HC Deb 21 March 1988 vol 130 cc159-72

Queen's Recommendation have 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 the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to promote learning or research or in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes. —[Mrs. Rumbold.]

11.21 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

That was a very strange way to move an important money resolution. The Minister only just managed to get to the Dispatch Box.

The House is owed some explanation of why the money resolution is before us. This is the third money resolution for the Education Reform Bill. We had one in December to coincide with the Bill's Second Reading. We had another when the Government decided to abolish the Inner London education authority, and we have a third today. None of the resolutions has bought one additional penny to be spent on the education service. There seems to be an inverse relationship—more money resolutions, less money to be spent by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

One gets the impression that the Bill grows and grows and it is probably appropriate that we should have a third money resolution simply because of that. When the Bill was read a Second time, it contained 147 clauses. There are an additional 39 clauses with the promise of further Government new clauses on Report over the next few days.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is very diligent. Has he looked at the notices of amendments tabled for tomorrow? I am sure that he has. He will have noted that the Government new clause 41 is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. New clause 42 is in the name of Mr. Stanley Baker. Is it in order for dead film stars to table Government new clauses?

Mr. Fatchett

I cannot say whether that is valid. However, I fear that we may well have a dead Education Secretary if all the recent divisions between Downing street and Elizabeth house are anything to go by.

One gains the impression that the Secretary of State is trying to ensure that even if he does not produce the most significant education Bill of all time, he at least produces the longest. He is also trying to ensure that he gets everything down on paper before he moves on to some other office or out of office altogether.

It would have been appropriate for the Minister of State to give us some explanation of the money resolution.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

Because the hon. Gentleman's speech would have been easier.

Mr. Fatchett

Certainly, but clearly the Government have abrogated all responsibility in these matters. It is a mistake to pretend that this is a clever tactic. The Minister had a full and attentive House, waiting to find out the reason for the resolution.

There are two possible explanations. The first, I suspect, was in the Minister's brief, as we would have heard if she had had the audacity to present it to the House. The second reason, I suggest, was the real agenda behind the resolution. The first possible explanation is that new clauses 44 to 47, tabled for tomorrow, involve grants and expenditure. They would not be anything other than ultra vires if the money resolution had not been agreed tonight. So the official explanation is that the new clauses needed the resolution to be passed.

The wording of the resolution offers another explanation. It is a catch-all resolution. Having failed to get it right on two previous occasions, the Government have decided that an open resolution will not involve their returning later with yet another failed attempt to get it right. The Minister could not give us that explanation, so she will probably talk about new clauses 44 to 47.

Perhaps the Minister will have the courtesy to reply to one or two questions. New clause 44 increases to 100 per cent. the amount of grant to go to local authorities to cover student awards. What is the reason for that change? Some of my hon. Friends say that this is a paving measure to enable the Government to move to student loans some time in the next 12 or 18 months—if the Secretary of State ever finds more time for legislation. What is the purpose behind new clause 44?

New clause 44 is typical of the Bill and of the way in which the Secretary of State has managed it through its parliamentary proceedings. Yet again, the resolution involves no financial costings and does not give detailed figures of what the Bill will cost. It does not explain how it will be implemented, what it will mean for teachers, or how the national curriculum will be delivered.

Why are there no costings for the national curriculum? Why has the Secretary of State given no figures? In reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) last Tuesday, the Secretary of State said that it would be later this year, and possibly up to 12 months, before there would be any signs of the cost and delivery of the national curriculum. What a state for the Government to be in, 12 months after they told the country that they had a national curriculum ready to be delivered to our children and schools. In the election, the Secretary of State sold a false prospectus, and has still given us no sign of how he will deliver the national curriculum.

We also know of certain local difficulties between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State over testing. The Secretary of State believes we should have the differentiated diagnostic approach set out in the Black committee report, whereas the Prime Minister believes in simple pass-fail tests. She is also concerned that the Black report will be costly to implement. I do not know how she comes to that conclusion, because the Secretary of State —in character—has never provided any figures of how much he expects assessment to cost.

If we are to be able to make a judgment between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, it might be useful—it might have happened in the resolution—if the Secretary of State could provide some figures showing the cost of assessment. We are keen to support the Secretary of State as, on this issue, we believe that he is right in his support for the Black report.

It would be helpful to us if the Secretary of State could tell us how much he will make available for assessment and testing in the manner advocated by the Black report. How can he find friends if he does not provide that information? I know that he is desperately seeking friends, but if he wants to win the argument and show the Conservative party and the electorate that he has the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister, he should give us the figures so that we can base our arguments and support on some concrete evidence. All we can do at the moment is recognise that the Secretary of State's intuition, the learning of the Black report and all good education practice point in one direction and that the Prime Minister, yet again, points in another.

City technology colleges may also be covered by this catch-all resolution. Two years ago, the Secretary of State told the Conservative party conference that there would be a network of CTCs by the autumn of 1989. Each of the new model Baker schools—all 20 of them—were to be supported by private money. Private enterprise would put up a substantial part of the capital. That was the policy. It was to be a new partnership between British industry and the Secretary of State.

There are rumours that the Secretary of State has gone from firm to firm looking for sponsors, but all he has found is the door, because every industrialist has said that the state education system is preferable to the Baker model schools. With great desperation, he is now going around trying to tempt more and more industrialists, but with less and less success. It is yet another scheme from the man who brought the poll tax to the country. He has failed with CTCs but, in desperation, he is changing their nature. They were to be private enterprise schools. They were supported and cheered at the Conservative party conference because of it. They were a breakthrough. No longer are they private enterprise or even privatised schools. They are now nationalised schools. They are to be a new type of Secretary of State-controlled school, with the money coming from the Treasury.

In Nottingham, 80 per cent, of the capital cost is being met by the Treasury. That figure, on account of the money resolution, could increase to 100 per cent., because there is no control over how much will be spent or how it will be spent. The Government have failed with CTCs and are now looking for a way in which to introduce their nationalised schools.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

Conservative Members appear to have been struck dumb in defence of the resolution. Although 80 per cent. of the capital cost was apparently to be provided for CTCs, in Nottingham, where a CTC is being imposed, the Government are prepared to put three times as much money into one CTC as into the capital programme for 556 schools in the whole of Nottinghamshire. That sum has proved not to be enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that 85 per cent. of the capital cost will be met by the Treasury? Does he expect that figure to go even higher because private interest in CTCs is even less than the Secretary of State projected?

Mr. Fatchett

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. He was right to say that the Government are prepared to spend much more capital on the CTCs than on the whole of the Nottinghamshire education system. He was also right to say that the Government are desperately looking for sponsors to get the CTCs off the ground.

This is a catch-all money resolution which will allow the Government to spend as they wish, although they do not know how they will spend because they have failed to do their homework on the Bill. The House is owed an explanation of the money resolution from the Minister of State. She has treated the House with contempt by not offering one.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

She has chickened out.

Mr. Fatchett

Yes, and I shall come to that point in a moment.

It is without precedent to have three money resolutions for one Bill. It must also be without precedent for the Minister, on the third occasion, not to have the courtesy to explain why the Government have had to bring to the House another money resolution. There were times in Committee when the Minister's performance was an embarrassment to the Secretary of State, but it is taking that too far for the Secretary o r State to silence her tonight. She owes us the courtesy of replying to the points raised——

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

My hon. Friend may recall that in Committee I said that the assisted places scheme was running wild. One school with 1,200 pupils has 459 with grants of at least £2,000 each. That school is receiving almost: £1 million of public money for private education. With 126 more schools joining the gravy train, the figures involved are enormous. The Government have not fully understood the money that they will have to pay out on that and other schemes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Fatchett

The Under-Secretary makes his usual sedentary comments, to which we became accustomed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made a valid point about the assisted places scheme. It was only last Tuesday, during Question Time, that I said that £4,000 per year would be paid for some places on the scheme, yet just over £2,000 a year is considered to be overspending on our children who are educated in ILEA schools. That sort of double standard and hypocrisy is typical of this Government.

To conclude——

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)


Mr. Fatchett

The hon. Gentleman makes all sorts of noises. I am trying to explain to him what the Minister has singularly failed to explain. I should be sorely disappointed if I allowed the usually vacuous head of the hon. Gentleman to remain such on this occasion. I have attempted to provide him with some information, and I hope that the Minister will reinforce what I have said.

We shall divide the House on the money resolution because it gives the Government absolute power with no accountability and no responsibility, and because there has been no preparation for how the money will be spent.

11.39 pm
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I shall be brief at this late hour, but I cannot begin my speech without first rejecting absolutely the remarks made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman when he tried to say that the Secretary of State has sold the country a false prospectus. That is most unfair and wrong and, what is more, it will be seen as a typical statement from the Opposition, when they do not understand how much the Bill will be welcomed by parents and by those who want I o see the level of education raised in this country.

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that this money resolution, about which the Opposition are making so much fuss, has been introduced because they wanted it. It is to meet what they had requested.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will see that the money resolution authorises the payment of sums for making grants to promote learning or research". I am concerned that the amount of space research that has been taking place at an academic level has declined, is declining and must be reversed. As a great deal more research into space is carried out in Europe, will my hon. Friend ensure that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in dealing with money under this resolution, will look again at the areas in which research can be dealt with, in the hope that we might be able to reverse the loss of money into research that we have seen from the Department of Trade and Industry, and that we might be able to have further increases from the academic side? Will she request her right hon. Friend to consider that matter when the Bill has passed into an Act?

11.42 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) told us that the Bill was popular. I wish that he would allow his prejudice to be embellished by a few facts. All the evidence that is available to us, both in the latest opinion polls and in individual soundings of parents up and down the country, shows quite the contrary. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has gone on to explain his Bill in more detail, the weight of opinion against it has increased and strengthened. The latest opinion polls, which I read over the past weekend, showed that a mere 29 per cent. of the people of Britain would now be inclined to vote Conservative because of the Bill, rather than 45 per cent. who would be less inclined——

Sir Peter Emery

It is 46 per cent.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)

It is 46 per cent.

Mr. Ashdown

—rather than the 46 per cent. who would be less inclined to vote for the Conservative party because of the Bill. Under those circumstances it is absolute nonsense for the hon. Member for Honiton to decide that that means that the public support the Bill.

Sir Peter Emery

Would the hon. Gentleman like me to reply?

Mr. Ashdown

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to on this point.

Sir Peter Emery

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The recent public opinion polls show complete support for the Government. There is no decline in support for the Government. The only decline seems to be for some Opposition party which seems to have the support of only 6 per cent. of the public at the moment.

Mr. Ashdown

Time will tell—[Interruption.]—just as it has told on the Government, as their proposals have become more broadly known. As there has been more discussion, public opinion in support of the so-called Education Reform Bill has got less and less.

If one opposes a Bill as strenously as we oppose this, there are always very good reasons for opposing the money resolution also. If one opposes the ends, one must oppose the means. So it is not surprising that we oppose the money resolution.

But there are stronger reasons than for the average case. This resolution is not only bad, but dangerous in two areas. First as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque. Having come twice to the House previously with amendments to this ill-thought-out, hastily constructed Bill, asking for approval to spend more money, on this third occasion the Government come, not with a specific proposal, but seeking an open-ended commitment that will allow them to raise more money for whatever changes they may have to make. Once again, the Secretary of State's powers have been increased in general and in particular.

The Government have not thought the Bill out. Certainly, those of us who have sat through the Committee proceedings from beginning to end realise that time and again, even the Secretary of State has not been aware of the detailed implications of individual provisions, let alone thought them through, so powerful is the rule of dogma over practicalities.

Secondly, we understand the special circumstances in which the Secretary of State finds himself. Not only must he change the Bill today and, as the resolution shows, in future, because he has not thought it through, but, under the resolution, he will be forced to make changes because of pressures from the Prime Minister and the Conservative Right wing. That has happened in the past and the request for this blank cheque is a clear sign that that is what the Secretary of State expects to happen in future.

I oppose the wording of the resolution because it gives that power to the Secretary of State and points up his inefficiency in sorting out the details of the Bill. It is a sign that he will have to give in to the lobbying forces which are already working on him.

There is an even more worrying reason to oppose the money resolution. I suspect that the Government want to introduce a resolution now because of new clause 47. Today I rang the Department and others to discover why that new clause was being introduced. It alters section 100 of the Education Act 1944. It allows the Secretary of State to grant persons other than local education authorities…grants in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purposes of educational services provided by them. It subtly but importantly changes that wording so that the Secretary of State may provide grants under new clause 47 on the basis of this money resolution, not just in respect of educational services which are provided by non-LEA authorities, but "for the purposes of" or "in connection with" that service. Those new words are added.

The reason is undoubtedly that with those grants the Government are seeking to fund not just the bodies providing education, but those providing research, monitoring or other services to education providers—in other words, the bodies which the Prime Minister has told us she would like to see established to advise opting-out schools; anybody whom the Secretary of State may wish to provide a public grant for; anybody to monitor the operation of those providing education services; or anybody to advise and provide research. New clause 47 provides the Secretary of State with the mechanism to fund the Government's friends to do what the Government want. For instance, under the provision, there is no reason why it should not be possible to grant-aid to Mr. Stewart Sexton's nursery school for technology.

I caution the Government. Conservative Members should seriously consider whether this is the way in which they would like to go. The provisions in new clause 47, which will be enabled by the money resolution, will allow a future Government or the present Government to do right across the country what the GLC has done for London schools. The GLC has funded racial monitoring organisations. New clause 47 will allow a future Labour Government to do that not only for a confined area but right across Britain.

Once again, the Secretary of State is taking an extension of powers that he says that he will not use in such a way. But the House should be under no misunderstanding. Such powers will exist and will be used in that fashion in future. That cannot be a wise extension of the Secretary of State's powers. That cannot be a sensible way in which to legislate. That cannot be a reasonable way to provide money for the Government to distort and damage our future education system. Those two reasons are related to handing to the Secretary of State power that he should not have, that a Labour Secretary of State should not have, and, indeed, that a Democrat Secretary of State should not have. They are unconstitutional and undemocratic powers. For that reason, we shall vote against them.

11.51 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), having exhausted the possibility of obtaining money from the Manpower Services Commission for diving, now appears to be examining the powers of the public purse in space. At least it is part of the enterprise culture.

It was extraordinary that the Minister did not deign to give the House any explanation. That is typical of the elective and arrogant dictatorship that the Government have become. Ministers negligently relax on the Government Front Bench and hardly open their mouths to give the House an explanation of a resolution that, as has been pointed out on several occasions, gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. The House of Commons is owed an explanation. The House of Commons is supposed to be the body that conducts an examination of expenditure. It is supposed to be the body to which the Government are accountable. But the Under-Secretary of State can hardly stifle his yawns at the thought of some sort of democratic accountability. That is why we are here today.

The Opposition, having looked at it, know what the money resolution is about. That is the Opposition's duty. I expect that Conservative Members are a little alarmed that the Secretary of State is taking such wide powers to grant money for virtually any purpose that has even a vague connection with education.

For example, will it be possible for the Secretary of State to use the resolution to provide money for the urgent purpose of extending the Queensbury middle school in my constituency? There is not enough playground area. The local authority is supposed to provide 400 places in a school that is designed for 200 children. There are about four temporary classrooms.

Is that the sort of standard that the Education Secretary wants to maintain? Will he use some of the money that is authorised by the resolution for the relief of that sort of thing, or will he squander it on the foolish notions that he has encompassed in the Education Reform Bill? As he knows, the Bill will increase divisions in our society and, time after time, lead to a repetition of the Dewsbury situation, when money will be lavished on an opting-out scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do something sensible, such as spend money on schools in Bradford? As he knows, unlike schools in most major cities, Bradford schools are in a predicament because there is expanding school roll. Many schools are hardly wind and watertight. The local education authority is hard-pressed to spend sufficient money to keep them wind and watertight.

In Wibsey, in my constituency, there is another school in which most of the playing areas are taken up by temporary classroom accommodation. When I, as the Member of Parliament, have raised this matter, I have been told by the local education authority that it does not have the money to build the new wing that is so much needed. Is this resolution to be used to provide money for such purposes, or is it to be squandered on this GERBIL?

Because the resolution is so widely cast, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. She no doubt has a copy of the booklet produced by the Department of Employment and the MSC on the Settle-to-Carlisle corridor. The railway is an important asset that many of us want to see retained and developed, and the booklet covers recreational, environmental, heritage, arts and crafts purposes.

All those could be considered as educational purposes. This may sound strange, but the resolution is so widely cast that it could be argued that it could empower the Secretary of State to spend money on the Settle to Carlisle railway. I want to see money spent on the railway, but it should come from the Department of Transport or from the Department of Employment. The terms of the resolution are so wide that there is no impediment to the Secretary of State for Education spending money on this.

The House of Commons should express a severe criticism of a resolution that is cast in such wide terms. I understand that a number of amendments have been tabled in Committee, but this is not a Committee of the whole House. The Bill is being examined in a Committee upstairs, so the Minister has a duty to give an explanation to the whole House.

The members of the Committee may understand why the Secretary of State has been so ham-fisted. He is fighting his way through to being a hard Right-winger, when he had so many years as a Heathite, and he used to criticise the Prime Minister, saying that the Tory party was like a bird—it had a Right wing and a Left wing, but the intelligence was in the centre. For many years, people thought that he was not going to make it to a Tory Cabinet, but he is in there now, and he is having to confront his conscience in carrying out all these Right-wing, extremist measures. He may be a bit confused, and, as a result of his confusion in Committee, he has to keep on producing money resolutions. The GERBIL is being changed week after week because from the start it has been carried out in a ham-fisted way.

We are owed an explanation. The debate can go on for another 10 minutes, and in that time, the Minister should give us an explanation of what all this is about. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I frequently talk about money resolutions, so it is pleasing that the Secretary of State seems to be getting into a habit—

Mr. Dickens

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer

No, I will not. I want to give the Minister time to give the explanation that should have been given at the beginning, and which, had it been given, would have short-circuited the debate.

11.58 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)

I am sorry that so many hon. Gentlemen seem to have read so many interesting books over the weekend, because they have managed to interpret in a strange way these four new clauses, which provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with grant-making powers, to be amended where necessary to take account of changed circumstances and need.

There is no great sinister motive in this. The resolution is required to enable these four helpful clauses to carry funding with them. I hope that when I go on to explain the meaning of each of these clauses, hon. Gentlemen will want the funding to go with them. We would have regarded it as a great shame if the money resolution had not been moved. Such is the excitement that has been engendered by this proposal that I was nervous that I might not be able to rise to explain it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), whose remarks were the most sensible that we heard this evening, for what he said. The research grants, which total about £30 million of Government money, are used for the purposes of which he spoke. When I deal with the point about grant-making for educational purposes, he will understand that his suggestion would not lie happily in the new clauses.

Mr. Fatchett

It might be helpful if the Minister would explain to us, alongside the four new clauses, why the money resolution includes the words, expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes. That goes way beyond the four new clauses.

Mrs. Rumbold

If I am allowed to speak, I shall try to explain exactly what it is about.

New clause 44 deals with grants for local education authorities to cover the costs of mandatory grants and awards. Local education authorities in England and Wales have a duty under section 1(1) of the Education Act 1962 to provide awards to students on designated courses of higher education. Awards are paid under regulations which prescribe the detailed arrangements, including eligibility for awards and award rates. Authorities have very limited discretion. That has always been recognised in the reimbursement of 90 per cent. of their expenditure on awards through a grant from central Government. In addition, 10 per cent. of expenditure met by authorities is recognised in the assessment of their needs for rate support grant.

The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will be aware that a new system of local government finance will be introduced from 1990. The 90 per cent. grant on awards expenditure and allowance in the needs assessment for the residue will be equivalent to a 100 per cent. rate of grant on mandatory awards. We propose to simplify the arrangements by increasing the rate of grant on mandatory awards to 100 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in Exchequer support to authorities through general grant. The intention is that the change should come into effect on 1 April 1990, and I commend that to the House.

New clause 45 deals with the problem of grants for the education of travellers and displaced persons. It empowers my right hon. Friend to make regulations providing for grant to be paid to local education authorities to help to meet the costs of educating travellers and refugees. Considerable effort is needed on the part of a local education authority to provide education for traveller and refugee children and to secure their regular attendance at school. The costs cannot adequately be reflected in block grant arrangements, and at present they are met through a pooling system among local authorities.

However, pooling will not be appropriate in the new system of local government finance set out in the Local Government Finance Bill. It is necessary to provide a specific grant. Detailed arrangements for the grant will be prescribed in the regulations. The costs falling on the Exchequer under the new arrangements are expected to be substantially the same as now, and again I commend this to the House.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of travellers, can she tell the House whether she has received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) a message of support for this money resolution?

Mrs. Rumbold

I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), but, sadly, I must say that I have received no such message. No doubt it awaits us.

New clause 46 deals with aided or special agreement schools. It will enable my right hon. Friend to pay grant to the governors of an existing voluntary aided school, or to the promoters of a new one, in respect of their expenditure on preliminary planning and design work on building projects. Building work at aided schools is eligible for 85 per cent. grant from the Department, but the resources available to my right hon. Friend for such expenditure, as for capital work generally, are limited. It is often the case that the proposals put to him for such work are based on inadequate estimates of cost, and at present he has no power to pay grant in respect of design work.

The idea of this grant is to enable the governing bodies of such schools to have better and more informed decisions to put to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, he proposes to provide grants for design work so that those plans will not prove abortive in the future.

Clause 47 redefines and clarifies the powers of the Secretary of State to pay grants to persons and bodies other than local education authorities whose activities or objects are in the fields of education, learning or research. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) rightly said, the clause amends and adds to the existing provision in section 100(1)(b) of the Education Act 1944. That provision is restricted to the payment of grants for expenditure for the purposes of educational services provided by the body receiving grant, or on its behalf, or under its management.

There are two elements in the new clause. Subsections (1) and (2) enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to bodies whose main purpose is the promotion of learning or research. That applies to bodies such as the British Academy and the Royal Society, and clarifies the Secretary of State's power to pay grant towards their general running expenses as well as their more specifically educational activities.

Subsection (3) redefines the group of bodies other than local education authorities that can be grant-aided and the activities for which grants can be paid—

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. 14 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 158.

Division No. 223] [12.06 am
Aitken, Jonathan Eggar, Tim
Alexander, Richard Emery, Sir Peter
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Allason, Rupert Evennett, David
Amess, David Fairbairn, Nicholas
Amos, Alan Fallon, Michael
Arbuthnot, James Farr, Sir John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Favell, Tony
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Ashby, David Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Aspinwall, Jack Forman, Nigel
Atkins, Robert Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Baldry, Tony Franks, Cecil
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Freeman, Roger
Batiste, Spencer French, Douglas
Bellingham, Henry Fry, Peter
Bendall, Vivian Gale, Roger
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Gardiner, George
Bevan, David Gilroy Garel-Jones, Tristan
Biffen, Rt Hon John Gill, Christopher
Blackburn, Dr John G. Goodlad, Alastair
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Gorst, John
Bottomley, Peter Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Gower, Sir Raymond
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowis, John Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Gregory, Conal
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Brazier, Julian Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bright, Graham Grist, Ian
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Ground, Patrick
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Hampson, Dr Keith
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick Hanley, Jeremy
Budgen, Nicholas Hannam, John
Burns, Simon Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Burt, Alistair Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Butcher, John Harris, David
Butler, Chris Hawkins, Christopher
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hayes, Jerry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carrington, Matthew Hayward, Robert
Carttiss, Michael Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cash, William Heddle, John
Chapman, Sydney Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Churchill, Mr Hind, Kenneth
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Holt, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hordern, Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Howard, Michael
Colvin, Michael Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Conway, Derek Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cope, John Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cran, James Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Hunter, Andrew
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Davis, David (Boothferry) Irvine, Michael
Day, Stephen Jack, Michael
Devlin, Tim Jackson, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey Janman, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen Jessel, Toby
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dover, Den Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dunn, Bob Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Redwood, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Renton, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Rhodes James, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy Riddick, Graham
Knapman, Roger Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Knowles, Michael Roe, Mrs Marion
Knox, David Rossi, Sir Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Rost, Peter
Lang, Ian Rowe, Andrew
Latham, Michael Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lawrence, Ivan Ryder, Richard
Lee, John (Pendle) Sackville, Hon Tom
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Sayeed, Jonathan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Scott, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Shaw, David (Dover)
Lightbown, David Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lilley, Peter Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lord, Michael Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Sims, Roger
McCrindle, Robert Skeet, Sir Trevor
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Maclean, David Speed, Keith
McLoughlin, Patrick Speller, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Madel, David Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Major, Rt Hon John Stanbrook, Ivor
Malins, Humfrey Steen, Anthony
Mans, Keith Stern, Michael
Maples, John Stevens, Lewis
Marland, Paul Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Stewart, Andy (Sherwood}
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mates, Michael Sumberg, David
Maude, Hon Francis Tapsell, Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mellor, David Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal Temple-Morris, Peter
Mills, Iain Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW) Thorne, Neil
Moate, Roger Thornton, Malcolm
Monro, Sir Hector Thurnham, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Moore, Rt Hon John Tracey, Richard
Morris, M (N'hampton S) Tredinnick, David
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles Trippier, David
Moss, Malcolm Trotter, Neville
Moynihan, Hon Colin Twinn, Dr Ian
Neale, Gerrard Waddington, Rt Hon David
Needham, Richard Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Nelson, Anthony Waldegrave, Hon William
Neubert, Michael Walden, George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Waller, Gary
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Ward, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Warren, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip Watts, John
Page, Richard Wheeler, John
Paice, James Whitney, Ray
Patnick, Irvine Widdecombe, Ann
Patten, John (Oxford W) Wilkinson, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Wilshire, David
Pawsey, James Wolfson, Mark
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wood, Timothy
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Woodcock, Mike
Porter, David (Waveney) Yeo, Tim
Portillo, Michael Young, Sir George (Acton)
Price, Sir David
Raffan, Keith Tellers for the Ayes:
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Rathbone, Tim Mr. Tony Durant.
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) George, Bruce
Allen, Graham Godman, Dr Norman A.
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Golding, Mrs Llin
Armstrong, Hilary Gordon, Mildred
Ashdown, Paddy Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ashton, Joe Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Henderson, Doug
Barron, Kevin Hinchliffe, David
Battle, John Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Beith, A. J. Holland, Stuart
Bell, Stuart Home Robertson, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Howells, Geraint
Boyes, Roland Hoyle, Doug
Bradley, Keith Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Illsley, Eric
Caborn, Richard Ingram, Adam
Callaghan, Jim Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Kirkwood, Archy
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Leadbitter, Ted
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Lewis, Terry
Clay, Bob Livsey, Richard
Clelland, David Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann McAllion, John
Cohen, Harry McAvoy, Thomas
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) McCartney, Ian
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Macdonald, Calum A.
Corbyn, Jeremy McFall, John
Cousins, Jim McGrady, Eddie
Cox, Tom McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Crowther, Stan McKelvey, William
Cryer, Bob McLeish, Henry
Cummings, John McWilliam, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence Madden, Max
Dalyell, Tarn Mahon, Mrs Alice
Darling, Alistair Marek, Dr John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dixon, Don Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Doran, Frank Maxton, John
Douglas, Dick Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Duffy, A. E. P. Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Dunnachie, Jimmy Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Moonie, Dr Lewis
Eadie, Alexander Morgan, Rhodri
Eastham, Ken Mowlam, Marjorie
Evans, John (St Helens N) Mullin, Chris
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Murphy, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Nellist, Dave
Fatchett, Derek O'Neill, Martin
Fearn, Ronald Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Parry, Robert
Fisher, Mark Patchett, Terry
Flannery, Martin Pike, Peter L.
Foster, Derek Prescott, John
Fyfe, Maria Primarolo, Dawn
Galloway, George Quin, Ms Joyce
Redmond, Martin Straw, Jack
Reid, Dr John Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Robertson, George Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Robinson, Geoffrey Turner, Dennis
Rogers, Allan Wall, Pat
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Walley, Joan
Rowlands, Ted Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Ruddock, Joan Wareing, Robert N.
Sedgemore, Brian Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Sheerman, Barry Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Short, Clare Wigley, Dafydd
Skinner, Dennis Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) Worthington, Tony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Young, David (Bolton SE)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Soley, Clive Tellers for the Noes:
Stott, Roger Mr. Frank Haynes and
Strang, Gavin Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to promote learning or research or in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred for educational purposes.