HC Deb 05 November 1979 vol 973 cc167-86

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
  2. (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.

—[Mr. Wakeham.]

10.15 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)

I do not wish to detain the House for long.

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I do not expect to be here throughout the entire debate on the money resolution. I remind the House that there is a limit of three-quarters of an hour on the debate. Many hon. Members who were disappointed in the earlier debate still hope to be called.

Mr. Kinnock

I am conscious of the need to be brief. The money resolution is of particular importance against the Government's general economic policy and because of its implications for public expenditure. It is also important because of the provision for expenditure on the assisted places scheme. We are not yet satisfied that we can totally divorce the money to be spent on the assisted places scheme from the withdrawals of finance for the general benefit and advantage of children in the maintained sector. The Secretary of State and the Government will have to be more inventive and more convincing before they persuade us that these are separate budgets.

The Under-Secretary of State said that because children had legs they should walk. That is an updated version of "Let them eat cake". The Government are saying "Let them eat crisps. Let them do anything that will save money for the public purse". That is unless, by dint of the Government's perverse policy for assisted places, they are from fortunate homes, have fortunate access to particular types of school, and are able to take advantage of the bonus that the Government are offering the middle classes.

10.18 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)

The money resolution provides a sum of £55 million for assisted places and for the reduction of £200 million in expenditure on meals and milk. It also provides for a reduction in expenditure on transport.

I observed with interest the absence from the Conservative Benches, in the early part of the debate, of any hon. Members representing a rural constituency in Wales. One or two hon. Members from rural Scottish constituences were present. As a proportion of its education budget the Powys education authority spent more on transport than any other authority. Yet neither of the newly elected Conservative Members from that county graced the debate with his presence. The reason for their absence is clear. Both are equally dissatisfied with the measure and its impact on their constituents. They did not have the moral courage of the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), who made his opposition clearly known.

I wish to speak about the £55 million that is to be spent on assisted places and to counterpose it with the £500,000 being expended on Welsh-medium education under clauses 21 and 22.

I shall not go into detail on the small print; no doubt we shall have an opportunity to do that in Committee. The £500,000 to be provided for Welsh language teaching and the teaching in that language of other subjects is one of the more appropriate resurrections from the deceased Education Act of the previous Administration. The £500,000 to be expended is presumably to cater for the clear demand for the expansion of Welsh medium education in the secondary school sector.

There are 35,000 school pupils in Wales, including two of my children, who receive primary education through the medium of Welsh. There are only 6,000 secondary school places where pupils are receiving education through the medium of Welsh. Assuming that the overwhelming majority of those now receiving primary Welsh-medium education wish to continue with secondary education, there will be a shortfall of 29,000 places at secondary school for education through the medium of Welsh. That is the equivalent of nearly 35 secondary schools.

There is a clear demand and need in Wales for the extension of bilingual and Welsh-medium education. I contrast the 30,000 places to be funded by £500,000 with the £55 million to be expended on assisted places within the private sector for up to 15,000 pupils annually at the height of the scheme.

Those are the Government's financial priorities. Fifty-five million pounds is to be expended for a duplication, in the private sector, of facilities for the upper middle class from the British ruling classes. Contrasted with that is the paltry provision of £500,000 for Welsh-medium education. There are 30,000 pupils in Wales who, by attending primary school through the medium of Welsh, have indicated their option for Welsh-medium secondary education.

How is the £500,000 that is being granted by the largesse of the Government to be taken up? How is it to be spent? Clause 21 states that the Secretary of State shall … make provision … to local authorities and other persons of grant in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred in, or in connection with, the teaching of the Welsh language or the teaching in that language of other subjects. Let us assume that an education authority in Powys, Gwynedd, Mid- or South Glamorgan busses secondary school pupils not three or five miles, but 30, 40 or 50 miles on a round trip to attend Welsh-medium education. The arguments that were deployed earlier by hon. Members in respect of denominational schools apply with even more force to those who opt for bilingual or Welsh-medium education because of the distances involved.

As a random example, let us assume that Mid-Glamorgan applies for funds for its scheme for transporting pupils to Rhydfelen or alternative Welsh-medium schools, whether in South Glamorgan, Mid-Glamorgan or West Glamorgan. In Clwyd it would be, for example, to Glan Clwyd or Morgan Clwyd. The education authority would apply to the Welsh Office for expenditure of £500,000, under the provision. Are we to understand that that would be acceptable expenditure under that heading? The £500,000 will be justifying the Government's cuts in transport provision and filling up gaps created by their cutbacks on education expenditure through the rate support grant. In other words, the £500,000, paltry as it is, will be eaten up entirely by the application-making authorities. Therefore, it is not additional funding for the Welsh language.

We know how keen the Secretary of State for Wales and his two Under-Secretaries of State are to go around Wales pretending that that represent not the English ruling class but the cultural diversity and plurality that is the reality of the United Kingdom. They pretend that the Government are introducing newfound money that is paralleled only by the cash for the national Eistedfodd, provided that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) does not make extremist speeches from the platform. It is claimed to be new cash for Wales, but in reality the cash will be eaten up by the vacuum created by the Government's lack of provision.

The Bill will probably be seen as the most divisive piece of class legislation since the war. For the first time the liberal consensus on education in the United Kingdom has been broken open. That is the effect of the Bill, with all the consequences that that will have in future given the view that many Labour Members and Members in opposition parties take about education provision.

Within the Bill we have the sop of Welsh-medium education. That has to be contrasted starkly with the determintaion of the Conservative Party to fund its own supporters and the establishments that have provided fodder for the Conservative Benches for far too long.

10.27 pm
Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)

In the discussions preceding the Division, and in the present discussion, it is important for us fundamentally to consider how the money will be spent. In the rhetoric of debate it is often forgotten that the number of schoolchildren requiring education is falling. Has our education system succeeded? When considering the enormous cost of our education system and its results both in equality and in the making of young people ready for industry and jobs, we must come to the conclusion that the money that we have spent has not been spent well.

It is worth reminding ourselves that we are not starting from an ideal position in terms of cost or achievement. What is our objective? Is it equality at any price, or is it education at an affordable price? I suggest that it is very much the latter objective.

Many parents and teachers in my constituency will welcome many of the Bill's contents. Many good education authorities have already costed and planned for many of the attributes of the Bill. Boards of governors for many education authorities already exist. I am slightly concerned that the need to provide separate boards of manegement or governors, especially for primary schools, and the cost of servicing their two or three meetings each year will come at a time when local authorities can ill afford the expenditure.

I am not suggesting that the principle of separate boards of management is wrong. However, we must bear much in mind the costs of such a system. I suggest that we consider phasing the requirement for separate boards for primary schools over a period that will allow education authorities with many primary schools—for example, the Solihull education authority has 107, and 45 boards of management—to make the necessary provision. It is necessary for the system to be introduced at a pace that is affordable.

In providing separate boards of governors it is essential that we have governors who are knowledgeable about their jobs and their functions. The education authority in my area has, two or three times a year, 80 putative governors brought together to train them in exactly what their jobs are. As there is a necessity for separate boards of management so is there a necessity for training and a requirement to choose the right people and to ensure that they know what they are doing.

I must also congratulate many of the authorities—particularly those in my constituency, for which I might show a certain bias—that they have taken the initiative and provided boards of appeal. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to be reasonable in the application of the changes that are quite rightly planned to ensure as much independence as possible in consideration of parents' appeals on the place of schooling. I would not like to see bureaucracy result, for example, in an application to a board of appeal this September requiring 12 months before an answer is given.

Those authorities that have good practices should not be forced to adopt a national scheme too quickly, to the detriment of existing, well-run schemes. However, those authorities that have good practices are few and far between, and one must therefore welcome the national proposals in the Bill as being essential. While I congratulate the authorities that have already achieved high standards, I welcome the application of those standards to the entire nation.

10.32 pm
Mr. R. B. Cant (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I wish to question the Secretary of State about clause 26. I do so because I was present at the Staffordshire county council education committee this morning as a member in opposition. We told the chairman of the committee that we were happy that the Bill did not give local education authorities a specific or explicit power to make a charge for nursery education.

In Stoke-on-Trent we are very proud of our nursery education, which we have been developing for 50 years. There are about 5,000 children in full-time nursery schools or nursery classes. The proposal of the Staffordshire county council—we are, alas, in its area—was to make a charge of £3 a week for a single session. That would have totally undermined nursery education in our part of the county. A massive petition has been presented, all to no avail.

The interesting point here—this is the reason why I am asking the question—is that the chairman of the committee said that the Bill put him in a dilemma. As we tried to get a clearer answer, he said that the Bill certainly did not contain a direct power, and he then implied—I should hate to do him an injustice, because he is a fine chap—that perhaps this clause had been included to provide a back-door method of charging. I am glad to see the Secretary of State shaking his head. It would be possible to envisage a position in which this clause gave a much more Draconian education authority than Staffordshire—one like Cheshire, for instance—the power to redesignate all nursery schools and nursery classes into the category of day nurseries, which are arranged not under education but under health legislation, and for which a charge is currently made.

I hope that the Secretary of State is correct in nodding his head and, by implication, saying that whatever might be legally possible under clause 26, it is certaintly not the intention to provide a back-door method for local authorities to charge for nursery education and that the absence of an explicit or specific power to charge is within the spirit of the Government's intention in this area.

10.35 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby)

A little earlier the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was likened to a broadside of grapeshot fired at close range. With every respect to him, I do not think that that was a true analogy. But then, if we compare the hon. Gentleman's efforts with the gentle and smooth seduction that was attempted earlier today by my hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education, perhaps a better analogy would be that of a violent rape. But the hon. Member for Bedwellty is as yet a young man, and with a young man's disease. He must surely learn that more can be achieved by the soft word and the soothing caress than by a brutal, rough assault such as we witnessed earlier in the debate.

I welcome most parts of the Bill that was presented earlier. It was unfortunate that Labour Members could not find some parts of it to commend, and I believe that they were being less than generous. I applaud the references to school governing bodies and the increased parental choice. I applaud especially that part of the Bill which enables parents to have more decision and to be able to send their children to schools outside their own local authority areas. It is imaginative and it is good. It will do much for parents throughout our nation.

The Bill refers to more information on schools—and at a time when the House has been pressing for more information generally, could not such an item commend itself to the Opposition? It is disappointing that we have had no favourable comment from Opposition Members. They have, as I suggested earlier, been less than generous.

Like some other Conservative Members, I have certain reservations. Those reservations relate to transport. I am a little concerned about the amount of discretion that is being given to local authorities in this respect. I am delighted to note that Opposition Members agree with me at least on something.

In general, I welcome devolution to local authorities with power going from the centre to local authorities, but I feel that there are insufficent guidelines in the Bill to put local authorities completely on the right track. I fear that with certain local authorities we may find that the axe is being swung with rather more enthusiasm than intelligence.

Warwickshire is not the most rural of counties. Perhaps that distinction should go to parts of Wales, as we heard earlier in the debate. But we still have our rural areas and still bus many thousands of children considerable distances.

I cannot help but remember, as a member of my own county council's education committee, that we closed village schools, and that those closures were sold to parents on the basis of providing either free or cheap transport. This is an aspect that gives me great concern, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take note of the concern being expressed on Conservative Benches. I do not doubt that these proposals will cause great distress to many parents living in my own constituency.

Those who live in rural areas have, by definition, the longest journeys to make. They can expect, for no other reason than their address, to pay more for the education that their children will enjoy.

In this connection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a letter from the National Farmers' Union. It is not a long letter, and I hope you will forgive me for quoting from it. It states that: The long standing statutory duty of local authorities to provide free school transport is of considerable value to farming and other families who live in rural areas where school catchment areas are inevitable larger than in towns. The relaxation of this duty, as proposed in the Bill, would represent a further erosion of the range and standard of services available in country areas". I am growing concerned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the amount of enthusiasm that I am getting from the Opposition Members.

The letter continues a trend that has been having an increasingly adverse impact on many rural communities —and that The new legislation would seem likely to result in most, if not all authorities, either making substantial charges for school transport, or withdrawing such services altogether". This sums up the fears and forebodings of some Conservative Members. Another reason for my concern is that the Bill will discriminate against denominational schools—against Catholic and Church of England schools, Jewish schools and even against those children who wish to have the benefit of all-Welsh education. The question of denominational schools is an important one to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Here I acknowledge the depth of feeling of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who made the point so eloquently earlier.

In denominational schools one does not have a small, tight, intimate catchment area. In fact, children are drawn from substantial distances. The concern that so many parents will feel warrants more attention from my right hon. and learned Friend than we have perhaps so far seen.

I take note of the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as your glance. I shall sit down at this point, but I ask my right hon and learned Friend to take note of the points that I have made.

10.41 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

I rise because I want to object most strongly to the expenditure of £55 million on the assisted places scheme. Whether or not it was intended, it seems to me that the consequence of this scheme will be to wreck the comprehensive system in many of the urban areas of the country. That system was beginning to operate really successfully. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I know from the twenty-fifth anniversary of Kidbrooke school, in my constituency, it has had to fight against constant opposition from the press and Tory spokesmen, and has won through. It is doing a remarkable job. But as many hon. Members will know, recently a survey appeared—I think that it was last March—in New Society which indicated what headmasters in comprehensive schools have repeatedly said, namely, that they depend on a fair proportion of children of reasonably high ability in order to raise the performance and behaviour of all pupils of all abilities.

That survey has indicated that what headmasters in comprehensive schools have constantly said is the case. My contention is that this scheme, which will inevitably have the effect of denuding comprehensive schools in urban areas such as London, Birmingham and Manchester of some of their ablest pupils, will be particularly damaging during a time of falling school rolls, which are affecting urban areas more than other parts of the country.

That will be the consequence for comprehensive schools. It will make it increasingly difficult for those schools to run viable and economic sixth forms, because a high proportion of those children will be taken away. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen an article written by the education officer of the Inner London education authority, who has indicated quite clearly the damage that this scheme will do to the maintained system of education, which is supported by central Government. My contention is that this House ought not to vote £55 million that is liable to be so damaging to a sector of education for which the Government bear the final responsibility. I believe that it is totally wrong that £55 million should be expended in this way, because its direct consequence will be damaging to the maintained system of education in this country.

10.44 pm
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I want to refer to two aspects of the money resolution—that relating to school meals and that relating to assisted places.

My belief is that the administrative costs of the present system of dishing out school meals are both far too high and wrongly directed. It is absurd that the food costs less than one-third of the total value of the school meal-16p out of 54p. A more simplified cafeteria system would provide an equally nutritious meal, with infinitely less waste. A pig farmer near a large school is quids in, because he can get some jolly good stuff out of the canteen, but it is being paid for by taxpayers' money. The food should be going to the children, not the pigs. The present system is a waste of taxpayers' money.

I disagree with the money resolution on the matter of school milk. Milk for schoolchildren is one of the best bargains that we get from the EEC. I welcome the opportunity to recoup part of our large subscription through payments for milk and milk derivatives which go directly to the children or into school meals.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said that those hon. Members whose constituencies had retained their grammar schools should oppose the provision of assisted places. In Lancaster we have kept our grammar schools, but we welcome the provision on behalf of children in less fortunate areas whose academic ladder may have been destroyed. In Blackpool the schools are all jolly good, but I have worked in the Scotland Road area of Liverpool and in the East End of London. In those areas the academic standard in schools is extremely low.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) spoke of destroying viable sixth forms by taking away a high proportion of the children who might go to State schools, but that reduces the argument to absurdity. It will amount to only 25 pupils per constituency.

Mr. Guy Barnett

The hon. Lady is wrong.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

No, roughly 25 per constituency.

I should not support the measure if it were being introduced now, because I should be sorry to see £55 million spent in this way at present. By the end of the next 18 months we shall have had a chance to restore our economy and I therefore commend the money resolution to the House.

10.47 pm
Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green)

I, too, wish to concentrate on school meals and milk, and particularly on the fruitless expenditure of the Government in making between 30,000 and 45,000 school meal staff redundant. Those figures were given by the Secretary of State at a recent press briefing, when he said that his Department was working on a 10 to 15 per cent. reduction in school meals staff in the next financial year. That service employs 300,000 people so my figures must be correct.

Some of those who are made redundant will receive unemployment benefit, which will probably cost the State more than paying them for the work that they do. Many of these workers are part-time staff. The last new earnings survey showed that, on average, supervisory assistants were paid £14.40 a week. If these people are made redundant the net cost to the State in unemployment and other social security benefits will be quite substantial, and the proposed reduction in educational expenditure is therefore an illusion. The outgoing will simply be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security. It is nonsense.

When, as they must, the Government issue advice to local authorities on how the school meal service is to be changed they will have to pay due regard to nutritional standards, even though the statutory requirement for those standards is to be abolished. In 1975 the famous report by the Secretary of State's Department was published, stating that school meals were extremely important for the well-being of children. It said: We believe that if well-balanced school meals provide a third of the recommended intake of energy and protein there is little danger that any child who has a satisfactory diet at home will be at risk nutritionally. But we do not think it safe to assume that all children necessarily receive a satisfactory diet at home. We are especially concerned that all children should receive enough protein at school, since any shortfall in protein in the midday meal might easily not be made up in other meals or snacks consumed outside school". What has changed since 1975? We now have a Tory Government, with a Secretary of State who is not interested in the conclusions of the national food survey. I advise the Minister to look at the 1975 and 1977 surveys. The consumption of milk between those years fell by 0.3 oz. per person per week. The consumption of meat during the same period fell from 41.64 oz. per person per week to 40.64 oz. per person per week. The consumption of fish and fresh fruit also fell. The only item that rose was the consumption of cheese. Is it not reasonable to expect that the Minister would be interested in preserving the school meal service? Nothing would illuminate the debate more than comment from the right hon. Gentleman on those facts.

If the Minister is so proud of the fantastic legislation that he has put before us tonight, why did he refuse to debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and the Runcorn parents action committee the issues of school meals, school milk and public expenditure in general? Is he aware that the chairman of the education committee in the county council of Cheshire is proposing a 10p charge for all those children who presently receive free school meals?

10.54 pm
Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I shall not enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race). He obviously feels that it is not the parents' job to feed their children.

I should like to draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that in rural districts, such as Norfolk, men have to travel long distances to work. That costs them between £7 and £9 per week. They may have to add to that the cost of transport for their children, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look into that question carefully. Many small schools have been closed and the right to free bus transport withdrawn. That is a matter of great concern to my constituents. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will bear the matter in mind, and I hope that we shall see an alteration in Committee.

10.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle)

Perhaps I might reply briefly to some of the matters raised in this short debate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) spoke of the concern that people had expressed about the transport provisions in the Bill. I am, of course, aware of it. However, I repeat what I said earlier. In the financial provisions, although we are providing local authorities with freedom to charge, we are not assuming that the existing subsidy will disappear. We are allowing for a subsidy of more than £1 million in our calculations for 1980–81 for rural transport. I hope that the savings of between £20 million and £30 million for which we are looking can be achieved without the sorts of matters mentioned by my hon. Friends.

All that I can say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), is that his point is a novel one. He asked why the clause was in the Bill. It is, in fact, a repeat of what had been in his Government's Bill and is concerned with the transfer of teachers to day nurseries. If it has the effect that he suggests I shall look at it again, because that is not its intention.

I must remind the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) that we debated the pros and cons of the assisted places scheme on Second Reading. I do not accept that this provision will have the adverse effects that he suggests on the maintained sector. He spoke about the comprehensive schools in urban areas. If he is talking about their present standards in their fifth and sixth forms, I remind him that they are at the moment running alongside the direct grant schools since they still have the direct grant entry in their last years in those schools. The number that we are considering in the assisted places scheme will be similar to that which existed in the old direct grant schools.

Mr. Guy Barnett

Falling rolls.

Mr. Carlisle

Falling rolls are important, of course. That is why I believe that we must have a much greater relationship between schools of all kinds at sixth form level if we are to have viable sixth forms. Falling rolls will bring that upon us.

I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) was concerned more with the interests of NUPE members than with those of children.

Mr. Race


Mr. Carlisle

It is not cheap at all. It is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is a representative of NUPE. If he argues that the provision on school meals is likely to cause the employment of fewer people in the school meals service, I must tell him that I have always accepted that. But that is one argument. To suggest that the basic concern is with nutritional standards is merely trying to find another argument to justify the hon. Gentleman's main concern, which is about the number of NUPE members who are employed. I am of course concerned with nutritional standards, but I am satisfied that our provisions will be adequate in that area.

The money resolution rightly recognises that there is additional money in the Welsh section, in the assisted places scheme, in the setting up of governing boards under the earlier clauses of the Bill, and in the appeal committees under the middle clauses of the Bill. I am advised that the wording of the money resolution is wide enough to cover debate on all those matters.

I shall bear in mind the views that have been expressed in this short debate and the previous one, and I shall consider whether there are any matters that should be changed.

10.58 pm
Miss Sheila Wright (Birmingham, Handsworth)

In both debates today the Secretary of State has been at great pains to detail at some length the different provisions of the Bill. I think that that is most aptly illustrated not by what were called his soothing seductions but by his Freudian slip. The Government are indeed moving backwards to standards of the 1880s, instead of moving forwards, as we had all hoped, to the 1980s.

This Bill, in respect of which we are asked to support the money resolution, appears very clearly to anyone outside the House to be an amalgam of window

dressing—hypocritical window dressing in the case of the governing boards—and a blatant, overt determination to provide a subsidy for private education.

In respect of school governors, the Bill contains a provision to elect two parents and two teachers. However, there is no provision laying down what proportion of the governing board they shall be, nor is there any definition of their powers. There is not much point in being a governor if no one knows what can be done or what proportion of the governing board his vote will represent.

My own local authority has one-fortieth of the country's children. It would be very happy to have one-fortieth of the £55 million to spend on its own maintained schools. I am sure that the Conservative chairman of the education authority would agree with that.

Because of differences in background and environment, differences and inequalities in the selection procedures, and perhaps unconscious prejudices among those who select children for these schools, where there will be no control over the fees charged we shall end up—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 247.

Division No. 93] AYES [11 pm
Adley, Robert Brinton, Tim Colvin, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan Brittan, Leon Cope, John
Alexander, Richard Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Cormack, Patrick
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Brooke, Hon Peter Corrie, John
Ancram, Michael Brotherton, Michael Costain, A. P.
Aspinwall, Jack Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) Cranborne, Viscount
Atkins, Robert (Preston North) Browne, John (Winchester) Critchley, Julian
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bruce-Gardyne, John Crouch, David
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Bryan, Sir Paul Dickens, Geoffrey
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick Dorrell, Stephen
Bell, Ronald Buck, Antony Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bendall, Vivian Budgen, Nick Dover, Denshore
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Bulmer, Esmond du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Burden, F. A Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Best, Keith Butcher, John Durant, Tony
Bevan, David Gilroy Butler, Hon Adam Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Bitten, Rt Hon John Cadbury, Jocelyn Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Biggs-Davison, John Carlisle, John (Luton West) Eggar, Timothy
Blackburn, John Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Elliott, Sir William
Blaker, Peter Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) Emery, Peter
Body, Richard ChalKer, Mrs Lynda Eyre, Reginald
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Channon, Paul Fairbairn, Nicholas
Boscawen, Hon Robert Chapman, Sydney Fairgrieve, Russell
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West) Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Faith, Mrs Sheila
Bowden, Andrew Clark, Dr William (Croydon South) Farr, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fell, Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard Clegg, Walter Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Bright, Graham Cockeram, Eric Finsberg, Geoffrey
Fisher, Sir Nigel Loveridge, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N) Luce, Richard Rossi, Hugh
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lyell, Nicholas Rost, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet McCrindle, Robert Royle, Sir Anthony
Forman, Nigel Macfarlane, Neil Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman MacGregor, John Scott, Nicholas
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) MacKay, John (Argyll) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fry, Peter McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. McQuarrie, Albert Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Madel, David Shersby, Michael
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde) Major, John Silvester, Fred
Garel-Jones, Tristan Marland, Paul Sims, Roger
Goodhew, Victor Marlow, Tony Skeet, T. H. H.
Goodlad, Alastair Mates, Michael Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Gorst, John Mather, Carol Speller, Tony
Gow, Ian Maude, Rt Hon Angus Spence, John
Gower, Sir Raymond Mawby, Ray Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Mawhinney, Dr Brian Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Gray, Hamish Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Squire, Robin
Greenway, Harry Mayhew, Patrick Stanbrook, Ivor
Grieve, Percy Mellor, David Stanley, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) Meyer, Sir Anthony Steen, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) Stevens, Martin
Grist Ian Mills, Iain (Meriden) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Grylls, Michael Mills, Peter (West Devon) Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Gummer, John Selwyn Miscampbell, Norman Stokes, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew ll) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stradling Thomas, J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Moate, Roger Tapsell, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith Monro, Hector Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Hannam, John Montgomery, Fergus Tebbit, Norman
Haselthurst, Alan Moore, John Temple-Morris, Peter
Hastings, Stephen Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Hawkins, Paul Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Cheater) Thompson, Donald
Hawksley, Warren Mudd, David Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)
Hayhoe, Barney Murphy, Christopher Thornton, Malcolm
Heddle, John Myles, David Townend, John (Bridlington)
Henderson, Barry Neale, Gerrard Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Needham, Richard Trippier, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Nelson, Anthony Trotter, Neville
Hill, James Neubert, Michael van Straubenzee, W. R.
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Newton, Tony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hooson, Tom Normanton, Tom Waddington, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Nott, Rt Hon John Wakeham, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford) Onslow, Cranley Waldegrave, Hon. William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Osborn, John Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Hurd, Hon Douglas Parkinson, Cecil Wall, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Parris, Matthew Waller, Gary
Jessel, Toby Patten, Christopher (Bath) Walters, Dennis
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey patten, John (Oxford) Ward, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Pawsey, James Warren, Kenneth
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Percival, Sir Ian Watson, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald Pink, R. Bonner Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Pollock, Alexander Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stav'nage)
Klmball, Marcus Porter, George Wheeler, John
King, Rt Hon Tom Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Kitson, Sir Timothy price, David (Eastleigh) Whitney, Raymond
Knight, Mrs Jill prior, Rt Hon James Wickenden, Keith
Lamont, Norman Proctor, K. Harvey Wilkinson, John
Lang, Ian Pym, Rt Hon Francis Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Langford-Holt, Sir John Raison, Timothy Winterton, Nicholas
Latham, Michael Rathbone, Tim Wolfson, Mark
Lawrence Ivan Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Lawson, Nigel Rees-Davies, W. R. Younger, Rt Hon George
Lee, John Renton, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rhodes James, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutand) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Spencer Le Mant[...]rch
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo) Ridley, Hon Nicholas M A thony Berry.a
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) Viggers, Peter
Abse, Leo Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Adams, Allen Beith, A. J. Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Allaun, Frank Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Anderson, Donald Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bidwell, Sydney Buchan, Norman
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest Booth, Rt Hon Albert Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Boothroyd, Miss Betty Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Ashton, Joe Bottomiey, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough) Campbell, Ian
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Bradley, Tom Campbell-Savours, Dale
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Bray, Dr Jeremy Canavan, Dennis
Cant, R. B. Hooley, Frank Prescott, John
Carmichael, Nell Horam, John Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Cartwright, John Howells, Geraint Race, Reg
Clark, David (South Shields) Huckfleld, Lea Radice, Giles
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Richardson, Miss Jo
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Janner, Hon Greville Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Conlan, Bernard Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cook, Robin F. John, Brynmor Robertson, George
Cowans, Harry Johnson, James (Hull West) Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill) Johnson, Walter (Derby South) Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Crowther, J. S. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rooker, J. W.
Cryer, Bob Jones, Barry (East Flint) Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cunningham, George (Islington S) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Rowlands, Ted
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven) Kerr, Russell Ryman, John
Dalyell, Tam Kilroy-Silk, Robert Sandeison, Neville
Davidson, Arthur Kinnock, Neil Sever, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Lambie, David Sheerman, Barry
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lamborn, Harry Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central) Lamond, James Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) Leadbitter. Ted Short, Mrs Renée
Deakins, Eric Leighton, Ronald Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James Lestor, Miss Joan (Elton & Slough) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Dewar, Donald Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West) Silverman, Julius
Dixon, Donald Litherland, Robert Skinner, Dennis
Dobson, Frank Lofthouse, Geoffrey Snape, Peter
Dormand, Jack Lyon, Alexander (York) Soley, Clive
Douglas, Dick Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Spearing, Nigel
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McCartney, Hugh Spriggs, Leslie
Dubs, Alfred McDonald, Dr Oonagh Stailard, A. W.
Duffy, A. E. P. McKay, Allen (Penistone) Steel, Rt Hon David
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale) McKelvey, William Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Dunnett, Jack MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Stoddart, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Maclennan, Robert Stott, Roger
Eadie, Alex McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central) Strang, Gavin
Eastham, Ken McNally, Thomas Straw, Jack
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) McNamara, Kevin Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
English, Michael McWilliam, John Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Ennals, Rt Hon David Magee, Bryan Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Evans, John (Newton) Marks, Kenneth Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Ewing, Harry Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n) Thomas, Dr Roger Carmarthen)
Field, Frank Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Fitch, Alan Marshall, Jim (Leicester South) Tilley, John
Flannery, Martin Mason, Rt Hon Roy Tinn, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Maxton, John Torney, Tom
Ford, Ben Maynard, Miss Joan Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Forrester, John Meacher, Michael Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foster, Derek Meillsh, Rt Hon Robert Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Foulkes, George Mikardo, Ian Watkins, David
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Weetch, Ken
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride) Wellbeloved, James
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Welsh, Michael
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
George, Bruce Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenahawe) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw) Whitlock, William
Ginsburg, David Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) Wigley, Dafydd
Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Graham, Ted Newens, Stanley Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Grant, John (Islington C) Ogden, Eric Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Halloran, Michael Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) O'Neill, Martin Winnick, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Woolmer, Kenneth
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Palmer, Arthur Wrigglesworth, Ian
Haynes, Frank Park, George Wright, Sheila
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Parker, John Young, David (Bolton East)
Heffer, Eric S. Parry, Robert
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire) Pavitt, Laurie TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall) Pendry, Tom
Home Robertson, John Penhaligon, David Mr. Joseph Dean and
Homewood, William Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
  2. (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.