§ 2.54 p.m.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications for the building of new primary schools in the county of Buckinghamshire have been rejected during the period January, 1972, to July, 1972, and the reasons for the rejection.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)My Lords, of the 36 primary school projects providing additional places submitted in November, 1971, by the Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority for the 1974–75 building programme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave approval in March, 1972, to nine projects, providing 2,300 places at a cost of about £0.9 million. In the four years January, 1971–75, the number of primary pupils in the county outside Milton Keynes is expected to rise by about 14,500, and to meet this some 20,000 new places will be provided in first and middle schools. The programmes for Milton Keynes are keeping pace with new housing.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. May I ask whether he is aware—of course, I know he is—that his right honourable friend said that children should not be at the mercy of the geography of where their parents live and work, a sentiment with which we should all concur. But would he agree that Buckinghamshire is one of the more rapidly expanding counties, and that it is not right that little children should be unable to obtain education if they live in a small village like Holmer Green, which has rapidly doubled its population? In the next session many children will not be able to go to school because there is no school, and there is in fact no prospect of any school.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that Buckinghamshire are a very rapidly expanding authority, but I would suggest that my Answer shows that the places which have been provided in the last four years for the primary sector—that is, counting primary as first and middle schools, as Buckinghamshire are going to call them, enormously outstrip the population growth. Indeed the noble Baroness may wish to know that if one takes it on a wider span, say the ten years 1965 to 1975, the picture shows an even greater outstripping. My Answer also did not take account of minor works for 1973–74 and 1974–75, which in real terms are going to show a 10 per cent. increase over this year.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, is the Minister aware that he said that out of 36 projects only nine were accepted? He did not give me the reasons for the rejection of the extra 27. Though he has produced the total figures which we shall have in 1975, small children actually are compelled to receive full-time education when they reach the age of five, and if they are five in 1972 they will be more than five in 1975.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's Question is that the other projects did not have the same priority as the ones which were chosen. That is not as unforthcoming a reply as it sounds, in view of the Answer which I have already given to the noble Baroness. The number of places being provided throughout the county really do enormously outstrip the population, and the noble Baroness might like to know that by 1975 the places provided will mean that about three-fifths of primary age children in Buckinghamshire outside Milton Keynes should be in new places provided since 1965, and of course all the places in Milton Keynes will be new.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, as one who represented a Buckinghamshire constituency in another place, may I ask whether it is not the case that in Buckinghamshire there was a very large proportion of primary schools which were condemned as unfit for children to be taught in, and if there has been an increase since it is overtaking that proportion. May I also ask the Minister 1277 whether it would not be possible to arrange a transport system whereby children in those villages are able to benefit from the admirable advance in education which has been made in towns like Slough?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I am not sure that many people in this House, on all sides of the House, would agree that transporting rural children into urban areas is necessarily a good thing, although I entirely see the point of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps the noble Lord might agree that a better attempt is my right honourable friend's primary school campaign. The noble Lord might like to know that Buckinghamshire are about one-third along the road towards removing their stock of pre-1903 primary schools which need major work of improvement.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I will not pursue this subject now, but this does not mean, of course, that I will not pursue it in the future. If you live in one town in a county it does not help to know that somebody in another town has a school if you have none.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, it is up to the local education authority, in consultation with my right honourable friend's Department, to decide where the priority should lie. If I can repeat it for the umpteenth time: if you have got an enormous increase in the number of places provided over the growth of the population in the county and, in addition, you have an enormously expanded—I am delighted to say—minor works programme, then really this is something which should be capable of being coped with in Buckinghamshire.