§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, in a case of the erection of a National school at Cam, County Derry, the Board of Education in Ireland have refused to make the usual grant in aid of the cost of building, and have based their refusal upon the circumstance that the erection of the school had been begun before the rule as to sanction by the Board had been formally complied with: (2) whether, before the building was begun, the site had been sanctioned by the Land Commission, and the Inspectors of the Board of Education and the Surveyor of the Board of Works had made approving Reports; (3) whether a year and a-half elapsed from the time of the 1072 first application for the grant until the time when the building of the school was started, and during this period there was no place available for the education of the children of the district except a room 15 by 16 feet, which the Commissioners had refused to recognise, as being insanitary and otherwise unsuitable; (4) whether, since their refusal to make any grant in aid of the cost of erecting the new building, that building, the suitability of which as a school is not questioned, has remained unused, and the Commissioners have allowed the education of 72 children to be carried on in the room of 15 by 16 feet which they had recently condemned; and (5) whether, in the interests of education, the circumstances of the case will be further considered, with a view to some reasonable settlement?
MR. J. MORLEY(1) The circumstances of this case have, I understand, already been explained to my hon. Friend by a letter of the National Board dated 5th ultimo. Rule No. 21 of the Commissioners' Code strictly prohibits the making of grants towards the cost of works executed or even commenced without the express sanction of the Commissioners. (2) In negotiating for the site, it appears that the Rev. Mr. Loughrey found the consent of the Land Commission necessary for its acquisition; but the Land Commission has no function or power whatever in connection with the administration of the Board's grants. It is not the fact, so I am informed, that before the building was commenced the Inspector of the National Board reported on the site on which the erection has taken place. Nor is it the case that the surveyor of works similarly reported. Even had the Reports been made prior to the building, the applicant, as he was aware, should not have commenced the work without having himself first obtained the prescribed authorization, the import of which had been fully explained to him. (3) It was not until April, 1893, that the applicant announced he had abandoned the site which he had already proposed, and that he had selected another one. He did not, however, furnish proof of his title to the new site until the 19th of May, 1893. When the Inspector visited on the 15th of July, to report on the suitability of the site, he found that the house was in course of 1073 erection. The Board state it is not a fact that there was no place available for the education of children of the district except the unsuitable room in which the temporary school was opened. There were other schools in the locality, but, as they were under Protestant management, the rev gentleman preferred having the Roman Catholic children attending them brought under his own management in the room in question. (4) So far as the Board are aware, the school-house which the applicant built has remained unused by him for school purposes notwithstanding the unsuitability of the temporary house. (5) The National Board are unable, in view of the requirements of their Rules, to grant the aid sought, and they point out that the Comptroller and Auditor General would not certify as legitimate a grant made by them in violation of their Rules.
§ MR. SEXTONWhatever may be the facts in regard to an infraction of the Rule in question, I have to ask are the Government going to allow 72 children to be crammed into a room 15 feet by 16, while there is a building admitted to be suitable for the purpose going to waste because of the infraction of a Rule as to the sanction of the Board before the work is begun? Is an insanitary building to be used while a suitable building is available? and is not this a case for a reasonable man to intervene between the Board and the applicant?
§ MR. MULHOLLAND (Londonderry, N.)Arising out of this question, I wish to ask whether it is not the fact that there is a school in the district within a mile of the one in question in the same parish, with ample accommodation and under Roman Catholic management, being managed by the Catholic priest of Dungiven?
MR. J. MORLEYI have received a communication informing me of what the hon. Member for North Londonderry has stated, and I presume it is true. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, of course if the facts are as he describes them to be, it would seem to be a case for the intervention of a reasonable man, but reasonable men are not to be found in Ireland. The National Board, I know, perceive some difficulty in overlooking this infraction of their Rule. If a Rule is there it ought to be observed. However, I will 1074 inquire further; but I may say the question is really not one for the Irish Executive.
§ MR. SEXTONAs the Treasury, which is the final authority in the matter, is full of reasonable men, surely one of them could be sent to inquire into the facts of this case?
§ [No answer was given.]