I welcome this opportunity to raise the urgent need to unify the Liskeard school and community college on a single site. It is always gratifying to know that the Minister answering an Adjournment debate is familiar with the local geography. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), has kindly agreed to stand in for another Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, our hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

Our hon. Friend visited Liskeard in November 1995 to see for herself the very real problems being experienced at the Liskeard junior school. During that visit, she also saw something of the unsatisfactory situation at Liskeard school and community college. Her visit to the junior school had a very favourable outcome, as a new junior school is now under construction—I like to think, as a result of her intervention. Therefore, she has set a precedent for her colleague, a fellow junior Minister at the Department for Education and Employment, to respond in an equally favourable manner to my remarks this evening. We are hopeful that, by my raising this subject, we shall make some tangible progress regarding the needs of secondary education in Liskeard.

Six comprehensive schools are located in my constituency. They occupy single sites, with the exception of Liskeard, which occupies two sites at opposite ends of the market town. The first two school years—about 400 pupils—are based on the former grammar school premises. Those pupils are, in practice, isolated from important facilities offered on the main campus. This latter site—formerly the Liskeard secondary modern school—is very attractive. Needless to say, all the new facilities that were provided since the amalgamation of the two schools in the mid-1970s were built on that latter site.

Because Liskeard school is the top priority for unification on one site in Cornwall, the local education authority has decided—for totally understandable reasons—not to spend scarce economic resources on upgrading the older buildings at the lower school site. As a result, the lower school buildings and temporary classrooms are not energy-efficient. It is not a sound use of scarce resources to maintain more than 20 temporary buildings, mainly wooden Elliott Medway-type huts. Consequently, the teaching areas at the lower school are substandard.

That is the physical position at the lower school, but in addition there are the human dimension and the accompanying practical difficulties arising from the split site. To emphasise these genuine problems, I can do no better than quote from the Office for Standards in Education inspection report of May 1996: The school's split site poses problems for its work. The lower school buildings provide a poor learning environment…The school is part way through a phased development of its accommodation, designed to consolidate the school on one site and improve facilities in the future. The quality of some of the new buildings is good, for example the sixth form area and computer rooms at the upper school. However, for pupils currently in the school, the provision and standard of accommodation are unsatisfactory in a number of respects. The school occupies two sites approximately 1 km apart. The unavoidable movement of teachers, and to a lesser extent, pupils, has a negative impact on the quality of education provided. I graduated in geography some 35 years ago—a long time ago—and therefore feel for the subject, although I have forgotten most of what I learned at university.

The report continues: The extent of movements reduced teaching and preparation time; for example there are 31 such breaks in geography in each timetable cycle apart from those coinciding with breaks and lunchtimes…The lower school presents a dispiriting learning environment. This site provides little stimulus to pupils on entry to the school…Some teachers spend a high proportion of their time with only one part of the age range and this on one of the two sites. This hinders the development of consistent practices and communications…Good formal and informal communications seek to overcome the problems of having staff on two sites; the tension between seeking to reduce staff travelling and ensuring full participation in subject teams has not yet been resolved satisfactorily". The situation, then, is that time is wasted in travelling between the sites. There is stress on staff; inefficient use and duplication of equipment and materials; timetabling constraints; under-use of specialist facilities at one site and over-use at the other; and there are revenue funding implications for the local education authority and the school itself. My hon. Friend's Department has allowed £23,000 towards the school budget to try to cover the split site situation. Cornwall makes the figure up to £45,500. The governors' realistic assessment of the cost of the split site is £77,000.

The conclusions reached by the Ofsted inspection team clearly show the need to improve the position as soon as possible. One of the key issues identified by the inspectors was the need for the local education authority and the governors to

continue to seek to overcome the constraints imposed by the split site, and, in the short term, to improve the learning environment in the lower school and to integrate it more fully into the life and work of the school as a whole. The governors and the staff are attempting to do that. Certain improvements and extensions are being undertaken. I must emphasise, however, that, when those improvements are completed, the difficulties associated with a split site will still not be resolved.

The Cornwall local education authority submitted an application to the schools renewal challenge fund for £3.35 million to complete the consolidation process at Liskeard. I realise that that is a large sum of money, given the fact that the total amount of SRCF grant available in the second tranche was just £15 million. Although the application was for £3.35 million, the total cost of the scheme is £4.77 million. Approximately £1.4 million can be found from other sources, such as the basic need capital allocation, the school's bid for technology college status and capital receipts.

Cornwall LEA—like all of us—recognises the constraints on capital funding nationally. It prioritised the SRCF bid into independently deliverable components.

The first priority is for a new technology and art block, which will cost £2.25 million. The second priority is to convert the existing outdated technology rooms into science and general teaching rooms, at a cost of £470,000. The third priority is a music suite to complement the recently established dance and drama suite, at a cost of £590,000. The fourth and final requirement is to build 16 new general teaching rooms to replace the 20 or so existing wooden huts, to which I have already referred.

That is the total need, but one reason for identifying four priority categories was to show that, once the first component—the technology and art block—is completed, it will enable the LEA to convert the existing technology and art rooms into science laboratories and general teaching rooms. That in turn will enable the greater part of the curriculum for the whole school to be delivered in permanent buildings on a single site.

Furthermore, had the SRCF bid been successful, it would have enabled the LEA to negotiate a favourable tender with the contractor now on site. That would have provided considerable savings compared with a new contract at some stage in the future. Sadly, our application for funding was not successful, and we will have to start again. Much to the disappointment of the school and the community it serves—there is genuine anger in some quarters—unless the Minister is forthcoming tonight, we shall have to wait some time before the scheme materialises.

I do not wish to dwell on the reasons for refusal given by my hon. Friend the Minister in her letter to me dated 4 February 1997. We must be positive, and look to the future. In that same letter, however, my hon. Friend not only stated that she had visited the school but confirmed that the work was urgently needed; my purpose in raising this subject tonight is to further the process.

I mentioned that the new Liskeard junior school was under construction. It was in my first Parliament, in 1972, that I initially raised the need for a new Liskeard junior school. That was 25 years ago. I only hope that Liskeard, the catchment area for the secondary school, and, indeed, my successor will not have to wait a further 25 years before secondary education in the town is consolidated on a single site.