Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Estimates
Date:
1953
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    55/256 (page 35)
    11 February, 1953.] [Continued. the Ministry can say to an authority “ You in this area are going to need £10 million worth of work; let us tackle it at the rate of £x per annum, and do that’, then that is a more economical way of doing it than saying ““ We will do so much this year and nothing next year ’”’. 394. Are you not leaving out the whole significance of possible policy changes, not merely that our economic circumstances may change? The Government may change from year to year. We have one type of gov- ernment with certain ideas on policy; another Government may have completely different ideas on matters of policy In the face of those circumstances is it not more realistic not to commit yourself too heavily? —Then the Government must tell us to do that. The Government told us to commit ourselves. I am unaware of any change of policy in this matter. Chairman.| 1 am afraid we cannot step into the realms of policy. Miss Ward. 395. This is perhaps a slightly embarras- sing question, but in dealing with what schools shall be built within the terms of the finances available do you find that the Ministry so to speak take decisions in regard to giving continuity which might produce a very proper balanced financial expenditure or do you have difficulties with the Minis- try in keeping areas, so to speak, in balance?—I think it would be fair to say that we have difficulties with the Ministry, and the Ministry have difficulties with us. 396. Who wins?—There is never a victory in a matter of that kind. The Ministry had the problem that certain authorities in the earlier stages of the building programme were unable to carry as big a programme as was intended. They were lagging behind. The Ministry were properly urging them that they must be able to carry more, the needs of the area demanded it. In other cases the authority had got off to a quicker start and could carry a bigger programme, and therefore they were given a bigger pro- gramme than would be, so to speak, a pro- portionate allocation, a very reasonable thing to do because they could do it, and therefore they were allowed to get on with it. To that extent it is the fault of the authorities for failing to move forward. Equally, on the other hand, the Ministry have to balance, so far as they can, the needs of 146 areas in terms of the number of children seeking admission and so on within the’ total amount of “cake” available. Each authority on the other hand, has the simple task of fighting for as big a part of the “cake” as they can get for the needs of their own area. 397. Do you think it is fairly satisfactory now, or do you think there is room for improvement?—I think it is as well done as it could be done in the practical situ- ation. I would not wish to criticise the Ministry procedures. I think in fact they have done an astonishingly good job in a very difficult situation. Chairman. 398. I think we have had rather a good introduction to your memorandum. We have only dealt with the first two para- graphs. I think we can now proceed further. I will put a few questions to you, and then Members of the Sub-Committee will again have the opportunity of putting points to you. You draw attention to the size of the building programme which you say implies two fundamental assumptions, with both of which you disagree. You say the first of those assumptions is that “at the end of the war the school buildings then available must be deemed to be acceptable for the next decade or more” and “It is assumed that nothing can be done over a period of ten years or more. ee I want to ask you some questions about those schools. 1 think there were about 600 black-listed schools in 1925. Would you think that there are still 600 schools which you would regard as black-listed?—i do not think the same 600 would necessarily be there now. I think some of them may have been closed in the nature of events or some of them may have had some improvements made to them, but I would say quite definitely that there are many more than 600 schools at the present time which would be _ black- listed on any set of regulations of the Minister. 399. Would you agree, for instance, with this comment, that the recording of the black list was stopped when war broke out and that numbers of those schools were on the black list not because of any particular defect in the building but be- cause the building was unsatisfactory for the number of children who used it?—In 1925 that black list was a genuine black list, and those particular 600 schools were condemned as unfit for use by children and should be abolished, because they were in- capable of being brought up to the neces- sary standards for use as schools in the opinion of the then Minister. (Mr. Hirst.) I will give you an actual example. We had a school on the black list in 1925. In 1949 it was still accommodating 800 chil- dren. The conditions were quite deplor- able. As far as teaching staff were con- cerned it was a constant headache because staff would not stay. In 1949 we had more subsidence, and we condemned the school. That is to say we had to say “We wil! not have any children in this school,” and as a result we did get a modification of our building programme to help us to meet the difficulty. The point is this: unless