishment work at existing schools. In the 1991–92 financial year, the county's bid for these unallocated resources listed a number of schools where urgent work was necessary. Many LEAs submitted bids. Exceptionally, we were able to allocate supplementary credit approvals for work at three Leicestershire schools—Abbey primary, Marriott and Charnwood.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will recall the problems at Abbey primary in particular. He made many representations on the problem that that school faced, as he has done about Dovelands schools. I am sure he appreciated the help that we were able to provide. The allocations for these three projects totalled over £2 million. Leicestershire also received an unallocated supplementary credit approval in 1992–93 for work at another Leicester school, Sir Jonathan North. Those schools were seen by the county as its most urgent priorities. The exceptional assistance that we have given for work at the schools should mean that the LEA is now better placed to carry out work at other priority schools.

In submitting the earlier bids, Leicestershire did not actually include the Dovelands schools. That is a matter for the county. It is, of course, open to Leicestershire to submit a bid for any unallocated supplementary credit approvals that there may be in the current financial year. Any such bids, including bids relating to the Dovelands schools, will be treated on their merits. This is an option that the LEA will want to consider carefully. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leicester, East will wish to press this possibility. The most important matter at this stage is for Leicestershire to decide what needs to be done at the schools. Having done so, it can then decide what time scale is preferred and what priority to give to the work.

I understand that the county's bid under the annual capital guidelines for 1993–94 included support for the removal of temporary buildings at Dovelands junior school. That bid was made in our high priority category of exceptional basic need. The bid was accepted in its entirety and support totalling £190,000 was therefore included in the 1993–94 annual capital guideline.

In the longer term, I understand that the LEA plans to provide both schools with new premises. I also understand however, that it remains undecided on how best to do that. I believe that the governors of both schools are currently being consulted on a number of options, including rebuilding on the same site or on a new site or sites.

Mr. Vaz

The House was moved by the description of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) of the current safety standards at Dovelands school. Surely the Minister accepts that the situation there is not dissimilar; in fact, it is worse than the situation that we described in support of the Abbey campaign. Why does the Minister have to wait for another bid? Why does not he accept what my hon. and learned Friend has said and treat the issue as a priority?

Mr. Boswell

As I have explained, it is for the local education authority to decide its priorities. As I have said, the LEA's priority was to go for the Abbey school and the other two schools first. At that time Dovelands was not mentioned, although it has been mentioned now.

Mr. Janner

We are back to the position that I outlined. The Minister says, "Blame Leicestershire local authority." When it is approached, it will say, "Blame the Government." Will the Minister at least undertake to send someone senior to see the school, to inspect it and consider whether there is the sort of danger that I have described? If there is, will the Minister please be kind enough to give some hope that the Government will intervene to assist? We are not talking politics, because nobody can get anything done at the school. This is a hung authority. It is a matter of humanity, kindness and decency to give some reassurance to the parents and not simply say, "Blame Leicestershire authority." Will the Minister undertake to send an inspector or someone else to look at the school, and will he give it some hope?

Mr. Boswell

I referred obliquely to statutory safety obligations on local authorities in relation to school premises. I am aware of the political situation in the county. I was extensively briefed by my officials about the local situation. I shall certainly draw this debate to the attention of the local education authority and see whether my officials are entirely satisfied that the authority is aware of the situation on the ground.

I do not resile from the principle that it is for the local authority to submit bids. We are not apportioning blame. There is a mechanism, which I have been at some pains to explain. The authority should avail itself of that mechanism, as it has done on previous occasions with success, and matters will then be considered on their merits.

Mr. Janner

I thank the Minister for giving way. We have until 10 o'clock, although we shall not take that long.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. There a few rules, and they include brief interventions.

Mr. Janner

I have a brief question. Would the Minister be good enough to come with me to the school one day to see it for himself? I cordially invite him to get out of Westminster, away from his office. I assure him that he will get a much better reception than I did 23 years ago, during my first general election campaign, when I was booed in the playground. That does not happen any more, and the Minister will be well received if he comes.

Mr. Vaz

And we will buy him lunch.

Mr. Boswell

Even without that improper inducement, I am always interested in invitations such as that seductive one from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may be aware that my colleagues and I, although I have other responsibilities in the Department, visit schools on a regular basis and have done so more than 100 times in the last calendar year. I have noted his invitation, and if he would care to put it into writing, I shall see whether I can respond to it. The schools are not all that far from my constituency. We shall see what we can do, but I am not going to commit myself to that, let alone promise a complete recasting of the rules in this case.

I believe that the governors of both schools are being consulted on a number of options, including rebuilding on the same site, or a new site or sites. A number of possible sites have been identified. Clearly, the matter now rests in the hands of the county and the governors.

Let me conclude by saying—the hon. and learned Gentleman has acknowledged this—that the Government are committed to improving the conditions of school buildings. We have provided LEAs with considerable resources in the past few years for them to do so. LEAs spent over £2 billion on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90. Much of this will have gone on remedying deficiencies such as those at the Dovelands schools. In addition, we estimate that LEAs will spend a further £2.5 billion on schools between 1990–91 and 1993–94.

Clearly, the position at the Dovelands schools is unsatisfactory, but, at this stage, it is really a matter for the LEA and the governors. We have provided generous capital support for Leicestershire over the years. In particular, we have provided support for urgent work to renovate the premises of a number of Leicester city schools. The county has the resources available and the flexibility to put right the problems at the Dovelands schools if that is regarded locally as a priority.

Therefore, it is important that the LEA and the schools come to a decision on what precisely they need to do to tackle the problems. That is a matter for them. No doubt the hon. and learned Member will be pressing the LEA as hard and eloquently as he has pressed me tonight on this. There are a number of options open to the LEA. The county can submit a bid for unallocated SCAs during the current financial year. Any such bid would be treated on its merits.

It is also open to the LEA to bid for capital support for work at the schools as part of the normal round of bidding for annual capital guidelines for 1994–95. Any such bids will be considered carefully against the detailed criteria set out in our annual bidding letter to LEAs, which will be issued shortly.

I have listened carefully to arguments put by the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Member. I understand and share the concern that they and those associated with the schools must feel, but the onus now is on the county to decide how the problems are to be rectified and when, and to give the work concerned the necessary priority. The system is in place, and, according to the decisions they take, we are in a position to respond to it, in accordance with those provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eight o'clock.