§ 24. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will say at what date the Board authorised the local authority to invite tenders for the erection of a large council school in addition to the existing council school and the Church school at Dolgelly?
Mr. PEASEThe Board do not authorise local education authorities to invite tenders, and did not do so in this case. The time and method of obtaining tenders for the erection of new school premises is a matter for the authority, subject to the fulfilment of the requirement that the approval of the Board must be obtained to the plans of premises used for the purpose of public elementary schools.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANAm I to take it that tenders were asked for at the very time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer specially asked that no unnecessary local expenditure should be incurred, and before any sanction was given by the Board of Education?
Mr. PEASEI have no knowledge of that, but I can inquire if the hon. Gentleman presses the question.
§ 25. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state why no inquiry was held into the objections raised by the managers of the Church school and over 100 ratepayers of Dolgelly to the proposed new school; and why, though the ratepayers asked on 15th September and on 22nd September what opportunity would be given them to state their case, they received no answer from the Board of Education?
Mr. PEASEThe proposed council school at Dolgelly is intended to replace the existing council school, the premises of which have for several years past been regarded as unsatisfactory both by the Board and by the authority. In these circumstances there appeared to be no ground for a public inquiry. The Board, in reply to the communications of the 15th and 22nd September, invited the appellants to supplement the appeals which they had lodged with the Board against the proposed new school by giving reasons for their statement that the school was not required, but the appellants did not accept the invitation to amplify their notice of objection.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIs it not the fact that the ratepayers asked how they were to proceed in order to get their case heard, and they did not get any answer from the Welsh Secretary to the Board of Education?
Mr. PEASEThere was no prima facie case in the interests of the petitioners, and under those circumstances it did not seem to me reasonable to reply to the invitation to meet the deputation, and I asked them to place a record on paper of what it was they desired to see me about. As they declined to do so the matter has fallen through.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWould it not have been more courteous of the Welsh Secretary to answer their letter, instead of letting them wait three months and then find the thing had been settled?
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIs it possible, in view of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, to open a new school without a public inquiry?
Mr. PEASEYes; this school was merely to supplement another council school. It did not require that any notices should be issued by the public authority. They were quite superfluous.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIf it was to replace an old council school, why was the site chosen exactly opposite the Church school, whilst the council school it is said to replace is a long way off at the other end of the town?