HC Deb 10 November 1966 vol 735 cc325-6W
42. Mr. Kitson

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the primary schools in the borough of Richmond, Yorkshire, and that they are below the standards of the 1944 Act; why the replacement school for 280 infants and juniors was not included in the 1966–67 or 1967–68 programmes; if he will give an assurance that it will be included in the 1968–69 building programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redhead

Yes. The new school was not included in the 1966–68 programmes because other projects were considered more urgent. I will look at this proposal as sympathetically as I can for the 1968–69 programme, but I can give no assurances at this stage.

52. Dr. John Dunwoody

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary schools there are in Cornwall; how many were built before 1939; and how many before 1900.

Mr. Redhead

The Cornwall Local Education Authority maintain 274 primary schools. An age classification by the exact dates mentioned by my hon. Friend is not available, but in 251 schools the oldest main building dates from before 1945 and in 202 of these from 1902 or earlier.

Sir C. Osborne

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware that the primary school children in Holton-le-Clay, near Grimsby, have increased in number from 87 last spring to 140 today, and that a further increase is expected when the new housing estate is completed; since the school is inadequate for the present numbers, if he will allow a special allocation of funds to the Lindsey Education Authority to finish the new school, and if need be cut plans for further comprehensive school spending in order to find the money; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland

I understand that the accommodation is sufficient at present, but the Lindsey Authority propose to extend the school by a minor work in 1967–68 in order to meet the needs of rising numbers. I do not make any money available solely for comprehensive reorganisation, so this allusion in the hon. Member's Question is meaningless.