§ Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Church of England schools in Birkenhead, known as St. Anne's, St. James's, St. Mary's, St. Peter's, St. Catherine's, St. Paul's, and Holy Trinity schools are carried on in buildings held in strict trust for public education, under such trusts that they revert to the original owners if they cease to be used for educational purposes?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEThe schools in question are all held on educational trusts, except part of the St. Peter's School. The premises of St. Anne's, St. Mary's, St. Catherine's, St. Paul's, and the part of St. Peter's held on educational trust, and part of Holy Trinity Schools were granted under Section 2 of the School Sites Act, 1841. The Section provides that the land so granted shall revert to the estate out of which the grant was made, in the event of its ceasing to be used for the purposes mentioned in the Act. The remainder of the premises of the Holy Trinity School was granted under Section 6 of the same Act, which contains no provision as to reverter. The premises of St. James's School were granted by a deed made partly under Section 2 and partly under Section 6. The Board have no jurisdiction to give an authoritative opinion as to the interpretaton of the Act.
§ Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education if the managers of seven Church of England schools in Birkenhead have been warned that their school buildings must be improved; if so, 1006W when the warning was given; whether a date has been fixed by which the improvements must be effected to secure retention of these schools as Grant-receiving schools; and whether any guarantee or promise has been made by the Board to the managers of these schools which justifies the statement in their appeal for funds that the plans now approved represent practical finality in expenditure?
§ Mr. PEASEI presume this question relates to the seven schools mentioned in the last question. The managers of all these schools were given to understand during 1910 that considerable improvements are required in the premises, and in most of the cases the Board have expressly referred to the necessity for withdrawal of recognition in the event of failure to submit and carry out satisfactory proposals. Plans have been submitted in each case, and approved in two cases. No time limit has been fixed in any of the cases. With regard to the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ipswich on this subject on the 13th July, 1911, a copy of which I am sending with my answer.