§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W. R., Barkston Ash)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the grounds given by the West Riding education authority for their refusal to appoint Mr. Milnes to the head teachership of the Royston school are entirely based upon a report by the sub-committee; whether he is aware that the subcommittee consisted of two members with their clerk, not specially experienced in dealing with children or in testing the efficiency of teachers; that the total duration of their visit to Sharlston school was forty-five minutes, of which not more than fifteen were spent with the children in the school, and that not more than six questions in geography and mental arithmetic were asked of the children; and whether he will see that evidence based on such a visit of inspection shall not be allowed by the Board to outweigh the favourable reports of many Government Inspectors extending over many years, and the strong recommendation of Mr. Milne's appointment made by the Inspector specially sent by the Board to inquire into this dispute.
§ MR. MCKENNAI am unable to say whether the local education authority's decision was entirely based on the sub-committee's report, but as the sub-committee appointed representatives with the special object of visiting the school at which Mr. Milnes is employed, I have 1160 no doubt considerable weight was given to their report. According to my information the sub-committee did not consist of two members and their clerk, as stated by the hon. Gentleman. Two members of the sub-committee, accompanied by the county council's inspector of schools, visited the school in question. I am informed that at least forty-five minutes; was spent with the children themselves, besides the fifteen or twenty minutes spent in the school in discussion with the head master before the children assembled; I have no information as to the number of questions asked. As I have previously; stated, the jurisdiction of the Board in these cases is strictly limited to deciding whether the local education authority withheld their consent on educational grounds and no question of one report outweighing another can therefore arise.
§ MR. LANE-FOXArising out of that Answer may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the letter written by the chairman of this education committee, and appearing in the Yorkshire Post on Monday last, and whether that letter is consistent with the statement that the appointment of Mr. Milnes was refused on educational grounds?
§ MR. MCKENNAYes, Sir. My attention has been called to that letter, and it appears to me that the strict construction of that letter does not agree with the statement made by the local education authority.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E)May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman conceives that the duty of the Education Department is fulfilled the moment it receives the statement of the local education authority that they had acted on educational grounds, or whether he considers they ought to ascertain whether that statement correctly represents the facts?
§ MR. MCKENNAI do think it is the duty of the Board of Education to inquire whether the statement does correctly represent the facts.
§ *MR. GEORGE FABER (York)May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is still prepared to repeat the Answer given in the House last week that there 1161 was no shadow of doubt that the appointment was refused on educational grounds?
§ MR. MCKENNAI have no doubt the educational authority refused the appointment on educational grounds.