§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidation Fund.— [Mrs. Rumbold.]
§ Mr. Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)Having sat here for the whole of the Second Reading debate, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the money resolution, and particularly that part of it that refers to
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;We have heard a great deal during the debate about the testing that will take place at 7, 11, 14 and 16. We heard many arguments about why it should not take place, and especially that it would be divisive and would mean the reintroduction of selection. Many hon. Members believe that the absence of benchmarks in the education system is responsible in great measure for some of the deplorable figures that we heard this afternoon about the number of people who leave the education system at the end of compulsory schooling unable to read or write properly. We cannot possibly sustain that. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of the tests.I want to draw one point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. In her excellent closing remarks, she referred to her former incarnation. She will remember when we debated the Warnock report in county hall. She will be aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last Session considered special education needs, the operation of the Warnock report and the Education Act 1981. Many hon. Members believe that insufficient attention has been paid in the Education Reform Bill to the consequences of diagnostic assessment. If the assessment is to mean anything, if we identify a failure to 870 reach agreed levels of attainment at 7, 11 or 14, we must do something. That "something" is obviously remedial education.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has already identified the fact that there are inadequate resources at present to meet the demands for special needs in education. I fear that, unless some attention is given to that during the passage of the Bill, all the diagnostic testing in the world will be worthless as no extra opportunity will be given to children who fail to meet the attainment tests. I shall be interested to learn what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
I have only one further point to make, as I do not wish to detain the House. As with all these things, so with financial delegation to schools. My experience tells me that the majority of headmasters will welcome this provision. But it must be recognised that if head teachers are to spend more time in controlling their budgets, it will have an administrative effect on their rime. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with this point.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Money is at the root of the Bill before us, and I oppose the money resolution because I do not believe that any money that is spent will improve the education service. There are, of course, legitimate concerns. As a former professional teacher with 14 years in the classroom and with three children educated in the public education system, I believe that the Bill will disrupt rather than heal.
The Government, through their use of money, have done their very usual trick. They have played on legitimate concerns and they have starved the education service of funds; they have provoked industrial difficulties and they have aroused public concern. They have coined a few slogans and claimed to have a mandate, and so they have produced the Bill, but the real purpose of the Bill is not to deal with the ostensible parrot-cries that we have heard so often this evening.
§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On which precise point in the money resolution is the hon. Gentleman speaking?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. I can deal with the matter briefly, as this is a very short debate. The money resolution is quite widely drafted and a fairly wide debate is in order.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must say how much I deprecate Tory Members challenging your position in the Chair. They complain that you are not running the House properly, and if the House divides when you name the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I will support you.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for protecting the Chair, but I can assure him that no hon. Member is bullying the Chair; and were any hon. Member to try to do so, that would be wholly counter-productive.
§ Mr. SpearingI am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) intervened, because I have made inquiries about the scope of the resolution, and I believe that the hon. Lady has just voted against 871 subjecting the Bill to the process of scrutiny by a Special Standing Committee. That shows a certain lack of confidence on her part, and of the Government.
I challenge any hon. Gentleman or indeed any professional teacher outside the House to contest what I am about to say. I am going to object to the measure on strictly objective and professional grounds.
The Education Act 1944 has been mentioned several times today. That Act sewed elements together. It came 50 years too late, but it sewed together the voluntary and statutory, the religious and the secular, the elementary and the secondary, and a professional divide among teachers. The Bill is likely to pull those invisible threads apart, and burst them, as the 1944 Education Act put them together.
The resolution refers to maintained schools. The money for those schools will be supplied directly by the Secretary of State and through the opting-out procedure. There will be a tripartite division of schools in this country. First, there will be those that are local authority-funded, then those maintained by the Secretary of State through the opting out procedure, and thirdly those that are fully independent. It is clearly the objective of the Prime Minister, if no one else, to move those schools towards independent status.
There is no need for a money voucher, as in this Bill and preceding Bills the Government have made the pupils the vouchers. It might be asked: what about the fully independent schools? They are provided for by the assisted places scheme, which would no doubt be expanded. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has appeared, as he called for a future Bill, and no doubt such a Bill could do that. In other words, there is to be a continuum, of which this Bill provides the foundations. It is claimed that opting out will give freedom to parents, but that will not happen because the Secretary of State will have the money—back to money again for the sake of the hon. Member for Lancaster.
Clause 5 has not been mentioned, but it is a constricting provision as it gives the Secretary of State the power to license, by edict, all examining bodies. Only those examining bodies licensed by him can provide tests for children in maintained schools, even those maintained by the Secretary of State. Therefore the curriculum inside those schools will be determined by examining bodies licensed by the Secretary of State. That represents a most extraordinary centralising power.
Whatever is said in the earlier clauses, and irrespective of the national curriculum, it will be the curriculum laid down in the syllabuses of the approved examining bodies and only those guided under clause 7(4) by the Secretary of State, that will be available in all maintained schools. We have had no justification for that extraordinary power and I believe that the examining bodies were not even consulted before that decision was reached. What price academic freedom?
There is not much freedom for parents, either. In my constituency the parents of the children at the New City primary school met yesterday and they passed a resolution which they sent to me for use in this debate. I did not know about their intention and I was told about that resolution by telephone this afternoon. That resolution deplores the inconsistency displayed by the Secretary of State. It says that he is claiming to serve parental choice but that he has denied them the opportunity of properly considering the 872 Bill's implications. That resolution has drawn attention to a profound and democratic issue. With the timetable that the Secretary of State has presented to us parents have been denied the opportunity to consider the merits of the Bill. So much for the claim of providing parental choice.
This Bill will destroy the essential financial and administrative framework without which teachers cannot properly exercise their professional responsibilities. The Bill will promote uncertainty, disappointment and division. It will lower morale and shatter and disrupt efficient and well-run educational administrations. The Bill will create local confrontations and engender local conflict. It may run the risk of fanning sectarian and community divisions. It will probably result in strife that would not otherwise be there.
The 1944 Act was marked by lengthy and fruitful consultations. It had cross-party support and support across religious denominations. It bridged professional divisions. It placed responsibility with local communities irrespective of party control. In almost every respect the Bill does the reverse. It could do as much harm as the 1944 Act did good.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)I wish to raise three important points that will be covered by the money resolution.
The tests at 7,11 and 14 will take extra funding but they will be important for the well-being of future generations of children. They must be attainment tests. They must record the level that pupils have reached in various subjects at those particular ages. The diagnostic element will be contained in such tests, but they will not be diagnostic tests. Some people say that we should have diagnostic tests only at seven, 11 and 14. However, too often, such tests have been used by professionals to show that the children have not achieved the desired level and that that failure was the child's fault. That has brought diagnostic testing into disrepute. That is why I firmly support attainment testing with a powerful element of the diagnostic, but I do not support exclusively diagnostic testing at these ages. I am sure that the GCSE will produce a valid evaluation of pupils' attainments in the core curriculum subjects.
It has been said that the core curriculum proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, perhaps, unduly rigid. I do not think it is. Nor do I agree with those who say that a core curriculum will produce rigidity in pupils. In France, there has been a standard core curriculum for generations, yet no country produces more individualists than France, which has a fairly rigid, centralised curriculum. So any fear that a core curriculum here will produce uniformity in our children can be discounted.
By contrast, the United States is extremely permissive in the matter of the school curriculum. Yet somehow, despite some outcrops of obstinate individualism — I believe "ornery" is the word — I detect a far greater uniformity of aspiration and mode of thought among the permissively educated Americans than among the educationally well-drilled French.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who rightly said that he and I have known each other in education for nearly 30 years, pointed out that religious education should be a core curriculum subject, because it is basic to the well-being of any school 873 that religious and moral education should be on the curriculum and be well and thoroughly taught. I support all that my right hon. Friend said, and add that it is a mistake that school assemblies should take place at any time other than the beginning of the day. A Friday afternoon could not be a worse time for a school assembly, which is an important aspect of school life. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider ensuring that all school assemblies take place at the beginning of the day, although I accept that it is reasonable for groups of pupils to be geographically separated—and separated by age— for various administrative and educational reasons.
No one who has the interests of children and education at heart need fear the right of schools to opt out, to assert their individualism and to develop a special character of their own. Uniqueness in the character of a school is what produces a good one, of which pupils, staff and heads can be proud. That is what the opt-out provision will induce in schools—in a small way to start with, but it will grow and grow. In due course, opt-out will have great implications for the nation, which is why I warmly welcome it.
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)I want to speak first about the idea of testing, and the amount of money that will be put into its development. I used to be the head of a department of special needs in an inner-city comprehensive school. Part of my job covered testing and attainment, so I speak about these matters with more authority than does the Secretary of State. Not a single test in this country can be applied uniformly across its length and breadth to meet all the needs of different areas, and the variety of linguistic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Nor is any one test 100 per cent, accurate. It is a disgrace to use attainment tests to put children into compartments and label some of them as failures at the age of seven. I should like to relate that to the Education Act 1981 and children with special needs.
In the whole Bill of 169 pages there are three and a half sentences about children with special educational needs. It says that children who are statemented will be allowed to opt out of the national curriculum. There is some sense in that, but at the moment many children are not statemented and will still require assistance in areas of special need. That is because of their disabilities — such things as partial deafness or because they have been ill. Will the provision mean that they will all have to be statemented or will it mean that some children who are under-achieving will be forced to this curriculum and through attainment tests where they will perform badly and be labelled as failures? If we had proper diagnostic tests, at least we could identify areas where help could be given. That is what is done at the moment.
Clause 4 contains provisions to allow schools to become grant-maintained. If an opted-out school is full and if more children apply for places in that school than there are places, then, obviously, they cannot all get in. What criteria will be used to decide who gets in and who does not? I have not heard that explained in the debate and I should like the Minister to deal with it. Will there be any appeal procedure for those who do not get in or for those who are unhappy? If a school is opted-out and parents are not happy, is there some kind of local authority appeal provision? I should like the Minister to make that clear.
874 I oppose the money resolution because, unlike the children of the Secretary of State, my children go to local schools. My daughter goes to the local village school and my son goes to a multicultural state nursery. They are excellent schools and both enjoy the full support of parents and the dedication of the staff. I have not heard one word of support for the Government's proposals from any parent or teacher in my constituency.
If the Government were sincere about improving standards, they would include in the bill money for universal nursery care for every parent who wants it. The Bill should contain money to tackle the inadequacies of buildings, books and resources that were identified by the Government's own inspections. There should also be money to bring teachers' salaries up to the level in the Houghton report and to restore morale and good will to the service. The Government should provide money to improve standards and should not put forward proposals that will simply bring in dogma rather than what is good for our children, our schools and our parents.
§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) summed up the sentiments that I have experienced in all the years since I was a trainee teacher in schools and in my time in the House. It is a great tragedy that the teaching profession, the educational establishment, tends to be far too self-congratulatory. It says that the way it is done now, the way Britain does it now, is the best way and that the only problem is that we are not doing enough of it. Therefore, the profession says that it wants more of the same and calls for more resources.
The one thing about the Bill, warts and all, is that it challenges the education world by saying that there are other ways of doing it. When we look at other countries and at what countries in Europe are doing, we see that there are other ways. Repeatedly, it tends to be us who happen to do it a different way. We really must ask if we are doing it the right way while everybody else is doing it the wrong way.
The national curriculum is the most important thing in the Bill. As I said in an intervention during the Minister's earlier winding-up speech, the role that the official Opposition and the Liberals played in the debate was extraordinary. I had thought that, after more than a decade of discussion started by a former Labour Prime Minister, we had reached a consensus.
Anyone who reads the HMI report on the curriculum for children of 11 and 16 will see that it is virtually identical to what is proposed in the Bill. That was under the last Labour Government. It is only the Opposition or the local authorities or all the vested interests who refuse to read the Bill as it stands. They read it as they want it to be read and see in it every prejudice that they want to see.
§ Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. HampsonThis is a short debate, and the hon. Gentleman has made his speech. We have waited a long time and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not give way as I usually do.
Let us look back to some of the things that happened. I thought that there was a consensus on this. People forget the William Tyndale school—what teachers were doing 875 to pupils, and the degree of anxiety and genuine concern felt by parents about what was happening to their children's prospects. All of us, including Labour Members and ILEA, said that that was not what we expected. That is why we need two things. First, we need at least a basic national provision that children should be expected to reach certain standards at certain stages. Secondly, although I was initially hostile to, or at least agnostic about it, I have now decided—having listened to the views of the education world—to support the opt-out proposal.
If a local authority is working adequately, governors, parents and teachers will not want to opt out. They do not want the burden, the problems and the responsibility. However, if they are faced with a bolshie local authority or ridiculous reorganisation proposals, why on earth should people not have the opportunity to preserve what they are very happy with? It is a case of put up or shut up. Either the local authorities provide a satisfactory service, or they have no case to answer.
Who is talking about centralisation? My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was lauding the Butler Act. It is, in many ways, a fine Act; however, it set up a partnership, and the tragedy was that the partnership never operated in a balanced fashion. It gave responsibility ultimately to the Secretary of State, but it gave him no power. The Central Government Ministry of Education — now the Department of Education and Science—had no effective authority. It could not even spend money directly on the education system: everything was channelled through the local authority rate support grant system.
Members of Labour Cabinets discovered that to their cost, as we did. Mrs. Williams, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, pleaded with the Cabinet to provide desperately needed extra cash for in-service teacher training, particularly in the shortage subjects. She received £17 million, the bulk of which was never seen by in-service teachers, because local government squandered it on everything except what it was earmarked for—not that it was earmarkable.
There is no case for complaining about a growing sense of responsibility and duty being imposed on central Government. British education is already centralised: it is centralised in the local authorities. It is the local bureaucracy — now, increasingly, not even council officials, but councillors, more and more of whom are becoming full-time — who control everything, from painting a school to the curriculum in that school. That is what we must now change.
Finally, let me briefly touch on something that has not, I feel, been properly covered: the anomaly in proposing two separate funding bodies, one for the university sector and the other for the non-university sector. We are constantly doing that. In 1979–80, we did not go the whole hog on parent power and choice of schools; when it came to the crunch on local authority control of the polytechnic sector, we again pulled our punches. We compromised: we left the polytechnics under local authority control and set up a national advisory body. Now we have done the same thing again.
We have realised that polytechnics are part of the national system, and should not be the responsibility of local councils; yet we are not acting on the logical 876 conclusion, which is that there should be a single funding body embracing all the responsibilities of higher education. Of course, that is what the Government intend: why else have they set up two identical bodies, of the same size and with the same functions, unless they intend them eventually to merge? Why do we not have the courage of our convictions and act now, rather than do what we have done with so many aspects of education, and let it drift on for 10 years?
If, unfortunately, we have to face this development, I hope that we will not use two separate bodies to fund the system differentially. I often speak to defend universities, but it is undoubtedly true that the non-university sector is discriminated against. The unit costs — the teaching costs, not including such matters as medicine and research — are very much underfunded in comparison with the other sector. We must not simply set up two bodies to allow dual funding of that kind.
In my experience, most vice-chancellors are not frightened of the proposals for removing tenure. I would prefer to see a categorical statement about the freedom of academics to think, speak and write as they wish, regardless of what that might mean to their job prospects. But if we are to say that university authorities should have flexibility and freedom and not be tied permanently to jobs for life, it seems only right that, as part of their responsibility in creating contracts for their employees, they should have the right to offer tenure.
There are two separate aspects. One is removing the lecturer's automatic right to tenure. The other is the right of the institution to offer tenure as part of a contract to prevent some of our best brains from being attracted, for example, to American universities, which offer not only more money but tenure. That is why the Bill is not right to say "no tenure". The institution should be able to determine, being responsible for its own budget, whether or not to offer tenure.
§ 11.1 pm
§ Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich)I am grateful for this opportunity to comment on the Bill in general and on its financial and resource implications in particular.
I welcome several aspects of the Bill. For example, I welcome the financial delegation provisions and the open enrolment, so long as attention is paid to the implications for schools which will lose numbers and will be prevented from becoming sink schools. I also welcome to some extent the proposals on a national curriculum, although I would have preferred a reduced core curriculum. The Government have been too extreme in their proposals in that respect.
There is an obvious omission from the financial and resource provisions for the national curriculum in terms of the additional resources that will be required by the teaching staff to get pupils to the age of 16 studying, for example, science and a second language, when considerable shortages already exist in staff in those subjects. We see nothing to show how that shortfall will be made good.
I oppose the Bill for two main reasons. The first is that the proposals for ILEA are totally unacceptable and represent the worst of all possible solutions to what is a crisis. My second major concern is the hidden agenda which the Bill contains — the possibility of selection being reintroduced by the vehicle of opting out. With the option to make grants available to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, we require a commitment 877 that such grants will be made conditional on comprehensive schools remaining comprehensive and not becoming selective.
§ 11.3 pm
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)I welcome enormously the proposals to delegate financial responsibility to heads. It has always seemed a travesty of professionalism that they should have no control over their budgets. But the Bill contains considerable confusion about the position of the local education authority, for handing down financial responsibility to schools will inevitably involve some administrative expense. There is left with LEA such a large variety of tasks that I cannot see how it will shed any of the staff and resources that it at present commands. No one—not parents, not teachers, not governors—will find it acceptable if an early and direct consequence of the Bill is that more money goes into administration and less into teaching and resources.
Secondly, I am very worried about one element of opting out. There is a serious danger that parents with an idiosyncratic view of education, outside the main stream of what we in Britain have always regarded as acceptable, may still be able to operate their school within the demands of the national curriculum, which is a blunt instrument of control. There is a danger that they will be able to build schools that it will be difficult to keep within the traditions of British culture. I am worried about that, because I should hate to see the balkanisation of the inner cities. We should watch that carefully. If we are to allow schools to opt out, it should be made clear in the contract with the Secretary of State that it is not sufficient to observe the national curriculum alone.
§ 11.5 pm
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)I realise that there is very little time left. I very much regret that hon. Members who have been here throughout the debate should not have had the opportunity to speak. It is a sad reflection of the Government's attitude that they were not prepared to provide us with the two days needed for an adequate debate. Not only have some hon. Members not had an opportunity to make a speech but many who have spoken have been denied the opportunity to develop their arguments. Furthermore, many hon. Members have not given way during their speeches, so we have not enjoyed the proper debate that we should have had. Even if the debate had continued until midnight, we should not have remedied matters, because many more hon. Members wanted to take part. Far more time should have been provided.
One or two questions have not been answered. The Minister of State said that the Government intended to introduce two new clauses early in the proceedings. I shall not comment on the one relating to the London Institute, except to thank the Minister for letting us know about it. I am especially concerned about the new clause dealing with charges in schools, which is a matter of great concern. I accept that the present situation is unsatisfactory and that some schools impose all sorts of charges on parents, probably illegally. A greater cause for concern is that those charges cause hardship and deter many youngsters from studying. Appallingly few pupils stay on after the age of 16 and in many instances that is because of charges.
Too often, children at secondary schools have to choose subjects according to what their parents can afford. Time 878 after time, one hears of girls who drop domestic science, although they like it, because they cannot afford the materials. The same applies to boys doing craft and technical subjects. I hope that the Government will introduce the new clause early in the proceedings in Committee so that it can be fully discussed. They should certainly produce it before rather than after Christmas. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will introduce it at an early stage.
I would also press the Minister on whether there will be other new clauses as the Bill progresses. We are awaiting the Government's response on student grants. Earlier today, the statement was made from the Dispatch Box that loans would not be introduced without legislation. Can the Minister assure us that there are no plans to deal with student finance in a later new clause?
During the consultations early in the summer, the vice-chancellors pressed the question of academic freedom. As I understand, it, they were assured that there would be a clause in the Bill to provide some guarantee of academic freedom. That has not been produced. Vice-chancellors have been told that the Government do not propose to introduce such a clause, even at a later stage. Obviously, the Opposition do not like the idea of bits being added to the Bill as it goes along, but we consider that the Government should give a commitment to vice-chancellors at an early stage and produce the new clause on academic freedom.
§ Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak)My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said earlier that vice-chancellors in Britain support what the Government are doing about academic freedom and tenure. That is not true. I have a letter from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals stating that they do not approve of what the Government are doing. They specifically ask why there is no protection in the Bill for academic tenure, when the Government promised that there would be.
§ Mr. BennettI thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I hope that the Minister will answer not only my question but that which was asked by vice-chancellors.
I shall briefly examine the 175 regulating powers. In his opening speech, the Minister said that it does not matter that he is taking all such powers to direct education by regulation because he is going to have advisory bodies which will see drafts of the regulations, and then everything will be perfectly all right. Anyone who has studied the history of the recent social security legislation knows that the Minister has used exactly the same device. He offered regulations to an advisory body for advice. When the advisory body gave advice, in many cases saying that it did not like the regulations, the Government took no notice at all.
The simple way for the Government to allay fears about the regulations is to let us see copies of draft regulations as we debate the Bill. Instead of the Opposition having to put forward hypothetical ideas of what may be in the regulations, we could see what the Government have specifically in mind for them. I challenge the Government at least to publish guidelines for the regulations before we start on the Bill. We could then effectively debate what the Government intend to do, rather than present hypothetical ideas of what they might do with such sweeping powers. I hope that the Minister will answer my brief points.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerMrs. Rumbold.
§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that the Minister of State wishes to make her winding-up speech. As some hon. Members such as myself have sat through the debate since 3.30 and have not been called, and the hon. Lady has already spoken for 25 minutes, she should not have the authority of the House to make a winding-up speech. She has to have the authority of the House to speak a second time. I oppose that course, especially as there are representatives—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sorry that, unfortunately, many hon. Members were not able to participate in the debate. But this is a different debate. The Minister is perfectly in order in catching my eye.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members who have managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) was anxious to talk about the implications of our Bill for children with special education needs. I shall try to assure him in respect of attainment targets and programmes of study. Most certainly, they will take into account different levels of ability and maturity among children of the same age group. I recognise that there will be some children with some physical and mental problems, but without statements, for whom aspects of the national curriculum will cause difficulties. It is for those reasons that my right hon. Friend has asked for appropriate advice from the Task Group on Assessment and Testing and from the subject working groups about appropriate arrangements for such children.
My hon. Friend also hoped that the financial delegation schemes would make some recognition of costing in respect of special needs children. When the financial delegation schemes are submitted to my right hon. Friend, as they will have to be, by local education authorities, I am sure that he will look carefully at any recommendations that have implications for the provisions of the 1981 Act to be carried out within local educational authorities. He is anxious to see that those provisions continue.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made clear to the House his views on the financial implications of the Bill first, on examinations, secondly on the point that schools which opt out would be a vehicle of division among children and local education authorities. I note those views, but I am sure he will accept that I disagree with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) mentioned attainment testing and his reservations about pure diagnostic testing. He made his case quite well and argued that we should not have the concerns of some Opposition Members about uniformity of the core curriculum. He believes, quite rightly, that that is not a reflection of the Secretary of State's intentions.
I share my hon. Friend's view about collective worship and hope that when schools make provision for collective 880 worship, they will not choose a moment of the day when it is unlikely that many children will be there. It is important that collective worship should continue.
§ It being three-quarters of an hour after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
§ The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 219.
884| Division No. 90] | [11.15 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Couchman, James |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Cran, James |
| Alexander, Richard | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Curry, David |
| Allason, Rupert | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &Spald'g) |
| Amess, David | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Amos, Alan | Day, Stephen |
| Arbuthnot, James | Devlin, Tim |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Ashby, David | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Dover, Den |
| Atkins, Robert | Dunn, Bob |
| Atkinson, David | Durant, Tony |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Eggar, Tim |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Baldry, Tony | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Evennett, David |
| Batiste, Spencer | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Fallon, Michael |
| Bellingham, Henry | Farr, Sir John |
| Bendall, Vivian | Favell, Tony |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Benyon, W. | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Forman, Nigel |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Boswell, Tim | Forth, Eric |
| Bottomley, Peter | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Freeman, Roger |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | French, Douglas |
| Bowis, John | Fry, Peter |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Gale, Roger |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Gardiner, George |
| Brazier, Julian | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bright, Graham | Gill, Christopher |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick | Gow, Ian |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Burns, Simon | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Burt, Alistair | Greenway, John (Rydale) |
| Butcher, John | Gregory, Conal |
| Butler, Chris | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Butterfill, John | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Grist, Ian |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Ground, Patrick |
| Carrington, Matthew | Grylls, Michael |
| Carttiss, Michael | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Cash, William | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Chope, Christopher | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hannam, John |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Colvin, Michael | Harris, David |
| Conway, Derek | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hayes, Jerry |
| Cope, John | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hayward, Robert |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Moss, Malcolm |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Mudd, David |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Neale, Gerrard |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Needham, Richard |
| Hind, Kenneth | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Neubert, Michael |
| Holt, Richard | Newton, Tony |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Howard, Michael | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W) |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Page, Richard |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Paice, James |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Patnick, Irvine |
| Irvine, Michael | Patten, Chris (Bath) |
| Jack, Michael | Patten, John (Oxford W) |
| Jackson, Robert | Pawsey, James |
| Janman, Timothy | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Jessel, Toby | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoflrey | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Portillo, Michael |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Price, Sir David |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Raffan, Keith |
| Key, Robert | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Redwood, John |
| Knapman, Roger | Renton, Tim |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Knowles, Michael | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Knox, David | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Lang, Ian | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Latham, Michael | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Lightbown, David | Ryder, Richard |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Lord, Michael | Scott, Nicholas |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Lyell, Sir Nicholas | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| MacGregor, John | Shephard, Mrs G. (Nortolk SW) |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Maclean, David | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Madel, David | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Speller, Tony |
| Malins, Humfrey | Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) |
| Mans, Keith | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Maples, John | Squire, Robin |
| Marland, Paul | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Marlow, Tony | Steen, Anthony |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Stern, Michael |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Mates, Michael | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Sumberg, David |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Summerson, Hugo |
| Mellor, David | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Miller, Hal | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mills, Iain | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Thorne, Neil |
| Morrison, Hon P (Chester) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Thurnham, Peter | Warren, Kenneth |
| Townend, John (Bridlington) | Wheeler, John |
| Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) | Whitney, Ray |
| Tracey, Richard | Widdecombe, Miss Ann |
| Tredinnick, David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Trippier, David | Wilkinson, John |
| Trotter, Neville | Wilshire, David |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Vaughan, Sir Gerard | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Viggers, Peter | Wolfson, Mark |
| Waddington, Rt Hon David | Wood, Timothy |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | Woodcock, Mike |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Yeo, Tim |
| Walden, George | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Waller, Gary | |
| Walters, Dennis | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Ward, John | Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd. |
| Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Dunnachie, James |
| Allen, Graham | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth |
| Alton, David | Eadie, Alexander |
| Anderson, Donald | Eastham, Ken |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Fatchett, Derek |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Ashton, Joe | Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Fisher, Mark |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Flannery, Martin |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Flynn, Paul |
| Barron, Kevin | Foster, Derek |
| Battle, John | Fraser, John |
| Beckett, Margaret | Fyfe, Mrs Maria |
| Bell, Stuart | Galbraith, Samuel |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | George, Bruce |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Blair, Tony | Gordon, Ms Mildred |
| Boateng, Paul | Gould, Bryan |
| Boyes, Roland | Graham, Thomas |
| Bradley, Keith | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'line E) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Hardy, Peter |
| Buchan, Norman | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Buckley, George | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Caborn, Richard | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Callaghan, Jim | Henderson, Douglas |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Holland, Stuart |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Home Robertson, John |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Hood, James |
| Clay, Bob | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Clelland, David | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Cohen, Harry | Howells, Geraint |
| Coleman, Donald | Hoyle, Doug |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Corbett, Robin | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Cousins, Jim | Hume, John |
| Cox, Tom | Illsley, Eric |
| Cryer, Bob | Ingram, Adam |
| Cummings, J. | Janner, Greville |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | John, Brynmor |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Jones, leuan (Ynys Mdn) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Darling, Alastair | Kilfedder, James |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Lamond, James |
| Dewar, Donald | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Dixon, Don | Leighton, Ron |
| Dobson, Frank | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles) |
| Doran, Frank | Lewis, Terry |
| Douglas, Dick | Litherland, Robert |
| Livingstone, Ken | Pendry, Tom |
| Livsey, Richard | Pike, Peter |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Prescott, John |
| Loyden, Eddie | Primarolo, Ms Dawn |
| McAllion, John | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| McAvoy, Tom | Randall, Stuart |
| McCartney, Ian | Redmond, Martin |
| Macdonald, Calum | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn |
| McFall, John | Reid, John |
| McGrady, E. K. | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| McKelvey, William | Robertson, George |
| McLeish, Henry | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| McNamara, Kevin | Rogers, Allan |
| McWilliam, John | Rooker, Jeff |
| Madden, Max | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Rowlands, Ted |
| Mallon, Seamus | Ruddock, Ms Joan |
| Marek, Dr John | Salmond, Alex |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Martin, Michael (Springburn) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Martlew, Eric | Short, Clare |
| Maxton, John | Skinner, Dennis |
| Meacher, Michael | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Meale, Alan | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Michael, Alun | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Soley, Clive |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Spearing, Nigel |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Steinberg, Gerald |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Stott, Roger |
| Morley, Elliott | Strang, Gavin |
| Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe) | Straw, Jack |
| Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Mullin, Chris | Thomas, Dafydd Elis |
| Murphy, Paul | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Nellist, Dave | Turner, Dennis |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Vaz, Keith |
| O'Brien, William | Wall, Pat |
| O'Neill, Martin | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Parry, Robert | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Patchett, Terry | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Wigley, Dafydd | Wray, James |
| Williams, Rt Hon A. J. | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) | |
| Wilson, Brian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Winnick, David | Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding. |
| Wise, Mrs Audrey | |
| Worthington, Anthony |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.