HC Deb 17 May 1972 vol 837 cc524-8
Mr. Buchan

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the imposing of a default order on Glasgow Education Authority by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the need for its withdrawal so that Glasgow may proceed to introduce comprehensive education. Yesterday a default order was placed upon Glasgow Education Authority. This morning I sought from the Secretary of State's Department the assurance that a statement would be made in the House so that this matter could be discussed. I was told that a statement was not to be made, and I therefore seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

The background stems, first, from the pledge which was given in the Conservative election manifesto— We will maintain the existing rights of local education authorities to decide what is best for their area. This was underlined by the Prime Minister's promise that The most urgent reform of local government is to get the Government spanner out of the works. Under Labour there can never be real reform of Local Government for they will always seek to use their powers to bend the local authorities to their will. Therefore, the clear indication was given that a local authority could proceed with the form of organisation it sought. This was borne out by Circular No. 760, which in terms allowed a local authority to use any form of organisation whether selective or comprehensive.

Glasgow proceeded to do just that. It decided to abolish fee paying in the previously fee-paying schools.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful not to make the speech that he would make were his application to be successful.

Mr. Buchan

I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but, as we have not had a statement, it is important that the background at any rate to this very serious matter should be given. I recognise your implicit ruling about argumentation.

A scheme was submitted by Glasgow to achieve just that. Instead of exercising his undoubted rights to question details, the Secretary of State sought a political confrontation on it. He ordered the Glasgow Corporation to proceed with its existing scheme of selectivity. This the corporation, in the light of Government assurances and in the light of the circular, refused to do. It has, instead, insisted on the right to proceed with an ending of the selective process in Glasgow's schools.

Now the Government have imposed a default order on the corporation.

The matter is specific because it is a named order— The Education (Default of the Education Authority for the County of the City of Glasgow) Order, 1972. The matter is specific also because the order is dated 16th May. It is specific also because it is signed by one Gordon Campbell, One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. The matter is important because the order denies the democratically decided will of the people of Glasgow. It is important because it is denying the Government's pledges given in the circular. More serious, the matter is important because it is part of what I think is a new and dangerous development of the Government using the law as a means of conducting a form of political confrontation. We have seen it with school milk. We have seen it in terms of trade unionism. We have seen it in terms of housing. Now we are seeing it here. This misuse of the law brings the law into contempt and creates a dangerous precedent.

The matter is important, above all, because it denies the right, expressed in Statute and circular, of the authority of Glasgow to carry out the democratically expressed will of the Glasgow people. The matter is therefore specific and important.

Finally, it is urgent because the order has left the City of Glasgow only 12 days in which it is asked to deny the will of its own community. Therefore, the implication is serious.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) was courteous enough to give me notice that he would make this application. I have considered the application carefully, as I do all these applications. As a result of a Report of the Select Committee, of which I myself was a member, I am not allowed to state the reasons why I deal with these applications one way or another. I will merely say that I invite right hon. and hon. Members to look carefully at the Standing Order, where I think they will find many of the reasons why I rule as I do.

I regret that in this case I cannot agree to the hon. Gentleman's application.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to return to a similar point which I had to put to you last week. The use of an application under Standing Order No. 9 in the way it has just been presented must be an abuse of the proceedings of the House—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—the sense that there is a one-sided argument on the record which is not capable of being answered.

It will be within the recollection of all hon. Members that in the past applications under Standing Order No. 9 were put in an abbreviated form and the question was debated afterwards if the application was granted by the Chair. A one-sided point has now been put which is not capable of being answered. The presentation of a one-sided argument which, under the rules, is not capable of being answered must be an abuse of the procedures of the House. If hon. Members will not restrain themselves, the Standing Order should be so drawn that there can be an answer, just as an answer can be given under the Ten-Minute Rule Bill procedure.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. The Standing Order provides that an hon. Member may seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration. The Chair must hear such an hon. Member. Whether there is an abuse in what happens and whether there should be a right of reply are not matters for me. Under the present Standing Order I am bound to hear an hon. Member who seeks to move the Adjournment of the House under the Standing Order.

Sir Robin Turton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? It is clear under the Standing Order that you must hear the application on grounds of urgency, but surely it is out of order for an hon. Member to seek to present arguments which should be presented in the debate if the application is successful. Should not that rule be adhered to?

Mr. Speaker

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do my best to curtail the loquacity of hon. Members in this as in almost every sphere.

Mr. Ross

Bearing in mind that this affects a quarter of the population of Scotland, that it is urgent, that it is important, a matter——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have already disposed of that matter.