HC Deb 25 July 1963 vol 681 cc1853-5

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 35, leave out "subsection (6)" and insert "subsections (6) and (7)".

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I can explain the Amendment simply. Clause 30(1,b) of the Bill makes the Inner London Education Authority the local education authority for the purposes of any reference to a local authority in the Education Acts or other Acts which are subject to subsection (6). That subsection provides for the review, which has been discussed fully, and also empowers the Minister of Education to lay regulations before Parliament. Subsection (6) must be read with subsection (7), because subsection (7) provides for what may be put into any consequent regulations and therefore clearly, in strict drafting, subsection (7) ought to be mentioned or, as the popular Press may say nowadays, named in Clause 30(1,b). That is the reason for the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 42, leave out "officers and liabilities" and insert: liabilities (but, without prejudice to sections 81(1) and 82 of this Act, excluding provisions with respect to the transfer of officers)".

Sir E. Boyle

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment was, I think, dealt with in principle by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the Amendment to Clause 6, in page 7, line 43. It is one of a series of linked Amendments dealing with the transfer of staff. I will not deal with this point separately again unless the Houses wishes me to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 46, line 11, at end insert: (2A) Before preparing a revised development plan for their borough under subsection (2) of this section, the council of each outer London borough shall consult with any other local education authority whose area is contiguous with that borough with a view to ensuring that the revised plan has regard both to the use made of schools outside that borough by children resident therein and to the use of schools within that borough by children resident outside it".

Sir E. Boyle

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a Government Amendment which gives effect to a useful Amendment put down by the noble Lords Lord Crook and Lord Shepherd in another place. It makes it a statutory requirement that each of the new outer London boroughs should consult its neighbours when drawing up the development plan required by Clause 31(2) with a view to ensuring that the revised development plan has regard to the use made of their schools by children from outside, and vice versa. This is a useful Amendment which was accepted by my noble Friend Lord Newton in another place, and I commend it to hon. Members.

Mr. Ede

I support the Amendment. To some extent, it lessens the evils of the fragmentation of the education service effected by the Bill. It will enable, I am glad to say, a large number of children to be taught in accordance with the wishes of their parents, particularly when the religious issue is involved. I hope that it will be widely, wisely and firmly used by the authorities.

Sir E. Boyle

With permission, I should like to say how much I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The Amendment requires that the outer London boroughs should do by Statute what I hoped they would do in any event, but I am sure that it is a good thing to have this provision written into the Bill. I am personally pleased with this Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart

I join my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in welcoming this Amendment. The Minister will remember that many of us were worried about the fragmentation of the education service, and, having been defeated on the general principle, we endeavoured in Committee to find various ways of mitigating the mischief being done. At one stage, for example, we suggested that the Minister could require groups of boroughs to submit a joint development plan to him. That was rejected by the Committee, some hon. Members opposite saying that it showed a contempt for the independence of boroughs on our part. Now we have a more modified version of basically the same idea.

I take it that the phrase any other local education authority whose area is contiguous with that borough means the outer London boroughs which are their neighbours and those authorities across the border of Greater London. If I understand it aright, an outer London borough would be required, in preparing a revised development plan, to consult such other outer London boroughs as border on it and, say, the County Council of Surrey or Kent, its neighbour over the Greater London border. Perhaps the Minister could clear up that point. It would appear that that is what the words mean.

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. Member is quite correct. In this case the words have their natural meaning and do not refer only to the borough groupings within the scheme.

Question put and agreed to.