School and College Buildings (Hansard, 24 July 1991)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government already make significant resources available for education buildings. Support for recurrent spending by local education authorities, including building repairs and maintenance, totals £17.5 billion this year. Annual capital guidelines for county schools and further education colleges total £538 million, an increase of 11 per cent. on last year, and grant for voluntary aided schools has gone up 21 per cent. to £132 million.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those details. But is he aware that a recent report by responsible people indicates that to upgrade our schools to the standard of our contemporaries in Europe requires expenditure of a further £4 billion? Is he further aware that the city of Manchester submitted proposals for £33 million and received only £4.7 million; Leeds submitted proposals for £60 million and received only £16.7 million; London asked for £1 billion and received only £60 million? If the authorities do not receive more money than is presently allocated they will find it impossible to comply with the aims and objectives of the education of our children in this country as set out on page 41 of The Citizen's Charter which was announced recently.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, realistic estimates based on the 1986 survey of school buildings put the cost of remedying deficiencies at £2 billion at 1990 prices. LEAs spent over £2 billion on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90, much of which remedied those deficiencies. School buildings are far from uniformly bad. More needs to be done, but the speed with which we can move also has to take account of the needs of the national economy.
In 1990–91 Leeds received £2.562 million, representing 16 per cent. of its bid for ACGs. The authority therefore received a substantial increase in the level of 772 the ACG this year and an increase in the percentage of its bid, which is exactly on the 35 per cent. national average. Its allocation for further education in 1991–92 is more than four times greater than in 1990–91.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that according to government figures published on Monday of this week, city technology colleges—which are schools—will receive £185 more per pupil than local authority schools? The majority of that sum relates to school buildings. In view of the need of so many local authorities to improve school buildings, what possible justification can there be for such a wide differentiation between the two payments?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, spending on repairs for maintenance by LEAs has risen from £28 per primary and secondary pupil in 1979–80 to £64 in 1988–89, which is the latest outturn year. In real terms that is an increase of 20 per cent.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question that I asked?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, it is a matter for administration.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, does the Minister agree that since we have lost large education authorities such as the one in London, all our buildings are deteriorating? Advancing countries have a proud record of ensuring that their education is known throughout the world. Unfortunately we work the other way. Teachers struggle in very unhygienic and difficult buildings.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the noble Baroness is a little pessimistic. The last HMI report shows that in some cases there is still much work to be done. However, it also states that action by government and local authorities over recent years has led to accommodation, equipment and materials being in a healthier state than for some time.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, does my noble friend find it a little odd that so much interest is shown by Members on the other side of the Chamber? The Opposition have made pledges for extra spending on various matters—whenever they believe they will come into power—but they have made none whatsoever for school buildings.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I answer for the Government, not for the Opposition.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, the Minister has given some figures of increases in spending. However, is he aware that the report last year of HM Chief Inspector of Schools found that in two-thirds of secondary schools inspected the accommodation was unsatisfactory and the specialist accommodation quite ill suited to current educational needs? I assume that he agrees that a figure of £2 billion needs to be spent to bring school buildings up to the standards of the survey for 1986. But those requirements relate to the school premises regulations of 1981. Implementation of those standards has been postponed for another five years 773 until 1996. Does the Minister believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs, in particular when the national curriculum will need quite different accommodation and equipment?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government realise the problem raised by the noble Baroness. They have given the local education authorities more time to comply with the requirements of the 1981 school premises regulations. While the review is in progress it is reasonable that the transition period for compliance with some elements of the regulations is to be extended. The noble Baroness quoted from the HMI report, as I did. We presumably chose different quotations.

§ Lord Blease
My Lords, is the Minister aware that on due consideration of a recent report on the conditions of school grounds and accommodation in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Teachers Union publicly declared that many of the schools in the Province fall far below the standards required for modern teaching needs? Buildings are inefficient and inadequate with regard to lighting, heating and plumbing. In many cases school grounds and accommodation are a safety hazard for pupils and staff. Does the Minister agree that in England and Wales, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have separate education authorities, there is an urgent need to undertake a thorough review of accommodation standards and of the separate capital funding arrangements in those areas?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, it is for LEAs and school and college governors to ensure that buildings are in an acceptable state of repair and safe. I cannot give the noble Lord answers which apply to Northern Ireland but I shall write to him. It is also for LEAs to determine their own expenditure priorities on services and between schools and colleges.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, does the Minister realise that it is no use giving the LEAs an extra five years in which to do something if they do not have the money to do it? They would be willing to take action now if the funds were supplied.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness says.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, the Minister indicated that the Government are satisfied with the percentage increase. Is he aware that according to the national average the six largest local education authorities have received at least 15 per cent. less than their bids? Does he agree that due to such a large discrepancy someone has got it wrong? I point out that my figures come from an independent source and not from a government source.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, the Government are satisfied with the increases that have been granted and those that are proposed. I am surprised that the Opposition are not satisfied too.