I should make it plain that I no longer am associated primarily with that part of the Department's work dealing with school building, although I do not want to run away from this subject tonight, because one of the last functions which I performed as Minister at the end of March and the beginning of April was, as it were, supervising the school building programmes for 1965–66 and 1966–67. I should not, however, be replying to this Adjournment Debate tonight but for the fact that it was thought that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary would not be back from an engagement in time to speak. In fact, he was back in the House—I mention this for the sake of anyone who scrutinises the Division lists—but it had been arranged that I should reply to this debate. That explains my presence at the Box.

There are two main points that need to be considered in answer to the fair and temperate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger), whose concern with the education service is well known to all parties in the House. The first question is whether we are, in general, devoting sufficient resources to educational investment and to school building; and secondly, whether, within that total, Essex is getting its fair share. A third question which I add is whether we are devoting sufficient resources to improvements. Those are three main questions to which I wish to address myself. Then, I will say something about the future, as my hon. Friend has asked me to do.

First, as to educational investment and school building, the figures are well known but I will repeat the overall figures. At the beginning of this Parliament, total educational building starts were at an annual figure of £90 million. By the end of this Parliament, we are planning for an annual total of educational building starts of £200 million a year. That is an unprecedented rate of increase in any Parliament. The Government's educational record can always be made to seem less encouraging if one takes one particular defect, as my hon.

Friend did. But I believe that this is a case where one must consider the Government's efforts over the whole field and not this one aspect of education. In the case of school building, as is well known, we had at the beginning of this Parliament a £300 million programme over five years. That programme will have been considerably exceeded over the five years. But it was clear to me last year when planning the next phase that the rate of school building in recent years had not been adequate to the needs of new school places, movements in the population, and improvements. Therefore, I discussed with my colleagues, particularly my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the level of school building in the next two or three years, and despite the very rapidly rising total of public investment, despite the many pressures for increased educational investment over the whole field, it was agreed as Government policy that school building starts in the year 1965–66 and the year 1966–67 should be raised to an annual figure of £80 million.

Within that total of £80 million I can tell my hon. Friend that Essex has for each of those years the second largest combined programme of any authority in the country. I have checked the figures, and, with the solitary exception of Lancashire, which has as many Parliamentary constituencies as the whole of Scotland, the Essex figure for building starts over the two years will be the largest programme of starts in the country. It will represent a very great increase on the figures for recent years.

Over the five years 1960–65 Essex had total starts of £13–3 millon. That is just under £2¾ million a year. The figure for 1964–65 was £1·6 million, distinctly below that average, as I recognised, and I received a deputation from Essex last year and was glad that it was possible the second time round to include one major replacement secondary project which Essex badly needs in the Halstead area

Coming to 1965–66 and 1966–67, for those two years Essex, which has been having over the past five years an average figure of just under £2¾ million, will have for 1965–66 starts of £3·9 million and for 1966–7 starts of £41 million. That is a quite unprecedented rate of increase in any part of the country. There is literally no authority where there is so great an increase as that from £16 million to £41 million a year.

Furthermore about the total figures for Essex, I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the point, because it may be a useful one when one is discussing school building in any part of the country, that over the two years there will be altogether 77 new school building projects—37 for the first year and 40 for the second. There have been posters about the country recently saying that under the present Government we have been building altogether an average of 10 schools a week. It is fair to say that in Essex alone over the period 1965–67 we shall be starting two schools every three weeks, which seems to me quite a considerable rate of striking.

I would like to turn next to the question of replacements. When one looks at replacements for the country as a whole, the figure for 1965–66 will be about £30 million worth of pure replacements and improvements. That figure compares with the combined total of £30 million for replacements and improvements in 1963–64 and 1964–65, and about £23 million to £24 million will be on starts on secondary improvements, the remainder for primary.

I cannot state at the moment the full figure for 1966–67, because with one or two big authorities like the West Riding we have not settled—through no one's fault—the full details of their programmes, but it will again be about £30 million approximately in roughly the same proportions. I say this about Essex: it is true that the heavy pressure of new population and the very large amount of movement of population means that by far the greater part of the county's building programme will be for new schools for new populations. That is why Ilford projects have not got in for 1965–67. But it would not be right to say that Essex has "lost out" on improvements altogether.

I mentioned the fairly large project we were able to include on the second round, 1964–65. There will be three important direct improvement projects in Essex over the next two years. One of these, I think, is near the Ilford area, in the new London borough of Red-bridge—St. Barnabas County School at Woodford, with the completion of a new building. In addition there are quite a large number of projects, some 13 more, totalling about £1·3 million, which will either replace parts of existing schools whose premises are incapable of expansion to cope with expected rises in numbers, will be projects to replace existing buildings that will be affected by road widening, or will be projects where the addition of extra accommodation will involve some major remodelling of existing premises.

If one considers these headings, Essex has 13 extra improvement projects in addition to the three direct improvement projects I mentioned. It would be impracticable for me to itemise the very large list of new primary and secondary schools even if one were to take, for example, the single year 1965–66. In that year alone there will be about 28 new primary schools. All these, in the long run, will help raise primary standards in the areas just as the very large list of secondaries will have the same effect. Incidentally, we are looking forward to the general rise in secondary standards that will accompany the rise in the school-leaving age. I cannot make a definite promise about a school for 1967–68. I have looked carefully at the details of all those schools in the Ilford area which have been submitted and which were not approved.

So much is made of the fraction of proposals that are approved in the Ministry, and so much was made last year of the difference between total proposals submitted and those approved, that I am justified in pointing out that on this occasion about two-thirds of the total list of Essex projects were approved. At the moment, when we have been considering programmes for 1965–66 and 1966–67, we have been looking of course at the programme for Essex as a whole.

We deal with county councils direct and not with boroughs which are not county boroughs. But, coming to 1967–68, by the time we "firm up" programmes for these areas the London Government Act will be in operation. We shall have the new borough groupings with which to deal directly and it will be the intention of the Department, both at Ministerial level and, I am sure, at official level, to consider singly and with the greatest care the projects that are put in by the counties and the borough groupings ringing London.

I am sure that when we come to do so we shall try to hold the scales fairly between all the authorities in the area and it is fair to say that, while I cannot make a promise about a particular project, nevertheless when dividing up money for improvements we shall bear in mind carefully the position in each borough grouping and try to measure as fairly as possible the relative claims of each.

I should like my hon. Friend to realise therefore that when we come to take official decisions on the 1967–68 programmes we shall bear in mind the representations which he has made, and also take into account, one by one, the special problems of the groups of boroughs surrounding London and which will come into being as separate educational authorities under the full operation of the London Government Act. The Government take very seriously the problem of the school building programmes, and as a Government we have an exceptional record.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that far from being an ill-favoured county, Essex has had a dramatic rise in the rate of its school building, a rise which has not been equalled and certainly not surpassed by any other county area since the war.