HC Deb 13 May 1965 vol 712 cc689-91
24. Mr. Peter Mills

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in Devon have had to cancel new classrooms and extensions due to the cuts by the Government in the school building programme.

Mr. R. E. Prentice

The school building programme has not been cut. Taking both major and minor works together it will be substantially bigger in 1965–66 compared with 1964–65.

The Devon authoritiy's minor works proposals for 1965–66 included projects costing between £2,500 and £20,000 for all types of extensions and improvements to schools at a total cost of £448,500. In addition, the authority planned to carry out 333 similar jobs costing up to £2,500 each. The authority's minor works allocation for all minor works is £200,000. It is for the authority to decide which of its proposals to carry out in 1965–66 and which will have to be deferred.

Mr. Mills

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that I cannot accept that? There have been cuts. Many primary schools have been affected in Devon. Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that his hon. Friends are not the only ones who have the privilege of using these schools? My own two children are attending a primary school which has been affected by these cuts.

Mr. Prentice

I do not really see how anyone can suggest that a larger programme represents a cut. It may be that the hon. Member is making a comparison between the allocation to Devon and the amount for which Devon asked, but he will be aware that over many years—under all Governments—authorities have tended to ask, in respect of minor works, for about three times what has been allocated to them. In any other context there has not been a cut in this programme, and it is unfair and unreasonable for hon. Members opposite, who have heard the facts over and over again, to keep using that emotive argument.

Sir E. Boyle

Is it not the fact that the major building programme for 1965–66, which was fixed by the previous Government in October, 1963, is being increased by £20 million but that there will be, overall, an admittedly small cut, but none the less a cut, in the minor works programme for 1965–66 as compared with that of the previous year, as announced in this Parliament?

Mr. Prentice

No, Sir. This matter has been discussed over and over again in this House, and it is unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the facts, to distort them in this fashion. He will be aware that the minor works programme for 1964–65 was £18 million and for 1965–66 it is £21 million—and that is not a cut.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this problem is not confined to Devon? Northamptonshire is in exactly the same position. The cut in the minor works programme is affecting the quality of education that we are likely to get. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we hope that when we see his Ministry in a week or two's time we shall have a more forthcoming answer than that which he has just given to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Prentice

Perhaps the hon. Member does not know the facts, but his right hon. Friend does. The programme of £18 million for last year included an allocation of £3 million for mini-minor works. That sum was exceeded, and about £7 million was spent on mini-minor works. Hon. Members opposite are trying to take credit for that. They never intended that; they intended it to be £18 million. We are under an obligation to bring the mini-minor works within the minor works allocation. We are doing this more effectively than the party opposite did, and we are increasing the allocation by £3 million. These are the facts. In the process, certain local authorities are getting less than they spent last year and certain other local authorities are getting much more. Naturally, those which are getting less on balance are protesting about it. But overall the allocation is £21 million, compared with £18 million last year. These facts have been explained over and over again, and we are getting sick of hon. Members opposite trying to make cheap party points by distorting the situation.