§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 2, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
§
No. 1, in page 2, line 35, leave out from "unsatisfactory" to end of line 38 and insert:
and any such requirement—
§ 4.48 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams)I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment in lieu.
I am pleased to see such numbers on the Opposition Front Bench.
We are glad that their Lordships have accepted the reasons this House gave for disagreeing with their amendments and are not involving us in protracted consideration at this stage of a measure which has enjoyed comfortable majorities at all stages. The Bill now before us is substantially the same as the one we sent to their Lordships on 22nd July. We have accepted the deletion of a clause on the responsibility of married 16-year-olds to receive full-time instruction and added one which amends the Education Act 1944 in respect of pupils' special educational treatment.
We propose that one further amendment be made. Last night my noble Friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved an amendment which incorporates the substance of the last few lines of 1795 Clause 2(4) of the Bill we sent to the other place and which their Lordships deleted, and the Liberal amendment which tried to remedy some of the damage caused by that deletion by providing that the Secretary of State give reasons for finding proposals submitted to her unsatisfactory. Their Lordships accepted this amendment, which has the effect of requiring me to give reasons when I reject a proposal for comprehensive reorganisation. However, it would also enable me to specify conditions that any further proposals would have to fulfil in respect of any matters that I found unacceptable in the original proposal.
§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)I know that everyone is anxious to go home but I do not think it would be right to pass the amendment on the nod. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions about the amendment that the Government moved in another place.
As my right hon. Friend said, the amendment uses different language from that which was originally in the Bill to state the way in which the Secretary of State can, as it were, deal with phoney comprehensive schemes. It is right that the House, especially my right hon. and hon. Friends, should be concerned about my right hon. Friend's powers to deal with phoney comprehensive schemes because it is quite certain that some of the remaining local education authorities that have not gone comprehensive will use, instigated by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), all sorts of stratagems to delay the day when they finally go comprehensive. This is made more serious since the House of Lords decision on Tameside, which I shall not characterise with the epithets that I used on an earlier occasion.
§ Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale)Why not?
§ Mr. PriceI could use some epithets, but whatever one may say about that decision its effect will be to make some local education authorities even more dilatory, egged on and spurred on as before by the irresponsible individuals in charge of education matters on the Conservative Front Bench. I see that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has been 1796 joined in harness with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—a fine pair they will make. There is a real danger that that pair who do not have the job of the local administration of education, may egg on Tory education authorities into litigation that could provide even further delays.
I hope I shall receive an absolute assurance from my right hon. Friend that the new wording, which has no doubt been drawn up by the expert lawyers in the Department of Education and Science, in whom we all have such confidence, gives her exactly the same powers as she had under the original Bill, will Hot inhibit her in any way from using her powers in respect of local education authorities who use the Bill to delay going comprehensive, and will not make her talks more difficult. If she can give those assurances, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be happy to go along with the amendment.
§ Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)This is a minor amendment and we have had a minor speech from the Secretary of State. I am sorry that it has prevented her from going to the Cambridge Union tonight, where I had hoped to debate with her at somewhat greater length. I hope, even at this late stage, that she will change her mind and that we can depart for that purpose.
However, this is not an amendment of great substance or importance. Amendments of substance and importance were debated earlier in this House. This will hardly make a change, other than a drafting change, to the Bill. We do not, therefore, propose to divide the House against it. Unless the right hon. Lady is about to make a long speech, we can go home. However, as soon as the opportunity presents itself, we intend to repeal the Bill, with the amendment that the right hon. Lady has proposed.
§ Mrs. Shirley WilliamsBy your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
I understand the reasons for being concerned about the amendment. Certainly, there have been worries about anything which would delay the intention of this House that we should reorganise schools in local authorities. However, the effect 1797 of the amendment is simply to allow me to give detailed responses and recommendations about how an authority might satisfy the requirement to become reorganised in fully comprehensive schools. I would not have accepted the amendment if I believed that that situation would be weakened. Therefore, I am pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
§ Question put and agreed to.