LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 18 November 1976)

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14. When this Amendment was discussed earlier in Committee, I explained that it is settled law that the Secretary of State should stipulate a reasonable time-limit; any time-limit considered unreasonable could be challenged in the courts. But I assured the House that my honourable friend would have nothing to gain by seeking to give authorities too little time to submit proposals, and I gave assurances that she would not do so. However, in the majority of cases, 18 months is a substantially longer period of time than should be necessary.
The other place rejected this Amendment without debate, but they had in fact spent two and a half hours on a general debate on timing during their Committee stage. The Commons Reason for rejection was that the Amendment would delay the submission of proposals for secondary reorganisation to a degree which they did not consider justifiable. This is the view of the Government, as I explained in 1550 Committee, and I therefore hope that the House will not press this Amendment.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is settled law that there is a period of time for consultation on reorganisation proposals. I do not like to cross swords with him, but I should have thought that rather than it being settled law it is a part of the Section 13 procedure that there shall be provision for objections from local government electors. The difference between that and what we are discussing here is that Clause 2 of the Bill has no provision written into it for objections to be made, unlike the Section 13 procedure. Apart from the consideration of this, I do not think it is a very desirable way to promote democratic procedures. The practical effect is that it could mean that proposals under Clause 2 will eventually reach the Secretary of State without the Secretary of State having a clear indication of whether or not the proposals are accepted locally. I am sure that the noble Lord will protest that the Government have no intention of preventing proper consultation under Clause 2, and I have very little doubt that usually there will be proper consultation.
But the fact of the matter is that under Clause 2 the Secretary of State can dictate exactly what a local education authority or a voluntary school is to propose, so that by the time the Section 13 procedure is reached under Clause 3, the issues will have been virtually decided. This is the reason why it was felt so important on these Benches that during the procedures under Clause 2 it should be possible for proper consultation to be absolutely assured, and it was for that reason that this Amendment was agreed at the Committee stage.
Without this Amendment the only statutory guarantee of consultations will be the assurance which was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. But normally at least six months will be specified by the Secretary of State, and possibly 12 months in cases where no contingency planning has already been 1551 undertaken by the local education authority. I should very much have preferred to have seen some time limit written into the Bill.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, the position is very simple. If a local authority is asked to submit plans and it submits plans, and is then asked under Section 13 to submit detailed plans and go through the Section 13 procedure, it will agree with the Department and ultimately with the Secretary of State the time that it is going to take. There will be a timetable, and this is a matter for mutual discussion. If the very unlikely situation should arise that there is a Secretary of State who is totally unsympathetic, or that there is a local authority that is totally unwilling to play, and if the Secretary of State insisted on a minimum timetable, in the end the local authority has recourse to the courts. But to insist on 18 months when many of the cases can perfectly well be done in three months would be foolish. I should have thought that this is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement so long as we are dealing with human beings and not idiots.