Icknield High School (Hansard, 18 February 1994)

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
I am grateful for an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter of great importance to my constituents and also to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am pleased to see on the Front Bench this afternoon. It concerns a capital grant applied for by the Icknield high school in my constituency and rejected by my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency has two grant-maintained schools—Icknield high school and Lea Manor school. I hope that Cardinal Newman school will soon join them because it has applied for grant-maintained status but is still awaiting a reply from my hon. Friend. Although the result of the ballot has been favourable, my hon. Friend is now looking into the matter. Perhaps the Minister would comment on what progress, if any, has been made on that matter.
Icknield high school is the largest of its type in Bedfordshire, with which you are well acquainted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has some 1,300 pupils at the moment, and the number is rising. There is a waiting list—which is not unusual for the school—for September, and the school is already oversubscribed by 120 pupils. That is because the school has excellent academic and sporting results. I hesitate to say that it is the best school in my constituency but it is certainly in the top category of the many excellent schools in my area.
The school has an extremely high standard of discipline, of which it is justly proud. The uniform is widely worn by the pupils and accepted by parents. I have no hesitation in representing with pride to the House and the Minister the interests of the school because of its excellent achievements since its formation in 1949. I pay a special tribute to the staff, and especially to the head teacher, Mr. Keith Ford, and his deputy, Mr. Colin Cabon, who have worked hard since the school obtained grant-maintained status in April 1993. I also pay tribute to the governors under their chairman, Councillor Pauline Dunington, who have made certain that the school stays at the top of the league.
It is with some sadness that I bring to the Minister's attention the fact that the capital grant application that the school was invited to submit for the 1994–95 financial year, has been turned down. As long ago as 1991 the local education authority—at that time the governing authority for the school—said in a report that there was a backlog of repairs which might cost about £5 million. One of the reports stated that the authority judged that the buildings had reached the end of their useful working life and were in need of major repairs. At that time the authority even discussed complete replacement of the school.
Since the school became grant maintained, it has been visited by representatives of various bodies and, in particular, by Mr. Adrian Pritchard, who was the director of the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust and is obviously well known to my hon. Friend the Minister. He described the school as having the second worst grant-maintained school buildings in the country. 1236 That was confirmed to a certain extent by Sir Robert Belchin, the chairman of that august body, who insisted on putting Icknield school "high on his agenda". I understand that those were his words.
For those reasons there was great disappointment when the Department refused the capital bid and raised doubt about whether it would be possible to submit design bids for 1995–96, although I think that that matter has now been cleared up and that a capital bid would be welcome. Private consultants who looked at the buildings said, perhaps contrary to some people's opinions, that they could be saved, provided there was sufficient and urgent investment in the structure and services surrounding them.
The number of pupils at the school has increased dramatically in recent years. The roll predicted for 1996 is up to nearly 1,400, and the prediction for the year 2000 is 1,560. That shows the school's popularity and the difficulties that it will face if it increases its roll or even if it tries to stand still, given the conditions of the buildings in which the staff and pupils have to work.
Although the governors are trying where they can to reduce the current number of pupils in line with the age of the buildings, they are finding it extremely difficult because, as the Minister will understand, this popular school is being asked by parents well outside its catchment area whether places are available.
As I have said, the school was opened in 1949 and at that time consisted of separate boys' and girls' schools. It was suggested that it should double as an emergency military hospital. I hope that the Minister will visit the school. If he does, he will notice the familiar signs of a hospital because he will see bare brick walls, an asbestos roof—about which I shall say more shortly—concrete floors, fibreboard ceilings and virtually no insulation. Needless to say, the life of the staff and pupils is still a happy one, but they are working under severe difficulties.
Additions were made to the school in the 1950s and 1960s, but the buildings were never upgraded to the standard that one would expect, certainly of the 1990s. No major investment has been made at the school since 1968–70 apart from repair to part of the building which, unfortunately, was damaged by fire some years ago. Obviously, because of its age, the building has deteriorated over the years. Large amounts of money have been spent on repairs, but never sufficient to stop the general deterioration in the condition of the buildings. It is distressing that almost every day the health and safety legislation is being broken because pupils attend the school.
Throughout this time the school has remained cheerful. Since becoming grant maintained, it has had a vigorous self help scheme, which has involved voluntary help in redecoration. It is delighted with its GM status, but some of its problems are beyond the wit, and indeed the ability, of amateurs who are trying on a do-it-yourself basis to patch up the building and make it presentable, rather than tackling the fabric of the building.
The school was a candidate for a bid, and it was advised by the Department to apply. It was advised at that time—possibly this was its mistake—to apply for a single bid, which would have covered all its various problems: health and safety; science teaching; overcrowding; and, of course, the ever-growing number of pupils. It realised that the bid had to be put in, because if it was to meet the health 1237 and safety standards, as demanded by local authorities and legislation, some improvement would have to be made, and fairly quickly.
The complete bid was on a basis of phasing over some two years. The cost, as my hon. Friend will know, was some £1.6 million. Unfortunately, the bid was unsuccessful. The failure of the bid is probably the most worrying thing for my constituents and the school. I cannot emphasise enough to my hon. Friend that the school now faces a health and safety crisis. If something is not done extremely quickly, in the summer term of this academic year, it may have to send pupils home, because it is not up to the standard demanded by current legislation or the local authority.
The school faces a further serious problem, relevant to the fact that it is now grant maintained, in that it is extremely difficult to find an insurance company that will provide cover. My hon. Friend will know—I perhaps guess at this—that the school could not carry on as a legal entity unless it was fully covered by insurance. Unless some of those improvements are made, it will find it extremely difficult—nay impossible—to find an insurance company that will give it the cover that it and the legislation demands.
My hon. Friend will forgive me for talking of matters of construction rather than of education, because I am perfectly happy—as are the parents—with the education that pupils get at that school. My point is about the fabric. The first priority to avoid the closure of the canteen—for action during, if not before, the Easter holidays of this year—is on three bases. First, the kitchens must be brought up to requirements. If they are not, they will close and some 600 school meals will not be served. That will obviously be a problem and will cause severe embarrassment to myself, the governors and staff.
Secondly, the cold water system and incoming mains are incredibly old. There is some hint, but no more than that, of the possibility of zinc poisoning. It is not for me to put any fears in the minds of parents about the health of their children, but that has been pointed out in some plans. The cold water system and incoming mains must be improved.
Thirdly, an immediate concern is the domestic hot-water system itself, which, I believe, has never reached the required hot-water standard—whatever that is. The boilers have been bastardised—I hope that you will forgive the expression, Mr. Deputy Speaker—by the use of "two into three": that is a construction term, meaning taking from one and giving to the other two. The boilers are now incredibly lame, and—dare I say—would not be fitting for this place, let alone for one of my constituency's flagship schools.
The total cost of those three items is £187,000. I know that an emergency fund exists, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider urgently the possibility of using at least that amount for the school.
The second priority is action that will be required by September 1994, because of the impending cold weather. There are safety hazards in the boiler room. The caretaker is a very honourable fellow, who spends a good deal of his time manually raising the temperature of the water to the required levels—which may not be the highest levels—at some risk to his own safety. A good deal of mechanical and electrical work is needed in that boiler room. I do not wish to give the House the impression that I have any great mechanical knowledge—perhaps my hon. Friend the 1238 Minister has: he is nodding—but the school assures me that this is very important. I do not want levity to lessen the impact of what I am saying.
The other part of this second priority is the need to improve the laboratory services and fittings, which are old and inadequate for the modern needs of school children. The Government are rightly anxious to encourage science teaching in our_schools, for it is from them that young scientists wilemerge; at present, however, the facilities are not up to the standards that my hon. Friend the Minister would expect.
The third priority—which must be dealt with in the longer term, but which is nevertheless necessary—is a phased replacement of the asbestos roof and the installation of fire breaks. I do not need to go into the details; my hon. Friend will understand that the roof must be replaced as soon as possible—as soon as money is available for the purpose.
My hon. Friend may be somewhat surprised that I should ask for an increase in some form of public expenditure. He and I came to the House together in 1979. Although we sat on the same Benches, we had different opinions on various matters; but the fact that he is now on the Front Bench and I am still on the Back Benches may give some idea of his abilities. I now ask him to overcome any prejudice that he may feel about my public-expenditure policy: after all, every hon. Member is allowed a little discretion on occasion.
Disturbingly, the school's reaction to the rejection of the bid was somewhat contrary to information that my hon. Friend may have been given. Was the bid looked at properly? The school received letters—not least a letter from 10 Downing street, and also a letter from the head of the grant-maintained schools services division. One letter stated: Ministers' assessments of your proposals for 1994–95 took account of scrutiny by members of the capital team, by Ofsted"— that is the Office for Standards in Education— and by our professional advisers in Architects and Buildings Branch. The letter from 10 Downing street said the same: the bid had been carefully looked at, and that included assessments by architects at the Department for Education and by the Office for Standards in Education". According to what I have been told, no official came from the Department—or, indeed, from Ofsted—to look at the buildings. The report seems to be based purely on the capital bid put forward by the school, admirable though it was. It is beyond me how it can be said that scrutiny took place when no one physically went to examine the position.
My hon. Friend should look into that matter. Ofsted has now arrived on a preliminary basis and will look at the school over the next few weeks. However, it had not arrived when the report landed on my hon. Friend's desk. The fact that there had been no official visit by Ofsted goes some way towards explaining the school's dismay at the Department's reaction.
There is an immediate and extremely urgent need for the grant. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the school some comfort in his response this afternoon. I cannot stress too much to him the urgency of the situation and the fact that a crisis will occur if priority one works are not carried out. It is not right that the school should have no other source of funding—the school does not complain 1239 generally because it enjoys grant-maintained status—to help put things right and to make the children legally able to go to the school.
My hon. Friend, above anybody else, is extremely welcome to visit the school at any time that is convenient to him. I have been asked by the head teacher to pass on that invitation to him. I hope that when my hon. Friend comes to the school—I am confident that he will come—he will be able to see the works that, I am sure, he will promise will be carried out.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he deployed his case. If there are any points at the end that he feels that I have not addressed, I know that, with his usual persistence, he will bring them to my attention. He mentioned that, like me, he is what must seem like a veteran on the 1979 intake. Those of our intake are very good on timing and nothing could be better on timing than for this debate to take place on an afternoon when an earlier debate also necessitated my attendance.
My hon. Friend made a passing reference to Cardinal Newman school. I shall respond on that point equally briefly. I am aware that the matter has been outstanding for some time. I assure him that we are doing our level best to bring the outstanding issues, some of which are quite complex, to a successful conclusion. I undertake that I shall reach that conclusion as soon as I possibly can.
The main issue of the debate is Icknield high school. I have noted my hon. Friend's kind invitation to visit the school and I hope that in time I shall be able to respond to it. Let me make it clear that capital grants for self-governing schools come under two different categories. First, there is a formula grant which all self-governing schools can claim, which is for small-scale capital works. For 1994–95, it is an average of £28,000 for a secondary school, with a minimum of £16,000. I may say more about that later. Secondly, for major capital projects, schools are invited annually to submit bids. They are evaluated on a competitive basis against the criteria announced by the Secretary of State and with regard to the overall level of capital funds available. Icknield school submitted a bid for the second type of funding.
It is always a disappointment for a school when it has a capital project turned down. Sadly, such disappointments are inevitable when demand always outstrips supply and hard choices must realistically be made. That is not only true for self-governing schools but a fact of life across all educational sectors. Nevertheless, a substantial amount has been made available for 1994–95 which, especially in the present tight economic climate, reflects the Government's full-blooded commitment to self-governing schools. I shall say more about that in a moment.
I assure my hon. Friend and the governors, staff and parents at the school that the bid was given full and careful consideration. I understand only too well the effort that goes into preparing such bids; rejecting them is certainly not something that we do lightly. In the case of Icknield high school, we followed standard procedure in obtaining detailed advice on its bid both from Ofsted and from our 1240 in-house team of architects before coming to a final decision. Although the bid as presented was turned down, the school has since been invited to bid for emergency funding on health and safety grounds. Officials from my Department contacted the school in January setting out the criteria for emergency grant, and we are awaiting details from the school on what needs to be done. Once the details are available, we shall of course consider the case for emergency funding as a matter of urgent priority.
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend here and now that any projects required on emergency health and safety grounds will receive full funding if the school cannot itself find funds for the work. That is true for all self-governing schools—all may apply for funding where children would otherwise be put at risk or sent home. I know that my hon. Friend, who is assiduous in his work as a Member of Parliament, will communicate that to Icknield school as soon as possible.
Finally, in this context, it should be remembered that Icknield's bid was only one of nearly 1,000 bids received and that it was competing with all of them for a share of the available funds. In such circumstances, there will always be some schools which miss out, even though their bids are for thoroughly worthwhile projects. That, as I have said, is an unfortunate fact of life where a large number of schools chase a limited resource.
I think it is instructive, however, to take a step back at this point and look at the full scope of capital funding available for self-governing schools. In December, the Government announced a package of more than £150 million for capital work at self-governing schools. As a consequence, two thirds of schools new to the sector stand to gain support for large-scale capital projects. As we have made clear many times, it is vital that schools entering the sector are established on a sound footing, and the latest package underlines our commitment to that goal.
Of the £150 million, £37 million will be provided to enable new and existing schools to begin work on major projects in the next financial year. In addition, funding had been set aside for projects for new schools entering the sector between September 1993 and January 1994. Announcements will be made about that next month, and the new work will build on the substantial capital work that has already been carried out in self-governing schools over recent years.
Almost £28 million is being provided in 1994–95 for continuing work in schools on projects started last year. That means that next year major capital work will be taking place in around half of all the self-governing schools which were operating by September 1993.
In addition, more than £30 million worth of projects in 82 schools have been identified as high priorities for funding in 1995–96. They will all receive funds in 1994–95 to start development work on the projects. Even that is not the end of the story, however. As well as allocations for major capital projects, self-governing schools receive a formula capital allocation. Thirty million pounds has been set aside for capital formulae in 1994–95. It is available to all self-governing schools and will be at an enhanced rate over last year, including a £16,000 minimum level which will be of particular benefit to smaller primary schools.

§ Mr. Carlisle
May I express the gratitude of Icknield high school for the increased capital funding that it receives? To save time, may I again ask my hon. Friend to consider whether, when he examines capital funds and the 1241 reports that he receives, a school should be physically visited and inspected by members of his Department and of Ofsted so that officials might acquaint themselves with the condition of the buildings in question? In some circumstances, a written submission may not be sufficient to give a clear picture.

§ Mr. Squire
I had carefully noted my hon. Friend's point the first time and I must now note it doubly carefully. Perhaps he will allow me to come back to him, but I can say now that, where there was any doubt, a physical visit would certainly be made as a follow-up. However, I should like to pursue that issue some other time and get back to him later, as he would expect.
I was talking about formula capital allocation. I know from my personal experience, from visiting schools and speaking to many teachers and governors, that schools 1242 enjoy the flexibility provided by formula allocations. It is entirely up to them to determine their priorities for the funding and I am sure that they will continue to use it productively.
Although in particular instances we cannot provide schools with all that they would wish for, the funding that we are making available for capital work will help self-governing schools to thrive for the benefit of their current and future pupils and the local communities that they serve. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the constraints under which we have to work and will continue his support of the growth of the self-governing sector, something that he made clear. It is already clear that the self-governing sector will be the model for all maintained schools in the 21st century.