LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 18 November 1976)

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 27. These Amendments were disagreed to without debate in another place, but the whole question of resources had been fully debated for four hours earlier during their Committee stage. On that occasion, Ministers gave various assurances which I have repeated in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I hope that three times is enough.
I will not go over the same ground again. I will merely remind the House that the Government recognise that resources are limited, that in certain areas it must be quite a number of years before reorganisation can be satisfactorily completed. Obviously we do not start with a clean slate. Authorities do not have unlimited resources to give effect to 1564 their ideal reorganisation plans but neither does the combination of resources and existing provision totally preclude substantial and reasonable progress towards reorganisation at this time.
The school building programme is announced to authorities in the form of a lump sum allocation. It does not differentiate between sums for primary and secondary schools and it is open to authorities to deploy their allocation according to their own assessments of their priorities. While the Secretary of State may prefer that these resources should be used to facilitate reorganisation, the authority could well have a different order of priorities. Unless therefore a separate building allocation were made for reorganisation it would be impossible to say, in the terms of these Amendments, when the necessary resources for building and equipment had been made available to give full effect to proposals approved by the Secretary of State.
This Bill has been introduced to ensure that the resources available in the school building programme are used in ways compatible with the development of comprehensive education. We have never expected reorganisation to outpace resources; but there are many areas where, if the will existed, progress could be made within the constraints of available resources. The Commons consider the Amendments unnecessary; they are also potentially wrecking; this remains the Government's view. I hope noble Lords will accept our assurances and not press these Amendments further.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, I am bound to say that I think that the Commons Reason, that they are unnecessary, and the tailpiece which the noble Lord added, that they are potentially wrecking, rather spoiled the undertaking which the noble Lord was good enough to give at Third Reading on November 3rd (in col. 1406) when he said: No authority or governing body of a voluntary school will be penalised by the Secretary of State 1565 for failing to implement its plans under Section 13 if it can convince the Secretary of State that resources to do so are not available. I should like to thank the noble Lord for that assurance on that occasion.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I repeat it now.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, may I add that I have a concern and it is this: that a few authorities may none the less be tempted—indeed some authorities under the terms of the Bill may be forced—by the Secretary of State to produce what we call "botched up" schemes because the resources are not available for the authority to reorganise as it would wish. In addition to that, I have another concern which is that the present economic situation brings home to us the danger of resources being cut suddenly and interest rates being increased between the time when proposals have been approved by the Secretary of State and the time when those proposals are due to be implemented. If I may chide the noble Lord gently, when he said that all was splendid because this Amendment on resources had been fully debated in another place in Committee, that was five months ago. A great deal of financial water has flowed under a great number of bridges since then.
The amount of resources which local authorities have are not going to be the same in December as they were in May. Under those circumstances, the assurance which the noble Lord has given me is an important assurance. In addition, the noble Lord will remember that he also gave me an assurance about the use of Section 99 of the 1944 Education Act. I have deployed my reasons at previous stages why I dislike that procedure, and I am sure that local authorities would have been re-assured if these Amendments could have been written into the Bill. None the less, perhaps it is fair for me to concede that the difference between the Government and myself is rather more about means than about ends. I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for the assurance he gave me.