§ 42. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if a special sub-committee of the Merionethshire education authority, acting on representations made by the Board, recommended the extension of the existing council school at Dolgelley, provided that the guardians would sell a piece of land for a playground; what would have been the cost of such extension; and what steps the board or the local authority took to persuade the guardians to sell the land required?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease)The Board did not make any representations to the Merionethshire local education authority, or to any sub-committee of 980 that authority, recommending the extension of the existing council school at Dolgelley. For some years past the Board's officers have expressed the opinion that the restricted character of the site made it unsatisfactory for school purposes, and the premises have been found to be both insanitary and inconvenient. The Board were informed by the authority that they had placed themselves in communication with the guardians of the Dolgelley Union in order to ascertain whether they would sell a piece of land, and that the guardians were not prepared to do so. I have no information as to what would have been the cost of any extension of the buildings that may have been contemplated. The Board have no power to intervene in any negotiations which an education authority may think fit to enter into, for the acquisition of land by agreement for such a purpose, and no steps were taken by the Board to persuade the guardians to sell land.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWould not the cost of putting the existing school into a sanitary and convenient condition and acquiring a playground have been much less than the £5,000 which it is proposed to spend on a new school?
§ Mr. PEASEI understand there was no opportunity for obtaining the additional land required for the alteration, and without it it was quite impossible to put this school into a satisfactory condition.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the board of guardians are now willing to sell that piece of land?
§ Mr. PEASEThat is not a matter at all for the Board of Education. The question possibly may arise between the Local Government Board and the guardians, but certainly it does not come within the province of the Board of Education.
§ 43. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he has received any resolutions from the parish councils of Brithdir and Islaw'r-dref protesting against the erection of a new school at Dolgelley?
§ Mr. PEASEA copy of the resolution passed at a meeting of the parish council of Brithdir and Islaw'r-dref reached the Board yesterday.
§ 44. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he has seen a letter sent from the Board on 28th September last to the ratepayers in Dolgelley, who appealed against the new school, asking them to give their reasons for the appeal, and their answer of 12th October giving those reasons and asking to be heard; and why no reply was sent by the Board to the letter of 12th October?
§ Mr. PEASEI have again seen the correspondence referred to, and I find that on 13th October the Board formally acknowledged the letter of 12th October from the appellants' solicitors. This letter gave no new or sufficient reasons against the new school. On 20th October a copy of the letter of 12th October was forwarded to the local education authority for their observations. The Board did not receive their reply until 19th December. The views expressed by the local education authority agreed with those held by the Board's officers and, on reconsideration of all the circumstances, the Board came to the conclusion that no ground whatever had been disclosed for overruling the discretion of the local education authority, and on 24th December they informed the appellants' solicitors of their decision.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that a letter which gives the reasons asked for under Section 8 of the Education Act of 1902 is a letter giving sufficient reasons to have the case properly considered and not put off for two months and decided behind the backs of the people who appealed?
§ Mr. PEASEI think it is most important that the Board of Education should not decide this off its own bat, but should consider what the views were of the local education authority, and they communicated with the local education authority and that authority reported to the Board of Education, and as soon as we reconsidered the question we immediately informed the parties interested of our decision.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANAm I to understand that the Board only consulted one side of this question without allowing those who held other views to express their opinions?
§ Mr. PEASEWe asked the other side to put any views they held into writing and that we would take them into consideration. 982 In the writing there was no fact before us to justify us in coming to any other conclusion than the one at which we arrived.