Self-governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Hansard, 14 November 1989)

HC Deb 14 November 1989 vol 160 cc192-214 192

§ (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.57 pm

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang)
I beg to move, That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:

§ Lords Amendments

§ 1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Order [3rd May] be regarded as proceedings on an allotted day.

§ (2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendment 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment 65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.

§ (3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [3rd May], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Length of period
Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93 and 94.	One hour and thirty minutes.
Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.	Two hours.
Nos. 30 to 36.	Two hours and thirty minutes.
Remaining Lords Amendments.	Three hours.

§ 2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made 193 by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

§ (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

§ Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

§ 3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

§ (2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

§ Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

§ 4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

§ (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

§ 5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

§ (2) Paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

§ (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

§ (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

§ The Bill has had a good airing in the House, in Committee and in another place, and it is appropriate that the House should complete its scrutiny today, so that it can complete its passage on to the statute book and the 194 country can begin to reap the benefits of the legislation. The purpose of the timetable motion is to enable the House to give proper and orderly consideration to the amendments made in another place, within a limit of time adequate for that to be done, and having regard to the relatively narrow range of topics covered by those amendments.

§ When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland moved that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, he said: education does not consist only of what happens within school, and nor does what happens within schools interest only the teaching profession. The involvement of parents … is likely to bring results that will ultimately be to the benefit of the pupils themselves."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vo. 148, c. 622.] Throughout the past decade, the Government have consistently taken a lead in giving expression to the rights of parents and developing their role in the education process. The Bill represents the culmination of that development, and when it passes into law it will have a powerful and beneficial influence extending throughout the school system. We have put parents to the top of everyone's agenda, and we may claim credit for that, without in the least detracting from the credit due to those authorities, such as Strathclyde, which likewise have read the signs of the times and are now developing policies of their own to involve parents in the education process.

§ The Bill is quite distinct from the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which now is being implemented throughout Scotland. It is distinct because school boards are intended for every school—the uptake of that facility has been heartening—whereas nobody is put under any obligation to use the provisions for self-governing schools who does not wish to do so. At the same time, the Bill can also be seen as a natural development from the 1988 Act. Some schools may well see the possibility of self-governing status in due course as a logical next step from the school board, but we have stressed repeatedly that we have no specific target for the number of schools that should become self-governing. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), have made that point. The very existence of the option for a school board, however, will ensure that the parental point of view expressed through the board is heard with proper respect.

§ We do not expect school boards in large numbers to move immediately towards self-government, but we consider it right that the option should be seen to be available to them from the outset. It is therefore time to complete proceedings on this Bill and bring it into effect. It has already had adequate time for consideration here and in another place. We spent 127 hours on it in the Standing Committee, followed by a full day on Report to the House. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box in his new role, was not a member of the Committee, so I acquit him of responsibility for any aspect of its conduct. Suffice it to say that the Opposition were given ample, indeed generous, time, before the timetable motion and after it, to develop their arguments on aspects of the Bill that troubled them.

§ The Bill then had three full days of debate, a total of 18 hours, in another place, where the Opposition made a measured and constructive contribution. So I hope that 195 the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will not rise to complain that the Bill is being rushed through with undue haste.

§ The Bill returns to the House with 94 amendments. Of those, between 50 and 60 are, on any view of the matter, technical or drafting amendments whose purpose is to make the Bill clearer. Another 20 or so are necessary consequences of other more substantial amendments. Only a handful of amendments deal with matters of any substance, and I shall refer briefly to one of the most salient of them to illustrate my point.

§ The Bill originally provided that a ballot of parents on self-governing status could be initiated either at the request of a specified number of parents or by a single resolution of a school board. That remained in the Bill when it left this House. We were of course aware that the procedure for acquiring self-governing status was, in this and other respects, different from that for acquiring grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988.

§ Our procedure is swifter, and deliberately so. For example, under this Bill a school board will be required, after a positive ballot result, to produce its formal proposals within one month; the corresponding period allowed under the Education Reform Act is six months. That difference has not been questioned at any stage. It is common ground between Government and Opposition that, if there is to be a proposal for self-governing status, the issue should be settled as quickly as reasonably possible. Prolonged uncertainty is likely to affect a school's morale and reputation.

§ However, this must be balanced against another need that has been urged on the Government at successive stages of the Bill. It is one that we have always acknowledged—the need to ensure that the parents who vote in a ballot have a proper appreciation of what they are voting for. It was with that in mind that we accepted the amendment in the other place—I hope that the House will agree with it later this afternoon—to the effect that, when a board has made a resolution to call a ballot, it must first inform the education authority and then allow between four and six weeks to elapse, after which it must confirm its first resolution if it still wants to proceed with a ballot.

§ This means that the issue will be out in the public domain and open to debate for a fair length of time before the ballot. There can be no doubt that any education authority would want to respond, to make its views known to the school board and—very likely—to the parents directly at this stage. The school board, too, if it is in earnest, will want to use this time to consult the parents who elected it and state its case to them—indeed, it is likely to be under pressure to do so. The board will have to take some time to reflect on its initial decision and hear the responses that come back before finally deciding whether to go ahead with a ballot.

§ This amendment illustrates two aspects that characterise all the amendments that we are to consider today. In the first place, it represents a Government response to a constructive point made in debate; on the other hand, it does not represent a radical shift of policy on our part.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)
My hon. Friend will know that, in England, some local authorities have bludgeoned and intimidated parents into 196 not taking up grant-maintained status. Is he taking that into consideration, and is he satisfied that the school boards will have enough resources to be able to convey their message equally forcefully to the parents?

§ Mr. Lang
My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Of course the experience of colleagues south of the border is relevant to our consideration of this measure. I believe that we have made adequate provision in the Bill for my hon. Friend's point, but we shall certainly keep an eye on it. I would condemn any local authority that sought to bludgeon school boards or parents into changing their attitude to these important matters.
But we have not shifted policy in any degree in the amendments that we are bringing forward today. We are bringing forward a refinement and a clarification of policy rather than any new departure. In considering the Lords amendments, we shall not be asking the House to consider any new policy. The underlying policy has been thoroughly debated and settled in both Houses, and we are not here to reopen that debate.
I shall, if I may, refer to the other significant amendments more briefly to demonstrate my general point. There are amendments clarifying the significance of the ballot result. Let me again briefly quote my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading: the ballot does not itself decide the question of opting out; it simply determines whether the process can reach the next stage. My right hon. Friend went on to point out that, as Secretary of State, he would of course take into account the proportion who had voted in a ballot … but I think it right to give most weight to the views of those who have chosen to exercise their vote either for or against the proposal."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148. c. 631.] Simply in order to reach a reasonable decision, the Secretary of State will have to take account of all the information available to him about the situation of the school, and the ballot result is one—but only one—of the relevant factors. An amendment which the Government accepted in the other place gives effect to that.
There is also an amendment which gives effect to the policy that the Government had already declared, that a self-governing school should not be able, as a rule, to move to any change in its basic characteristics until it has been established as a self-governing school for at least five years. There is also an amendment which responds to an undertaking given to the Opposition in Committee to entrench a parental majority on the board of management of a self-governing school. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling welcomed the Opposition's conversion to that concept, and we have sought to give effect to their concern.
But all this is well-trodden ground. There are other aspects of the provisions on self-governing schools to which the critics have not given a great deal of attention. They have painted a picture of the self-governing school which would not be borne out by any dispassionate scrutiny of the Bill. The self-governing school has been portrayed as some kind of private enclave for a coterie of parents. But it is difficult to see how that is to be squared with the requirement on those parents to obtain mass support in a ballot, after a campaign which will extend 197 over several weeks and will be conducted with maximum publicity. Even if such groups do exist, they may be disappointed by the reality of the legislation.
We have made it clear, and the Bill makes it clear, that a school must continue to be just as much a public and community asset after it becomes self-governing as it was before. Boards of management will be under a specific statutory duty, for example, to promote the use of the school premises and facilities by the community.
It is also appropriate for me to refer here briefly to the other parts of the Bill. Part II, which was the subject of extensive consultation and discussion beforehand, has been found largely acceptable to both Houses. We have had some debates on some aspects of part III, but in the end those provisions have been accepted with little amendment.
We have now had two years of legislative innovation in Scottish education. That has produced a great deal of new material and new ideas for those involved in the education system to digest. The period that lies ahead must necessarily be one of consolidation, and I do not mean by that that it will he a period of rest or retrenchment, and certainly not of stagnation. I hope that it will be a time of positive and co-operative effort to take up and to put into practice the new developments made possible by the legislation.
There is common ground between the Government and local authorities on many things—on school boards, on development in the curriculum for the five to 14 age group, on the professional development of teachers, and on the management of schools and further education. I hope that we shall be able to work together vigorously on those things. The expeditious passage of the Bill's remaining stages will clear the way and set the scene for that to begin.

§ 4.8 pm

§ Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)
I thank the Minister for his welcome and, in turn, welcome him to his first debate as Minister with responsibility for Scottish education. On the surface, his rather winsome smile is preferable to the sneering and snarling that we have had for the past two years from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He has now gone off to work with endangered species, which is rather akin to herding together the remaining Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, letting in a rabid dog and throwing away the key.
The Minister comes to us fresh from his triumphs in electricity privatisation. It is difficult to imagine how someone so mild and inoffensive could cause such carnage: the present chaos in the electricity industry follows his early triumph with the poll tax. From poll tax to nuclear tax! Scottish education and Scottish enterprise had better watch out, for this man is the Frank Spencer of the Tory Front Bench, creating chaos wherever he goes.
I am new to the debates on this Bill—even newer than Hansard suggests. As we know, its records are impeccable, and it was therefore with some amazement that I read that I had contributed to the Report stage debate on 20 June. That would have been difficult, as I was in Washington with the Select Committee on Home Affairs at the time. Having read the record of the debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, however, I can only 198 pay tribute to the work of those who, unlike myself, are not new to it—the battle-scarred troops behind me, and the noble Lords Carmichael and Macaulay.
Opposition Members will resist the guillotine motion and fight the Bill to the last, because it was forged in dishonesty, and dishonesty remains its central characteristic. The Secretary of State stated explicitly at the time of the 1987 election that opting out would not apply in Scotland. He may have meant what he said then; that was before the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stirling got to him. That is the trouble with having a bendy toy as Secretary of State: he puts himself and his career before Scottish education. He should have stood up and fought. Now his career is stuck; he is unhappy, marooned, shell-shocked and becalmed. More important, the Scottish people have been deceived. A Bill that has not even the flimsiest of Scottish mandates is poised to become law, simply because the Prime Minister imposed it on a half-hearted Secretary of State.
What is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is not to build on the roots of Scottish education, developing a policy based on Scottish culture and distinctiveness? The Bill merits longer debate because it is fundamental to Scottish education.
How do I square that belief with the knowledge that there is almost no desire for the Bill in Scotland? Let me explain. The same conflict exists in what the Tories are saying. According to the hon. Member for Stirling when he was responsible for education: It is the most radical change in Scottish education for a generation or more, and I freely admit that. Its potential is profound and the benefits it offers are obvious to some already. In time, they will be widely recognised … people … will realise that they have a tool with which to reshape Scottish education to the great benefit of its users."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 701.] The present Minister responsible for education said on Sunday, in a television programme: I actually don't think that opting out is going to be something that the vast majority of Scottish schools is going to get involved in. I would expect that relatively few will decide to opt out. There is considerable conflict between those two statements. On the one hand, this is the most radical change … for a generation or more". I interpret that as meaning 30 or more years. On the other hand, we are told, "Let us not bother about this; it will affect only a few schools." Who is right? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is right, because the Bill gives the Secretary of State overwhelming powers over the development of Scottish education.
The major issue of contention in Scottish education is school closure: too few pupils and too many places. That issue must be faced by any responsible authority. The Bill gives to the Secretary of State the power to say which schools will close and which will stay open. We know how the Secretary of State will use that power. The Bill sounds the death knell for schools in areas that are struggling to provide a good education for their children. It makes sick the idea that the Secretary of State cares about deprived areas. It is one more kick in the teeth for local government after the poll tax. It removes from education authorities the ability to look at schools as a whole. Councillors will have to face the electorate and explain what is happening, but the power will be hidden away in St. Andrew's house.
There is not the slightest doubt that this is an attempt to bring back selection, despite the Secretary of State having said on Second Reading: 199 I can state categorically and without equivocation that the Bill is not designed to reintroduce selectivity".—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 625.] I give to that all the weight that I would give to the statements of a salesman of very used cars.
In contrast, once again I believe what was said by the hon. Member for Stirling in The Scotsman on 6 April: We are not prepared to rule out selection entirely. That is what is behind the Bill.
I have read all the Committee's deliberations. The Under-Secretary of State could never bring himself in Committee to say anything good about comprehensive education. He was scornful of any academic research that showed that there had been real progress since the introduction of comprehensive education. For two years as an education Minister he sneered at the state system, thus depriving it of good morale. He said, "I do not think that the state system is any good and I am going to introduce a Bill to break up the system."
The Bill is, I believe, designed to break up the comprehensive system because of the sort of material that appeared this week in The Sunday Times under the heading: Grammar schools to make a comeback after 20 years. The article states clearly—after, I suggest, a leak from the Department of Education and Science— The first new grammar schools in Britain since the comprehensive revolution began in the 1960-s will be created under plans to be revealed later this month. What is planned will be spread over the border by the Under-Secretary of State.
In Committee there was much talk about choice, but the Opposition believe that the introduction of comprehensive education gave parents and children more choice than they had ever had before. We should like more comprehensive schools in order to give more choice. We should like comprehensive nursery schools to be provided. We should like more comprehensive training and more comprehensive adult education. That would provide choice. The Opposition believe that comprehensive schools can add on options by means of links with colleges and links between schools.
In itself, the term "comprehensive" is a misnomer. No school can ever be totally comprehensive in terms of subject, catchment area and age. There is always a compromise—about special schools, special gifts or list D schools. However, there comes a legitimate point when we have to say that we must hang on to the central core and idea of the comprehensive. It is impossible to have unfettered choice for some without denying choice to the great majority. At some point it must be said that the exercise of choice for some people is the denial of choice for others, and the good of the great majority is harmed by the choice of others, which is sometimes misguided. That is what happened in the past to senior and junior secondary schools where some people's ability was rewarded. The Minister uses choice as a means of breaking up the comprehensive system.
I am willing to abide by the choice of the Scottish people. I am willing to travel the length and breadth of Scotland with the Minister asking Scottish parents whether they want a development of the Scottish comprehensive or of opted-out schools. I am willing to submit to any objective poll on the development of comprehensives against his plan. Scottish parents would 200 overwhelmingly choose to support comprehensive education. Because the Government are seeking to deny Scottish people that choice, we totally reject the Bill. The Government know that there is no support for it. Because their proposals are anti-choice, anti-local government, centralised and imposed from outside, we should resist the guillotine motion, and the Labour Government of 1991 will repeal the Act.

4.20 pm

§ Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)
I add my personal welcome to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in his new elevated position, and express the hope that he enjoys it as much as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has made previous speeches on this subject, although he was not on the Committee considering the Bill; the matter was raised in discussions on the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee. In a famous reference, he suggested that the possibility of opting out for the Neilston primary school in my constituency because of a dispute over a possible extension to that school. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be disgraceful if Neilston received the extra allocation for that extension. I am always in the business of doing little acts of kindness for Opposition Members and it seemed to me that those sentiments should have a wider audience. He will be delighted to know that I quoted him in full to a mass meeting of the parents at Neilston primary school. He also attacked Paisley grammar school on the basis of spurious comparisons with schools in part of my constituency from which no one ever goes to Paisley grammar.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am a product of the Scottish comprehensive system and the allegation that the Bill is about breaking up the state system is wholly erroneous. Schools are not opting out of the state system; technically, they are opting into the state system from a local authority system.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about choice could apply equally to the parents' charter. I am glad, that in his first speech as Opposition spokesman on Scottish education, the hon. Gentleman has stated that his party is against the parents' charter.
Much of the debate in Committee was about the relationship between school boards and self-governing schools. There is need for an orderly debate for many reasons. One is to enable the hon. Gentleman to make his position clear about some of the issues raised in Committee, such as the famous Strathclyde report. The hon. Member for Fife, Central said: I very much welcome this excellent report", but it was not welcomed by every regional councillor in Strathclyde. One councillor said: I am dismayed at what has come out here. The Educational Institute of Scotland accused Councillor Charles Gray, the leader of the council, of working hand in hand with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In turn, Mr. Charles Gray called the Strathclyde EIS officials educated ostriches who did not represent the rank and file of teachers or the Labour movement". 201 Now the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie owes it to the House, the EIS and Mr. Charles Gray to tell us on which side of that argument he is, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so during the debate.
It is essential that the supplementary guillotine motion is agreed to get the Bill on the statute book, because the House is due to prorogue on Thursday, subject to satisfactory progress on business. Without the guillotine, satisfactory progress will not be made and the House will be treated to a repetition of what happened in Committee. The House should not be reassured by the fact that the amendments are mainly technical. In Committee, important clauses such as clause 15 on ballots hurtled through in 15 minutes, while technical clauses took hours. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee will recall clause 28 and that an undertaking was given by the Opposition that it would be delivered at midday on 25 April. It was delayed into the middle of the night, not because of a dispute with the Government but because Labour Members discovered that their amendments did not mean what they thought. Instead of admitting that and getting on with the debate, they continued into the middle of the night.
We should not believe that the guillotine is unnecessary because the Opposition are likely to accept the Lords amendments. That offers no reassurance of a short debate. In Committee, in the middle of the night, the hon. Member for Fife, Central moved an amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister intervened. Did he say "I shall consider this amendment"? No, he did not. Did he say, "This is a good amendment, but it is technically defective"? No, he did not. He said: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, so perhaps we can move on". Move on we did not; Labour Members continued to talk about the amendment. Eventually, the Chairman said: I am in the Committee's hands, but I find it difficult to understand why amendment No. 154 cannot be dealt with quickly".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 April 1989; c. 1005–6.] What happened? Labour Members went on, despite the fact that they had received a kindly warning from the Chairman and despite the fact that the Minister had accepted the amendment, which nobody had opposed.
The same happened when I moved an uncontroversial amendment that was suggested by the Scottish Consumer Council. The Opposition indicated support in principle for it, the Minister said that he would consider it and I said that I was content, but the Opposition, not unreasonably, said that they were not content. They wanted an absolute commitment from the Minister. The Minister was persuaded and said, "I shall accept the amendment," but what happened? Opposition Members went on and on.
Hon. Members may believe that the guillotine is not necessary because Labour Members will want to get home for the break, because they are reasonable people or because, given a free rein, they might run out of steam. The House should dismiss that notion. When Labour Members run out of steam, they will bring on, with the skirl of the pipes and choruses of gaelic songs, their ultimate weapon—the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). He persuaded the Committee of his considerable ability to speak at enormous length—obviously within order—about almost anything. Not only did he refine that technique but he introduced a new technique—the silent 202 filibuster. He stood up, but said absolutely nothing. He was firmly and fairly brought to order by the Chairman, who said: Order. Let us be clear. The hon. Member must not stand without speaking, because it cannot be recorded in Hansard. It cannot be said that during the day, the hon. Member has shown a lack of words, but, if he has now run out of words, we may make progress."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 21 March 1989; c. 250.] The events in Committee show why the guillotine is necessary.
The Bill is important. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to the fact that it was not in the last Conservative party manifesto. It was not in the Eastwood manifesto either, but that was before the closure of Paisley grammar and the Catholic girls' school; fundamental questions were raised about the motives behind those closures in Strathclyde. Having said that, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to put any closure programme into effect and that Strathclyde was justified in trying to grasp these nettles.
The Bill is important not only because it gives Scottish parents the opportunities of choice but because it reassures them that they have an alternative. I believe that it will be to the great benefit of Scottish parents. I fully support the supplementary guillotine.

4.30 pm

§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)
I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
This is no ordinary Bill. It is being forced to a conclusion with the use of the guillotine. Any Government who use this procedure should have proved their case overwhelmingly. That the Government have not done so is obvious. By introducing the guillotine, the Government demonstrate, once again, their disregard for the views of the Scottish people.
The Government have repeated their earlier guillotine on Report to stifle proper debate on issues of great importance to Scottish parents, pupils and teachers. The Minister said that the Bill had had a good airing, but the amendments come from the other place and are being rushed through. We should have proper time to discuss them because the Bill is opposed by the majority of people in Scotland. At no time did the Government tell us that they would introduce these measures.
We need more time to discuss how boards of management will take account of the needs and interests of the local community. We need more time to ensure that the future status of schools is not determined by a small, unrepresentative clique of parents who are singlemindedly determined to pursue their own narrow aims. We need more time to ensure that the basic characteristics of a school in regard to admissions policy cannot be changed without the express consent of the majority of the parents in the school and after a period of thorough reflection and democratic consultation. We need more time to ensure that the Secretary of State does not abdicate his responsibility for maintaining an integrated education system.
The Government have not been able to show how schools stand to gain by becoming self-governing. Will it mean a better building, a new school, playing fields or more books or equipment? No one can give us an answer. On the contrary, the key point is that funding for 203 opted-out schools will not mean extra money. The money will be deducted from the grant that the local education authority would otherwise receive for the school.
The Government may have little regard for the effect of their proposed changes, but I assure them and those on the fringes of the Scottish Tory establishment that they matter greatly to people who depend on basic education provision and who value a service that is available to all. In rural areas such as Argyll, the threat is apparent: there are already cuts and closures. Without a basic framework of schools run for the benefit of the entire community, rural communities may find it difficult to survive. Contrary to the Government's protestations, parents in rural areas do not have a choice of school to which to send their children.
Once again, we have a guillotine motion on Scottish legislation. Last night, on the car radio, I heard about the glitter, pomp and ceremony of the Lord Mayor's banquet. I heard the Prime Minister's words ringing out—about freedom to choose, human rights, the spread of liberty and genuine democracy. That has a hollow and hypocritical ring in the ears of the Scots, who have chosen to look after their own affairs, but are debarred from doing so by the Government.
Today we are not allowed to debate the Lord amendments properly. That is a telling sign of the Government's attitude towards the distinctiveness of the Scottish way of life which, in the words of a Welshman, Sir Alwyn Williams, stems from an education system of historic merit". The Government continue to treat the Scottish nation with contempt.

4.35 pm

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
I welcome the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to his new responsibilities. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Whether he enjoyed our company as much is a moot point. Perhaps it was due to the effectiveness of the contribution of English Members that the Scottish Labour party decided to promote an Englishman to be their spokesman—I know not—but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.
The debate is supposed to be about the guillotine motion. I consider that a guillotine is necessary. I read in the newspapers this week that the Labour party is putting it about that the Government's programme is "in a shambles". If it is necessary for the Government to impose a guillotine this late in the Session, it is simply because the Labour party Chief Whip has lost control of his own troops. For night after night during the past two weeks, small groups of Labour Members who represent mining constituencies have kept the House up late. Their speeches have been in order, but I doubt whether their contribution has been more effective than that of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—the silent filibuster which we heard of earlier.
I have no doubt that with such highly controversial legislation—there cannot be an item of legislation on which there is a sharper political divide—all sensible hon. Members must hold the view that an early timetable motion for all stages of the Bill should be imposed.

204

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a delusion. He says that this is a highly controversial Bill, but there is no controversy about it in Scotland—the area to which it applies. There is no detectable support for the Bill in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should get that clear in his head.

§ Mr. Leigh
This is an enabling Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no detectable support for it, presumably no schools will opt out of local authority control.
On three occasions I have put the question to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and on no occasion was he prepared to answer me. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, did me the great honour of thereafter referring to it as the Gainsborough question, and it remains unanswered. If this is such a controversial item of legislation that there is no support for it, why is the Scottish Labour party worried about it? Presumably no schools will opt out. The English experience has some relevance and value and it proves that the case is otherwise, as I shall show in a moment.
In legislation where there is a sharp political divide, it must be right to timetable early. I doubt whether anything new was said after the first 20 to 30 hours of debate in the Standing Committee. Labour Members on that Committee had to prove to their paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions that they were a robust and powerful Opposition, keeping the Tories up all night, and similar rubbish. Is there a single hon. Gentleman who has had—

Mrs. Ray Mitchie
Or hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Leigh
Is there a single hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who has received a letter of complaint about the guillotine motion imposed this week? I doubt it. People outside care about the arguments and the issues, but they do not care about Conservative and Labour Members staying up all night engaging in filibusters and procedural debates.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour party's paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions. The teaching unions have been careful to obtain cross-party support for their stance. Can the hon. Gentleman name one that is affiliated or pays money to the Labour party?

§ Mr. Leigh
I shall deal with the Educational Institute of Scotland in a moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will give me some credit for having sat with my hon. Friends through discussions on the Bill for over 100 hours and for knowing, therefore, something about what has been said on these matters by the Scottish teachers' unions. I shall deal with that in a moment.
I said that after the first 20 hours of debate, nothing new came out, but perhaps I was wrong. There was a perceptible shifting in the Labour party's position on these matters. Labour Members started by saying, as they have said this afternoon—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) repeated the point—that there is no support for the proposals. When the original proposal for school boards was published, the Scottish Labour party opposed it. From the results in Scotland, one can see 205 that two thirds of schools, 70 per cent. of pupils and 80 per cent. of secondary schools will have school boards. Turnout in most areas was more than 55 per cent., which is higher than the turnout for most regional council elections, although those councils run education at present.
We can see, therefore, just as we saw in the debate on school boards, that we shall start to win the argument on the ground as the debate continues. If the hon. Member for East Lothian is right in saying that there is no support for the principle of opting out in Scotland, I must refer him to the English experience. Sixty-nine schools have been balloted and no fewer than 50 have opted out. That shows that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is considerable support for the principle of opting out.
Other interesting developments have taken place in recent months. The first national survey of parents' views on education was carried out in Scotland, having been commissioned by the Scottish Office. There were some interesting results which confirm all that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has managed to achieve in his two years in office and Conservative Members congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work for Scottish education. The results are grim reading for the Scottish Labour party because they show that parents support choice of schools, firm discipline, testing, school uniforms, school prize givings and competitions, the regular appraisal of teachers, giving parents a say in what is taught and, to a lesser extent, how it is taught, giving parents some say in how the school budget is spent and more parental involvement through voluntary help in schools.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said earlier, Strathclyde made an about-turn on the matter halfway through our deliberations, much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). On 17 April, Strathclyde published a report saying that schools and colleges should have far more control over their own affairs, especially in handling their own budgets. It said that a slimmed-down Glasgow headquarters would deal only with future strategy, while the region's six divisions would handle operations in co-operation with local schools and colleges.
Our delight with what we heard was so great that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggested that the leader of Strathclyde regional council, Charles Gray, should be given a knighthood. Indeed, he was referred to in our deliberations as "Sir Charles Gray". The hon. Member for Fife, Central was rather surprised by the about-turn by Strathclyde, which undermined all his efforts and everything he had said in the first 10, 20, 30 or 50 hours of our debate. He was forced to say in the Glasgow Herald on 21 April 1989: I very much welcome this excellent report", although he said that the timing did "quite surprise" him. I am not surprised at that, because his position had been wholly undermined.
As the debate progressed over many hours, we saw that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had got it right and that he was in tune with what Scotland, Strathclyde and the parents whose views were reported in the survey wanted. Is it not sad that the Labour party has learnt nothing? It published a policy review which has had universally bad treatment by the press. Even The Independent said that the Labour party 206 is still influenced by the Fabian approach, under which things are done to people in their best interests, quote, independently of what they want themselves … Labour really isn't learning. We are not the party which forces education policies down the throats of parents. We want to give parents initiative and choice.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth
Is it not the case that the Labour party's policy is best summed up by its former education spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who said that what was good enough for his children was good enough for everybody else's?

§ Mr. Leigh
That is a disgraceful remark, typical of the old-fashioned Labour party that those of us fighting it have grown to know, love and beat in three successive general elections—and in a fourth one as well, no doubt. [Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to a conclusion. This is a short debate.

§ Mr. Leigh
I am coming to a conclusion, but I cannot leave the hon. Member for Fife, Central alone without quoting him once more. On 23 February he wrote: we have failed to properly develop the desires of parents to be more involved in their children's education; and we have failed to embrace the real and changing needs of education into a radical and imaginative agenda. The words of the then Labour party spokesman are the words of a man who realises that his policies have failed. It is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his successor who are now in tune with the wishes of Scottish parents.

4.46 pm

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
There is little to which we should heed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), given that he knows little about anything that happens in Scotland, even to the extent that he assumes that the Conservative party has won three successive general elections there. I ask him to go away qietly and look at the Scottish election results in 1979, 1983 and 1987—during which time the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), has had quite a lot to say in Scottish politics—and he will see that the Conservative party has been rejected decisively by the Scottish people, as have the policies that it attempted to push through the House with the support of English Members who know nothing about the issues that are being debated in Scottish education.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that, after 20 hours of discussion in Committee, little new was introduced into the debate. I ask him to consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He seemed to be highly entertained by his hon. Friend's speech, although it was the same speech that he made on 3 May 1989—six months ago—even down to the same quotation from the Official Report of the first Scottish Standing Committee on 21 March 1989. Any hon. Member who doubts that need only to look up Hansard of 3 May at column 251, and he will see the same speech that the hon. Gentleman rendered this afternoon. If ever there was an example of the poverty of the contribution made to politics in Scotland by the Conservative party, we have seen it this afternoon in the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood.

207

§ Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)
If the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are at all interested in debating the amendments, what on earth is the point of that idiotic speech?

§ Mr. McAllion
The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not know what debate this is. We are debating a guillotine motion and there are no amendments for the House to consider. The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to go back to where he came from, where he would probably find the atmosphere far more congenial.
The Labour party will continue to resist the Bill and the guillotine motion, as we have done throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We do so all the more because the political context in which the measure is being assessed has changed dramatically since the Bill was previously considered by the House. That change has important implications for the way in which its provisions are likely to be implemented in Scotland—if the Bill is ever allowed on to the statute book.
The provisions in the Bill are potentially radical. No one should make any mistake about that. We are considering giving individual schools in Scotland the opportunity to opt out of their education authority's control. For the first time for generations, and certainly in my life, we could see deep divisions in the provision of primary and secondary education. There is also the prospect of the return of academic selection for entry into local neighbourhood schools. Pupils could be denied the right to attend the school at the end of their street on the grounds that they are too dim. It was clear from the speeches of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and English Members in Committee that the spectre will be raised of doors being slammed on Scottish pupils on the grounds of their ethnic origin, sex or religious belief. Conservative Members made it clear that they wanted single-sex schools, Muslim schools and schools dominated by a particular religious ethos to the exclusion of any other.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that Catholics should have the right to separate education but that Jews and Muslims should not?

§ Mr. McAllion
The hon. Gentleman is not even aware of the changes to be made by the Government. Anyone will be able to gain entry to a Catholic school but will not have to attend any religious classes. That is not the case now. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman suggested that that should be the case in schools which opt out. That is what he and his hon. Friends have sought in supporting the Bill.
The Bill paves the way for the privatisation of further education colleges in Scotland by setting up private companies to manage them. In the process it dismantles the existing structure of pay and conditions for staff. It also establishes technology academies, based on the principle of creaming off the best and brightest pupils from Scottish education, and concentrates an unfair proportion of available resources on them. It reintroduces compulsory national testing into primary schools, which implies branding pupils as either successes or failures at seven and 11. The Bill introduces teacher appraisal, not as a means of strengthening career structures but to allow boards of management to weed out teachers whose faces do not fit—perhaps teachers who represent the EIS, progressive 208 teachers or those who put the needs of pupils before the prejudices of a minority of parents who dominate the board.
Conservative and Opposition Members agree that the provisions in the Bill are radical. Our disagreement is on their desirability. Are the changes necessary, given the state of Scottish education? The answer is no. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about capital spending on primary and secondary schools in Scotland in the past 10 years. The answer provided by the Minister of State, Scottish Office was that this year, the Government have spent about half as much on schools in Scotland as the Labour Government spent in 1978–79. At current prices the Labour Government spent £108 million on primary and secondary schools in 1978–79 whereas this Government are likely to spend £57 million in 1988–89. What is necessary for education in Scotland is that the Government release resources to improve school buildings. The introduction of divisive and offensive measures which nobody in Scotland wants is unnecessary.
Are the measures in the Bill popular in Scotland? The answer is overwhelmingly no. At St. John's primary school in Alva, parents had themselves elected to the school board with the explicit intention of preventing any changes from being introduced through the medium of the school board. Some parents might have wanted the school to opt out of local authority control.
The evidence that we are considering is not only anecdotal. In the time that has elapsed since we previously discussed the Bill in Committee and on Report, huge press interest has been excited in Scotland about our consideration of the Bill. On occasions, the Committee proceedings seemed more like rival press briefings to put the message across in Scotland than serious examination of the Bill. Both sides were guilty of that. No one can deny that Scottish people are aware of the measures in the Bill.
Subsequently, there have been elections to school boards. They have focused parental interest on the Government's attempt to change education in Scotland. Since then, the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science has been elevated to the chairmanship of the Tory party, which, as he would argue, could mean an increase in Tory party campaigning in Scotland to put the Conservative message across. It is undeniable that the message is getting across to the people of Scotland. They have received it and they understand it—

§ It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings On the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of them, pursuant to the Order [3 May].

§ The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 198.

211

Division No. 406]	[4.56 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Baldry, Tony
Aitken, Jonathan	Batiste, Spencer
Alexander, Richard	Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Bellingham, Henry
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bendall, Vivian
Amess, David	Bevan, David Gilroy
Amos, Alan	Biffen, Rt Hon John
Arbuthnot, James	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ashby, David	Body, Sir Richard
Aspinwall, Jack	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Atkins, Robert	Boscawen, Hon Robert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Boswell, Tim
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

209

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Bowis, John	Hind, Kenneth
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Hordern, Sir Peter
Brazier, Julian	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bright, Graham	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Buck, Sir Antony	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Budgen, Nicholas	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Burns, Simon	Irvine, Michael
Butcher, John	Jack, Michael
Butler, Chris	Jackson, Robert
Butterfill, John	Jessel, Toby
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Carrington, Matthew	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Churchill, Mr	Key, Robert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Kilfedder, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Kirkhope, Timothy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Knapman, Roger
Colvin, Michael	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Conway, Derek	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Knowles, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Knox, David
Cormack, Patrick	Lang, Ian
Couchman, James	Latham, Michael
Cran, James	Lawrence, Ivan
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Lee, John (Pendle)
Curry, David	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Day, Stephen	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Dicks, Terry	Lightbown, David
Dorrell, Stephen	Lilley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Dunn, Bob	Lord, Michael
Durant, Tony	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Dykes, Hugh	Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Evennett, David	Maclean, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fallon, Michael	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Favell, Tony	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Madel, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Malins, Humfrey
Fishburn, John Dudley	Mans, Keith
Fookes, Dame Janet	Maples, John
Forman, Nigel	Marland, Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Forth, Eric	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fox, Sir Marcus	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Freeman, Roger	Mates, Michael
French, Douglas	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gale, Roger	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gardiner, George	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Gill, Christopher	Mills, Iain
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mitchell, Sir David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Moate, Roger
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Monro, Sir Hector
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Gregory, Conal	Morrison, Sir Charles
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Grist, Ian	Mudd, David
Ground, Patrick	Neale, Gerrard
Grylls, Michael	Nelson, Anthony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Neubert, Michael
Hague, William	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Nicholls, Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hannam, John	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Norris, Steve
Harris, David	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Haselhurst, Alan	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayward, Robert	Page, Richard

210

Paice, James	Stevens, Lewis
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Patnick, Irvine	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Pawsey, James	Stokes, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Sumberg, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Summerson, Hugo
Porter, David (Waveney)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Powell, William (Corby)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Price, Sir David	Temple-Morris, Peter
Raffan, Keith	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Rathbone, Tim	Thorne, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Thornton, Malcolm
Rhodes James, Robert	Thurnham, Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Tracey, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Tredinnick, David
Rost, Peter	Trotter, Neville
Rowe, Andrew	Twinn, Dr Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Ryder, Richard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Sackville, Hon Tom	Waller, Gary
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Walters, Sir Dennis
Sayeed, Jonathan	Ward, John
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Warren, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Watts, John
Shelton, Sir William	Wheeler, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Widdecombe, Ann
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wilkinson, John
Sims, Roger	Wilshire, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wolfson, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wood, Timothy
Speller, Tony	Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Yeo, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Squire, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Stern, Michael

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Crowther, Stan
Alton, David	Cryer, Bob
Anderson, Donald	Cummings, John
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cunningham, Dr John
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Darling, Alistair
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Dewar, Donald
Beckett, Margaret	Dixon, Don
Bell, Stuart	Dobson, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Douglas, Dick
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Duffy, A. E. P.
Blair, Tony	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Boateng, Paul	Eadie, Alexander
Boyes, Roland	Eastham, Ken
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Buchan, Norman	Fatchett, Derek
Buckley, George J.	Faulds, Andrew
Callaghan, Jim	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Fisher, Mark
Canavan, Dennis	Flannery, Martin
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Flynn, Paul
Cartwright, John	Foster, Derek
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Fyfe, Maria
Clay, Bob	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Clelland, David	Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	George, Bruce
Coleman, Donald	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Corbett, Robin	Golding, Mrs Llin
Corbyn, Jeremy	Gould, Bryan
Cousins, Jim	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Cox, Tom	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

211

Grocott, Bruce	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Harman, Ms Harriet	O'Brien, William
Heffer, Eric S.	O'Neill, Martin
Henderson, Doug	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hinchliffe, David	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)	Parry, Robert
Home Robertson, John	Patchett, Terry
Hood, Jimmy	Pendry, Tom
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Pike, Peter L.
Hoyle, Doug	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Prescott, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Primarolo, Dawn
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Radice, Giles
Illsley, Eric	Randall, Stuart
Ingram, Adam	Redmond, Martin
Janner, Grevilie	Richardson, Jo
Johnston, Sir Russell	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Robertson, George
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Rogers, Allan
Kennedy, Charles	Rooker, Jeff
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kirkwood, Archy	Rowlands, Ted
Lamond, James	Ruddock, Joan
Leighton, Ron	Salmond, Alex
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Sedgemore, Brian
Lewis, Terry	Sheerman, Barry
Litherland, Robert	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Livingstone, Ken	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard	Sillars, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Skinner, Dennis
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Loyden, Eddie	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
McAllion, John	Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
McAvoy, Thomas	Snape, Peter
McCartney, Ian	Soley, Clive
Macdonald, Calum A.	Spearing, Nigel
McFall, John	Steinberg, Gerry
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Stott, Roger
McKelvey, William	Strang, Gavin
McLeish, Henry	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McNamara, Kevin	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McWilliam, John	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Turner, Dennis
Marek, Dr John	Vaz, Keith
Marshall, David (Srieffleston)	Wall, Pat
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wallace, James
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Walley, Joan
Martlew, Eric	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Maxton, John	Wareing, Robert N.
Meacher, Michael	Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Meale, Alan	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Michael, Alun	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Wilson, Brian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Winnick, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morgan, Rhodri	Worthington, Tony
Morley, Elliot	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mowlam, Marjorie
Mullin, Chris	Tellers for the Noes:
Murphy, Paul	Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.
Nellist, Dave

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Resolved,

§ That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:

§ Lords Amendments

§ (2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendments 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment 212 65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Length of period
Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93and 94.	One hour and thirty minutes.
Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.	Two hours.
Nos. 30 to 36.	Two hours and thirty minutes.
Remaining Lords Amendments.	Three hours.

§ 2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

§ (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

213

§ Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

§ 3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

§ (2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

§ Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

§ 4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

§ (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

§ (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

§ (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to put it on record 214 that we are left with 15 minutes in which to consider 40 amendments to this important legislation. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that many of these amendments are technical, but the first group that we are about to debate contains some significant ones, including those relating to special needs. The system does not allow Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies adequate time in which to debate these vital issues. I want that clearly on the record. I ask you whether there is any way in which we can remedy this ridiculous situation.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Let me answer the last point first. There is no way in which I can make any alterations. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Secondly, the hon. Lady is correct to say that we had very little time. These points of order are taking time from these important amendments.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Within the rules of the House, how is it possible for us to make an adequate protest against the fact that Scottish National party members were deliberately kept off the Committee considering this Bill, and that even the SNP Member who did serve on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), was not allowed to participate in the guillotine debate? Ours was the only party not allowed to participate in the debate—not because we do not want to, but because the House does not allow us in.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
No hon. Member is being deliberately kept off, and the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House when we should be moving on to consider important amendments.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask whether this contemptuous treatment of Scottish business and the debating of such important amendments in such a ridiculously short time was agreed through the usual channels?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The House has come to a conclusion on this resolution. At this stage, that cannot be changed.