§ 57. Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the managers of the Church of England schools in Liverpool, namely, St. Margaret's, Anfield, St. George's, Everton, and St. Margaret's, Princes Road, do not propose, in the absence of grants from the Liverpool authority, to proceed with their schemes for the provision of senior school accommodation; and how is the Liverpool authority prepared to implement the 1936 Education Act?
Mr. LindsayThe Liverpool authority have informed the Board that the managers of St. Margaret's School, Anfield, and St. George's School, Everton, do not propose, in the absence of grants from the authority, to proceed with their schemes for the provision of senior school accommodation. The authority stated that they were still in communication with the managers of St. Margaret's School, Princes Road. The authority have not yet informed the Board whether, and, if so, in what way, their proposals for the provision of accommodation for senior children are to be modified in the light of these decisions.
§ 58. Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Liverpool Education Committee is considering the issue of statutory notices of its intention to build council schools in Roman Catholic areas; whether this is in conformity with the desire of the board; and, if not, what action does he intend to take?
Mr. LindsayThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The board, in their letter of 5th July, have informed the local education authority that their proposals are such as the board must regard as wholly unsuitable for meeting the situation. A decision as to any further action by the board must await a reply to that letter.
§ Mr. ThurtleWill the Parliamentary Secretary state the grounds upon which they regard this scheme as being wholly unsatisfactory?
Mr. LindsayIt is wholly contrary to the letter of the Act of 1921. This has been going on for some time past, and it was time some action was taken.
§ Mr. ThurtleDid not the Act allow the local authority discretion in this matter?
Mr. LindsayI would point out that I am talking about the position in elementary schools under the Act of 1921, and that it is a duty which is laid on the education authority.
§ Mr. SilvermanIs the hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people in Liverpool who are not Roman Catholics welcome the action which the board have taken as being designed to prevent a recrudescence in Liverpool of sectarian strife of an ugly character?
§ 59. Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of a recent circular he sent to Liverpool Education Authorities asking for reorganisation plans to be forwarded to him by 30th June, he is now in a position to make a comprehensive statement in regard to the provision of non-provided schools, grants, and maintenance of religious rights in such reorganisation, in conformity with the national compromise and the Education Act, 1936?
Mr. LindsayI am not clear what sort of statement the hon. Member expects of me. The local education authority's proposals have already been comprehensively dealt with in the board's letter to them of 5th July.
§ Mr. LoganIn view of the reiterated no-grants policy of the leader of the Tory party in Liverpool—
§ Mr. Speaker rose—
§ Mr. LoganWith all due respecst. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he does not know what statement I require, and I am asking whether he can state what his legal status is in Liverpool in regard to the withholding of the grant, and what action he intends to take in Liverpool in the implementing of the Act of 1936?
Mr. LindsayI think the last part of that supplementary question raises a different point. I said that I was not clear what statement the hon. Member expects from me because already a letter containing some thousands of words had been sent.