§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)
There are one or two points which I should like to discuss. If the Bill is passed, further developments are forecast, including the opting out of schools. If schools opt out, how will they be paid for? Will the money be raised separately for those schools?
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), in advocating an opt-out solution to parents in Paisley, encouraged the publication of a letter calling for consideration to be given to opting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) will remember, the letter said that, if people supported the proposal to opt out, it would not cost them anything individually. Before we approve the Bill, we should know whether there will be any additional cost if schools opt out, or whether parents will be expected to pay for the running of the school. We must have an answer to that before we continue.
Secondly, has the Minister considered the total amount of money that will he necessary to fund these highly bureaucratic school boards? They are neither popular nor wanted, and it will be difficult too for the Government to convince the people of Scotland that the expense of these unwanted boards is necessary or desirable. What sort of payment to this end is envisaged under the resolution? What will the individual expenses of individual members of the boards be? Will there be a maximum? Will there be loss of wages? Will there be expenses for travel and time off work? All those things must be considered. We want to know about them before we pass the resolution.
Thirdly, what consideration have the Government given to the general implementation of the Bill? What additional resources, apart from those for the members of the boards, will be required? What clerical and secretarial staff will be required? What additional strains will all this put on headmasters? They will not be considered within the general expenditure of the implementation of the boards but will be very much part of the expenditure incurred by school administrations to operate and co-operate with the boards.
These, then, are the reasons why we need answers about the resolution: the additional resources needed for technical aspects; the costs of board members; the issue of who will pay for elections; and, finally, the issue of who will pay for opting out, which will surely be the next stage after this Bill. The hon. Member for Eastwood encouraged the call for opting out in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). The multiple letter stressed support for the demand for Paisley grammar school to opt out, unless that cost money. In that event, it would be opposed
§ Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)
The part of the Bill that deals with its financial implications states that theoverall level of costs will depend largely on the level of functions which individual boards take on, but it is likely to be very small and there will be offsetting savings arising from the abolition of school councils.If the costs are to be small, we want to know how small. We want more detailed information than we have had from the Minister tonight. He quoted a figure of £5 million, but we are always dubious about figures from the Scottish Office, particularly those that emanate from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). They tend to be highly massaged, selective figures, always played down.
We suspect that the Bill's financial implications will be much greater, and we want detailed answers to some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). The Bill's financial implications will apply to all education in Scotland, not only the boards. Nursery education is important to my constituency, in the whole of which there is no nursery education for under-fives. That is a major educational concern of ours. None of that has been dealt with tonight. If money is to be taken away from education authorities to finance the school boards' as yet frequently undefined functions, my constituents need to know what implications that will have for nursery education.
I would be happier about some of these financial aspects had it not been for the way in which the Minister spoke tonight; instead of being generous in spirit, he was his usual bitter, nasty, mean self. He did not speak of education, but tried to settle old scores. We saw the venom with which he spoke about this as he spat across the Chamber. His speech was not about education but simply about settling old scores. The Government will use any devious means, including telling us how much it will cost. The Minister is well known for using devious means and he sails close to the wind. His rules are that if it is legal he will do it, and if it is not legal he will do it anyway as long as he can get away with it. Those are the implications and that is why we need to know the financial aspects of the Bill.
I am concerned about another financial aspect, the appointment of head teachers. That is detailed in schedule 2(10), which says:For the purpose of enabling the Board to carry out their functions under paragraphs 9, 11 and 12 of this Schedule, the authority shall supply to the Board such information relating to the applicants for the post as—
- (a) the authority have in their possession or can readily obtain; and
- (b) the Board may reasonably request."
There are financial implications in that, because the local authority could draw up a short leet which the school board then alters. What information will the school boards have that the local authority will not have that will make the board alter the short leet? On what basis would a school board alter a short leet? We heard nothing about that in the debate, but it is important in terms of the financial resolution because teachers on a short leet may be taken off it. They may raise legal actions against boards if they are taken off the short leet without explanation or for some indeterminate reasons put forward by a school board.
We need to know more about whether the financial resolution is considered in any legal actions that may arise 123 as a result of the powers envisaged for school boards. We are unhappy with the reassurances, partly because of the dubious practices employed by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because of the way in which he always sails close to the wind, his venom, and the way in which this is clearly a settling of old scores. We require answers to these questions.
§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)
For a short time I served on the Public Accounts Committee. For that reason, I and other hon. Members are conscious of the fact that we must get value for money. That is why, when we vote money or accede to a money resolution, we have to be clear about what the nation will get in return. The explanation in the Bill about its financial effects is extremely sparse.
On Second Reading we were given two figures. If the difference between them were minuscule, we could disregard it. The Government figure is £5 million. We have heard a figure not from a Labour party source or from what I consider to be a biased source but from a source that the Under-Secretary of State has prayed in aid in another connection—Dumfries and Galloway regional council. Its figure is £20 million. There is a considerable difference between those two figures. The House must have an opportunity to ventilate its views and to get some explanation about that difference in estimated expenditure.
I do not think that Dumfries and Galloway regional council has made up the figure or has embarked on a completely meaningless exercise. The Under-Secretary of State and the Scottish Education Department are considerably underestimating the strains on public expenditure contained in the proposals. Can the Under-Secretary of State tell the House that there will be offsetting savings from the abolition of school councils and what they will be? How much is involved? The Scottish Office should have an idea of that figure. It should know how much will be taken into account in future rate support grant settlements. Those are fair questions for hon. Members to ask.
Above all, we are duty bound to ask whether any of that expenditure will improve Scottish education. I beg to question that. I would not argue that Scottish education is perfect, but I am the husband of a teacher and the father of a teacher and I know the dedication of members of the teaching profession in Scotland to their job. I do not think that money spent in that area will necessarily give us better value for money in return.
Obviously I am in favour of parental interest in education. I speak with some feeling on the subject this evening because my wife, as a teacher, has had a harrowing experience in the past few days, involving one of her young pupils. I do not want to belabour this too much, but one of her pupils was involved in a motor accident as a result of which he died and another pupil was severely injured. I know how much that affected the feelings in my home and the feelings of other teachers in the school.
I should speak only for Fife and my constituency, but, in the main, Scottish teachers are dedicated to the job in hand and the difficulties that they encounter in schools 124 have little to do with education. They have a great deal to do with the type of society that the Under-Secretary wants to perpetrate—a greedy, acquisitive society.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) may nod his head, but he is only an aspiring parliamentary private secretary. The really dangerous man in Scottish education and health is the Under-Secretary of State. He is the most dangerous man in the Scottish Office today. I called him a pusillanimous polecat. I was perhaps being over-generous. We must have freedom of speech. We must respect other people's views, but the Under-Secretary of State does not respect other people's views.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
That is not true. My hon. Friend has listened very carefully to all the representations. I should also like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no wish to be a parliamentary private secretary.
§ Mr. Douglas
I do not wish to become involved in discussing the hon. Gentleman's political aspirations.
If the Under-Secretary of State could have got away with his original proposals, he would have done so. Unfortunately, he has got away with his proposals for the poll tax, but that is another issue and I would be called to order if I enlarged on that while we are debating a money resolution. However, we must be clear about the type of character with which we are dealing. We are dealing with someone who will not adhere to the normal conventions of political debate. If the Under-Secretary of State can get his way, he will. Opposition Members must be clear about that and the implications for Scottish education and health.
Tonight we are dealing with education. There is nothing in the proposals that will enhance the quality of Scottish education. On the money resolution we must ask ourselves whether this will be money well spent. We have been told by the Under-Secretary of State that the proposals deal with parental control. I asked the Minister to give way on that point earlier and I hope that I have got him right as I do not want to misquote him. If they deal with parental control, the next stage—opting out—will deal with parental choice. The proposals represent the first stage of a two-stage rocket. If we grant permission to spend money on the Bill, we will be taking an important step.
Whatever the qualities or deficiencies of the Scottish education system, it has had the characteristic of preserving a sense of community and identity. Although I have said this before, I emphasise that I am one of the few hon. Members on either side of the House who left school at 14. I realise the value of education and the education process. If we inject self-aggrandisement and acquisitiveness into the system, we will destroy the essential characteristics of Scottish education.
I want to refer to a leading article in The Economist which the Minister might find attractive. It should be read by all hon. Members and especially by Opposition Members. It shows clearly that the thrust of the Thatcherite revolution—if I can dignify it in those terms—is to promote the standards and outlook of south-east England in Scotland and elsewhere. We do not want that. If we desired that, we would have moved south-east. The Minister's experience of local government comes from the city of Westminister. He has no experience of Stirling, Fife, Strathclyde or Grampian. The Minister's value-for-money outlook is not shared in Scotland.
125 Many schools would refer to the expenditure involved in the Bill in terms of gross national product. The Minister must explain why we have heard estimates of the costs varying between £20 million and £5 million. What we are debating now may have no impact or effect on the form of education in schools. I believe that, with their background, Scottish teachers will resist what the Minister and the Government are trying to impose on them.
The dislocation still exists. That is why I believe that we must resist the aura of opting out. The Tories want opting out because they know that it will divide us. Opting out will be divisive and it will make people atomistic and selfish. That is not value for money. It is destructive and it appeals to the selfish outlook that people in other areas of society have called wicked and selfish. If we follow that path, we will destroy the cohesion in Scottish society. We should resist all the attitudes and ideas in the Bill with all the force that we can command.
§ Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)
It is important to discuss the financial effects of the Bill because it is one of the many aspects on which Ministers have been reticent. They say that the cost of setting up the school boards will be in the region of £5 million. They dispute COSLA's figure of £20 million. If the school boards are to work properly and do everything that they are told they should do, they will cost a great deal more than £5 million.
As I said earlier, I served on three school councils in the six years that I was on the education committee of Lothian regional council. I suspect that I have more experience of serving on school councils than any Government supporter. They know as little about school councils as they know about the schools that we are discussing tonight, because most of them have chosen to send their children to the schools in the private sector. [Interruption.]
I would be interested if any Conservative Member could name one governing body of a private school that is run predominantly by parents who have children currently at the school. The fact is that those governing bodies are comprised of parents of former pupils and of other interested parties. That is something that the Government seem to ignore when they talk about having a preponderance of parents of pupils currently at the school. They should be aware of the difficulties and the invidious position in which parents of current pupils would find themselves.
§ Mr. Buchan
Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to correct the annoying belief of Conservative Members that, because he was sent by his parents to a fee-paying school, he is somehow guilty?
§ Mr. Darling
I have always found it interesting that Conservative Members are often keen to refer to that matter, but it does not worry me. Having been to an institution of that nature, I am in a good position to comment on its defects. I suspect that if I had not been educated in such an institution, any criticisms I offered would be denounced as having been made without experience. I am in a good position to make some good criticisms of such institutions.
Each member of the school boards will be able to claim allowances. That is important because if parents and school board members are expected to run schools properly they will have to spend some considerable time 126 getting to know the school, the intricacies of the modern curriculum and maintenance and how to distinguish between income and capital, let alone mastering Munn and Dunning, the Pack report, curriculum assessment, and so on. All that needs time.
If we do not pay proper allowances and accept the fact that parents and others will have to take considerable time off work—if they are lucky enough to work—and that they may incur expense, those people will be severely disadvantaged and will not be able to run schools in the way that the Government envisage.
I spent a number of years as a governor of Napier college in Edinburgh. Almost total financial responsibility there was given to the governing body and it was necessary for each of us to spend considerable time grappling with the intricacies of college finance. If one cannot devote the time and energy that is required, one is simply paying lip service to governors or school board members being able to run schools. It is a fact that, unless one is familiar with the curriculum and financing of schools, one will be guided by the advice offered by the head teacher and other staff.
That brings me to my second point. I readily admit that school councils have weaknesses, one of which is that they are dominated by teachers. Time and again it was obvious to those of us who were councillors and parents that those who did most of the speaking were teachers. It was only the teachers who understood modern developments arid were familiar with what was going on within the school from day to day.
That is why I suspect that it will cost substantially more than the Government care to admit to enable parents to be properly trained and to spend the amount of time necessary to tackle the head teacher and the teachers on an equal basis. I am all for an interchange of views between teachers and parents, but it must be on the basis of equality. I would certainly back any measure that enabled parents to be properly financed so that they could argue with and tackle head teachers.
When I was a councillor, I often felt that what I was being told by the head teacher was not quite right, but because I did not have the grounding in the curriculum that they had I was not able to compete with them and speak the same language. That is a serious point. If Conservative Members had the slightest experience of school councils, they would realise that it is a very serious problem. Of course the serious problem for Scottish education is that Conservative Members do not have such experience.
Indeed, one of the fundamental problems facing Scottish education is that the Government are blockading funds to schools and at the same time are waging guerrilla warfare against the schools in the public sector because :it does not affect them and it does not affect their children if they experiment with other people's children. That is why this measure is so deeply resented.
Clauses 9 and 10 place significant impositions on the education authority and on the head teacher to provide information to those members of the school board who ask for it. It is quite right that they should have such information. One of the weaknesses of school councils is that they did not get information that they might have wanted. One of the reasons why they did not get it was the tremendous cost of providing that information and the cost that would have been incurred by members of the school council in getting that information. If the Minister 127 is serious about the school boards being successful, he must be prepared properly to fund the activities of the board.
All the school councils that I was on wanted to communicate with the parents and the community in the areas that they served. They could not do so because they did not have the funds to put together a newsletter. It is as serious and as simple as that. They did not have the funds because the local education authority was not in a position to make those funds available. That is another reason why the Government's estimate of the cost of running the school boards is wildly wrong. They know nothing about school councils because they have no practical experience. Indeed, their total experience of Scottish education is gained from lunatic fringes in obscure academic institutes that seem to steer our education system.
Opposition Members intend to pursue the debate tonight because every penny that is spent on school boards will come out of the budgets of education authorities. The concern of school councils and of parents throughout Scotland, England and Wales is the lack of money to be spent on buying school books, laboratory equipment and games equipment, and on painting and maintaining the schools. The one thing about which parents are concerned is lack of funds.
That is why we feel very resentful that the school boards proposal will take funds away from the rest of the education budget, at a time when the Government could quite easily put the matter right. If they are serious about parental involvement, first, they should fund the boards properly, and, secondly, they should start funding schools and education properly.
§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
It is important that we look at the financial implications of the Bill. The Government have mentioned £5 million as a basis. I contend that that is a throw-away figure, as the Government are not interested in state education and public provision and the figure of £5 million bears little relation to the cost.
If the Bill were to provide a genuine basis for parental involvement, it would be welcomed by parents, educationists and the public. However, we have to look to the Government and to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in order to determine our faith in their intentions. On 11 November 1985, in the debate on the Gracious Speech, he said to the then Secretary of State for Education and Science:In the industrial areas of our land, the strategy of privatisation has broken the mould … I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will embrace the same strategy in his attitude to education."—[Official Report, 11 November 1985; Vol. 86, c. 366.]That is what he and every individual in Scotland see as the Government's intention in proposing the Bill.
The consultation exercise confirmed that fact. Only I per cent. of the 7,600 returns supported the Government's proposals; 95 per cent. of the individuals who replied refuted them; and 95 per cent. of the parent-teacher associations refuted the Government's proposals.
What will the Bill do for individual parents and for Scottish education? It will do nothing for individual 128 parents who seek information about their children. The Bill does not provide for the rights of individual parents and it does not provide resources for Scottish education. It will take much-needed money away from Scottish education.
What will the Bill do for my constituents? There is a secondary school in my constituency that has to close and amalgamate with another school. I warn the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), that I shall demand that he provides as good public education in Dumbarton in the future as has been provided in the past.
Opting out will denude local authorities of finance. The Bill already provides for opting out. Clause 5, in conjunction with clause 8, will make opting out a reality. According to clause 5, school boards can operate in an autonomous fashion to the extent that they can seek further functions until they opt out of local authority control completely. Subsection (2) confers on head teachers a status that is independent of that of employee and representative of the local education authority. Subsection (3) provides that a local education authority can give advice to a school board only if the school board requests it. Subsection (2) of clause 8 provides that in exercising its functions a school board shall act as the agent of the local education authority in its dealings with third parties. The combined effect of these clauses will have grave implications for local authorities.
The clause also specifies that school board members have no personal liability so long as they act in good faith. Thus, a school board will be able to negotiate with third parties and in doing so commit grievous errors, yet the local authority will be unable to do anything about it other than take the consequences for the wrongful act of a school board. If local authority councillors have to take responsibility for their actions, then school board members should also have to take such responsibility.
The lack of definition suggests to me that the Government do not give a toss for education. They are on their way to opting out and to privatisation. The Government are telling the Scottish electorate that the good state education system that has been built up in Scotland over many years no longer features in their plans. That is demonstrated by the status that the Government have given to members of school boards.
Further, clause 8(4) provides that school boards shall have regard to further education, but it does not specify that it has to be provided. In theory, a school board could decide to provide further education, but a simple majority of parents on the school board would have the right to decide whether adults could enjoy further education in a particular school. It will be for the school boards to decide whether further education is to be provided for the local community. It is a recipe for disaster in education.
I am very much aware of the time. Let me say, however, that the results of consultation show that the Government have been deaf to the responses that they have received. Their blindness in going ahead with their plans can only mean the destruction of education in Scotland. That is why, for the sake of resources and of Scottish education, we must fight the Bill line by line and clause by clause.
§ 11.4 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has just made the most 129 astonishing attack on the judgment of his own Front Bench. It was that Front Bench, and the spokesman responsible for education, who welcomed the proposals in January as a major climbdown on the Government's part, and as representing a consensus that people in Scotland would be prepared to support.
The hon. Gentleman raised again the same point—about 95 per cent. of responses to consultation being opposed—that was made by several speakers in the Second Reading debate. I answered then, but in case he did not hear what I said, I shall repeat it. The EIS rated every response that made any criticism of our proposals as opposition, and the consultation process—which resulted in some 8,000 responses—produced a remarkable number of positive suggestions, many of which have been incorporated in the Bill.
However, we are discussing the money resolution. The resolution provides for two sets of costs which may arise from the Bill. Both are very modest. First, it provides for expenses accruing to the Secretary of State, to cover expenditure incurred in the development of any information and training programme for board members. That is clearly of crucial importance. We estimate that such a programme will cost about £500,000 in 1988–89, and we intend the amount to be met from existing planned provision.
Secondly, the resolution provides for other costs attributable to the Bill. That will allow the Government to meet their pledge to look at any case that local authorities may make for net additional costs arising from the introduction of school boards to be included in the annual rate support grant settlement.
§ Mr. Forsyth
The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer the questions. He spent a great deal of the House's time asking what would be the cost implications of opting out. There are no proposals in the Bill for opting out, so no question arises about the costs of providing for it in either the resolution or the Bill. Indeed, I have just answered that point implicitly by pointing out the two purposes to which the resolution relates. [Interruption.] I shall come to the points made by hon. Members one by one, in my own time.
A curious line of thought seems to run through the questions raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and some other hon. Members who have contributed to this short debate. They seem to suggest that there is something deficient in Scottish parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They seem to take the view that every other country in Europe, and other parts of the United Kingdom, can have highly developed systems of parental involvement in schools, but that Scotland cannot—that Scottish parents will somehow behave differently, and are not able to take on the responsibilities that exist elsewhere.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
The Minister travelled to Denmark at public expense to shore up the assertion that certain things happen in Europe, only to be contradicted entirely by teachers' representatives in that country. Should he not be a little more cautious about citing European examples in support of his statements?
§ Mr. Forsyth
I should give a little advice to the hon. Gentleman. It is always wise to check one's facts before 130 making a point. I appreciate that it was difficult to see, but tucked in the bottom part of the letters page of The Scotsman he would have seen a letter from the Danish Minister of Education, who is a Liberal, pointing out that the person who was dragged across to this country by the EIS to make the point that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made was totally unrepresentative.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was also an attack on the BBC, which sent a film crew to Denmark with us. It spoke to all the teachers' representatives, the Minister of Education, the trade unions and parents and could not find one person who did not take the view that the effect of having parents involved in schools had been to increase the quality of provision of education. That is also the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who asked how the proposals will result in an improvement in the quality of education.
Our estimate of the true net additional cost—net additional cost is the key point—of the introduction of school boards is in the region of £5 million at the outset. That is less than 0.5 per cent. of the total local authority current expenditure on schools in 1986–87. Even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' inflated estimate amounts to only just over 1 per cent. of that expenditure. Nevertheless—I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome this—we have shown our willingness to look at any case that the authorities may make for an increase in the rate support grant settlement, and this resolution provides the mechanism for us to meet that promise.
The resolution provides for the essential expenditure associated with preparing and training school board members and allows us to meet our promise to consider the effect of the Bill on education authorities. It should have the support of both sides of the House.
The reasons why the COSLA estimate differed from our net figure were explained during my response to the Second Reading debate.
§ It being three-quarters of an hour after the commence ment of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 72.132
|Division No. 251]||[11.12 pm|
|Alexander, Richard||Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Allason, Rupert||Boswell, Tim|
|Amess, David||Bottomley, Peter|
|Amos, Alan||Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bowis, John|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Brazier, Julian|
|Ashby, David||Bright, Graham|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Atkins, Robert||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Atkinson, David||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick|
|Baldry, Tony||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Batiste, Spencer||Budges, Nicholas|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Burns, Simon|
|Bellingham, Henry||Burt, Alistair|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Butcher, John|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Butler, Chris|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Butterfill, John|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Jackson, Robert|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Janman, Tim|
|Carrington, Matthew||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Carttiss, Michael||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Cash, William||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Chope, Christopher||Key, Robert|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Knapman, Roger|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Knowles, Michael|
|Couchman, James||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Cran, James||Lang, Ian|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Latham, Michael|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Day, Stephen||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Devlin, Tim||Lightbown, David|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Lilley, Peter|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Dover, Den||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Dunn, Bob||Malins, Humfrey|
|Durant, Tony||Mans, Keith|
|Eggar, Tim||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Miller, Hal|
|Fallon, Michael||Mills, lain|
|Farr, Sir John||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Favell, Tony||Morrison, Hon Sir Charles|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Nelson, Anthony|
|Forman, Nigel||Neubert, Michael|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Forth, Eric||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Franks, Cecil||Page, Richard|
|Fry, Peter||Paice, James|
|Gale, Roger||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Gill, Christopher||Pawsey, James|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Portillo, Michael|
|Gow, Ian||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Price, Sir David|
|Greenway, Harry (Eating N)||Raffan, Keith|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Gregory, Conal||Rathbone, Tim|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Redwood, John|
|Grist, Ian||Riddick, Graham|
|Ground, Patrick||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hannam, John||Ryder, Richard|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Harris, David||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Hayes, Jerry||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Sims, Roger|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Hind, Kenneth||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Holt, Richard||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Squire, Robin|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Stern, Michael|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Stevens, Lewis|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Jack, Michael||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Sumberg, David||Waller, Gary|
|Summerson, Hugo||Ward, John|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Wells, Bowen|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wheeler, John|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Whitney, Ray|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Thurnham, Peter||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Tracey, Richard||Wilshire, David|
|Tredinnick, David||Wolfson, Mark|
|Trotter, Neville||Wood, Timothy|
|Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Waddington, Rt Hon David||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John||Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and|
|Waldegrave, Hon William||Mr. David Maclean.|
|Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Lambie, David|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Leighton, Ron|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Lewis, Terry|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Buchan, Norman||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Buckley, George J.||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||McLeish, Henry|
|Canavan, Dennis||McWilliam, John|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Marek, Dr John|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Clelland, David||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Crowther, Stan||Maxton, John|
|Cryer, Bob||Meacher, Michael|
|Cummings, John||Meale, Alan|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Dewar, Donald||Nellist, Dave|
|Dixon, Don||O'Neill, Martin|
|Dobson, Frank||Pike, Peter L.|
|Doran, Frank||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Douglas, Dick||Ruddock, Joan|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Salmond, Alex|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||Short, Clare|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Fyfe, Maria||Spearing, Nigel|
|Galbraith, Sam||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Turner, Dennis|
|Graham, Thomas||Wallace, James|
|Haynes, Frank||Walley, Joan|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Home Robertson, John||Wilson, Brian|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Worthington, Tony|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Mr. Alastair Darling and|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Mr. John McFall.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—