HC Deb 06 December 1962 vol 668 cc1473-5
8. Mr. J. Wells

asked the Minister of Education how much of the £6 million increase in expenditure on minor works has been allocated to Kent for the current year; and what percentage this represents of the Kent County Council's request.

Sir E. Boyle

The Answer to the first part of the Question is £90,000; and to the second part, about 41 per cent.

Mr. Wells

is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great problems in Kent, where we have many old church schools which are being converted, and that the fact that the council itself may be allowed to do minor works of under £2,000 really amounts to nothing? Cannot my right hon. Friend give the county council a far more generous allocation on its request?

Sir E. Boyle

My hon. Friend has raised the matter before and I accept that Kent is one of those counties with a good many old voluntary controlled schools. I can, however, give my hon. Friend this piece of comfort. Kent submitted its list in two parts, the first consisting of projects of high priority, and the allocations which I have made should enable the Kent authority to carry out seven of the eight projects on its priority list.

Mr. Willey

In view of the misleading impression that 'the Parliamentary Secretary created in reply to a supplementary question of mine, probably inadvertently, will the Minister confirm that in 1960–61 the value of minor works started was £21 million and that the still has a long way to go before he restores the minor works programme to this level? Does the Minister realise that, in view of the need to accelerate this programme and in view of the good work that can be done particularly in rural and some old urban schools, his first priority should be to ensure that the minor works programme is restored as soon as possible to the 1960–61 level?

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. Member is not quite right about this. My figure for 1960–61 is £18 million and one has to remember that the minor works programme excludes projects costing less than £2,000. The hon. Member is not, therefore, comparing like with like.

Mr. Willey

Will the Minister look at the reply given by his predecessor, then Sir David Eccles, on 10th May and provide a reconciliation between that figure and the one that he has now given us?

Sir E. Boyle

I have, of course, seen all previous replies on the matter. I was simply trying to answer the question put by the hon. Member.

Mr. Sydney Irving

The Minister will forgive me if I find it difficult to follow his figures. Is he aware that the cuts produced by Circular 13/61 in Kent cut the already inadequate minor works programme by three-quarters to £400,000 and that the present allocation does little or nothing either to restore those cuts or to increase them? In view of the increase in population in Kent as a result of electrification, overspill, drift, and so on, will the Minister reconsider the allocation?

Sir E. Boyle

The fact that Kent should be able to carry out seven of the eight projects to which it gave higher priority will at least mean that there can be quite considerable progress in that authority.

9. Mr. J. Wells

asked the Minister of Education what expenditure on minor capital works the Kent County Council proposed in 1960–61 and in 1963–64; and what sum he has accepted for each year, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle

The authority proposed £875,900 for 1960–61 and £879,350 for 1963–64. Its allocations for the two years were £455,000 and £260,000, respectively. The allocation for 1963–64 does not have to cover projects costing less than £2,000 whereas that for the earlier year did.

Mr. Wells

This vast cut in the allocation to Kent is absolutely disgraceful. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Sir E. Boyle

We have already dealt with Kent in the previous Question. These matters are not easily discussed at Question Time, because one has to be so careful to compare like with like. The allocation to local authorities for 1963–64 is considerably smaller than for 1960–61, partly, for example, because we now make a bigger allocation to English aided and special agreement schools. That follows directly from the Act which was passed with the approval of the whole House in 1959.

Mr. Wells

This bears no relation whatever to the minor works, mentioned in an earlier supplementary question, to the church schools which are now taken over. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir E. Boyle

I shall welcome a debate on this matter on the Adjournment. That will enable me to deploy my figures at greater length than is possible at Question Time. I hope that before we come to the debate on the Adjournment—[Interruption.]—I am entitled to answer this—

Mr. Willey

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister to pursue his reply when his hon. Friend has given notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker

Precisely nothing is in order. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) departed from the established practice in the proper form of words and made a speech in giving notice. The Minister was wholly out of order in replying after that stage.