§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education 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—
- (a) grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools;
- (b) loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;
- (c) payments in respect of expenses incurred in connection with any maintained special school becoming a grant-maintained special school; and
- (d) grants to the governing bodies of grant-maintained special schools, including governing bodies in liquidation.—[Mr. Boswell.]
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
The Minister has chosen to move the money resolution formally. That is not only a great shame, because a great deal of explanation is needed, but is a gross discourtesy to the House. I regret the Minister's decision. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to speak in the debate later.
The fact that we are discussing an additional money resolution this evening is further proof of the Government's disarray on the Education Bill. Their disarray is not surprising, especially to those of us who warned them that they should not embark on a Bill of such magnitude without proper and full consultation. The Government may well face further difficulties. The Bill has been guillotined and debate on significant and important matters is now severely restricted, which could lead to difficulties later.
Time is limited in this sort of debate, so I shall try to be brief. That is difficult, not least because the money resolution is yet another example of the abuse of power by a Government who have been in power for too long.
We do not even have details on two of the key items covered by the money resolution. It is a contempt of the House to ask it to vote on the resolution when hon. Members have not yet seen the details on which we are voting. For example, we have no details of paragraph (a)—grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools",although we were told last week that we would be given them within a few days. We have no details on paragraph (b)—loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools";and we have been told that we will not have them until we reach Report. Nevertheless, the House is being asked to vote on the money resolution this evening. Would the Minister care to tell us why there is such a delay? If it is because Ministers have been consulting on those issues, that is proof that they should have done what we suggested at the beginning and consulted and listened before they introduced the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will answer some of the detailed questions that I want to put to him, some of which might not have been necessary had we been given the details that we should have been given by this stage. For example, on paragraph (a), will the changes proposed allow, as some have suggested, a school to change from one local education authority to another? If so, it could lead to some interesting situations.
821 I want to concentrate on paragraph (b). The Education Reform Act 1988 prevented grant-maintained schools from borrowing money under section 57. The Education Bill, when it was presented to the House, followed that procedure and clause 60 includes a similar restriction. The first question is why this change is proposed now and what consequences it will have for other parts of the Bill, especially clause 60(7) on the granting of mortgages. It is important that the Minister tells us why that change is proposed. It could be that the Government are beginning to realise that some grant-maintained schools are already in financial trouble. The case of Woodruffe school, in Lyme Regis, has hit the headlines, and we wonder whether the measure is designed to bail out schools that are in financial difficulties. If so, we have several questions to ask about the proper control and accountability of taxpayers' money.
The provision, of which we have no details, raises several important questions that grant-maintained schools and their governors will want answered. How much will schools be allowed to borrow, and what will be the security? From whom will the schools be able to borrow—the private sector or the Treasury? If it is the Treasury, on what basis will bids be judged? Will the Treasury make the final decision after assessing the merits of one school as against another, or will the Secretary of State have some say in approving bids? Will the total amount be cash limited?
I hope that the Minister will place this provision—and he may know more of its details—in the context of the funding agency, and say where it stands in all of this. In Committee, we spent considerable time debating the funding authority for schools—we might say not enough time, but we tried to investigate the detail of how that system would operate in practice.
Throughout those debates, there was no mention by Ministers of loans for grant-maintained schools. Why was that? Was it because Ministers have only just thought of this measure, or were they keeping quiet until the guillotine was in place? During our debate on the funding authority, Ministers made it clear that the authority could not borrow from the Treasury because it was a non-departmental public body. Will the loans mechanism be a means by which grant-maintained schools can bypass the funding agency?
We need to know also what will be the criteria for a loan and who will be able to borrow. Will the 400-plus grant-maintained schools that account for the two thirds majority of such schools which did not get any part of the capital allocation today be eligible to apply for loans that will in effect bypass the funding authority in future? Those important details should have been brought before the House before right hon. and hon. Members were asked to sanction the resolution.
Crucially for the governors of grant-maintained schools, how will loans be repaid? If there is a problem with repayment, who will be liable—the governors in office at the time that the school defaulted on its loan repayment, or the governors who took out the loan on behalf of the school? Is it significant that paragraph (d) covers the liquidation of a grant-maintained school?
It is incumbent on the Minister to say how there is to be proper accountability of the fund. The funding authority for schools will not be subject to the Audit Commission. The resolution seems like another move away from public accountability.
822 Paragraph (c) of the resolution deals with payments for the establishment of grant-maintained special schools. Let me ask the Minister two specific questions. First, will he confirm that it is still Government policy to integrate children with special needs into mainstream provision whenever possible? The Minister nods. If that is so, will he 'acknowledge that the move to grant-maintained special schools could freeze the move towards integration—or, indeed, set it back—if those special schools followed other grant-maintained schools and measured success in terms of school rolls, trying to attract more pupils?
There is a real danger that giving special schools grant-maintained status could militate against integration. Few people involved in special education seem to see this as a way forward. We shall, of course, have time to debate the matter in Committee, but I hope that, if it is still Government policy to promote integration, the Minister will think again.
Secondly, where does the pressure come from for grant-maintained status for special schools? The discussions that we have had suggest that there is little support for it; indeed, I am told that there has been only one specific source of pressure. The head of a special school in Waltham Forest is keen to push for such status, with the support of Lord Tebbit. I should not be surprised to learn that that was the only source of pressure, and the Ministers felt that they should respond to the person concerned. I ask the Minister to think again, and to listen to those with experience in special education.
It is wrong for Ministers to table a resolution such as this without giving details of how the money will be spent. We do not know enough about the provisions to which the resolution refers; what we do know worries us considerably. Yet again, the Government's priorities are wrong. When Ministers start providing money to tackle the real problems in education—the lack of books, oversized classes and so forth—they will show that they understand the problems faced by so many people in education today.
The resolution is not relevant to the main problems that we face, and we will vote against it.
§ Mr. Don Foster (Bath)
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has raised some important questions. It is vital that, before we vote on the motion, we are given detailed answers to those questions. However, it would not serve the House well if I delayed the vote by repeating what she said, or referring to it directly. I shall therefore take up just one issue, which concerns the whole Bill and is highlighted by the existence of the motion. I refer to the problem created by the lack of consultation on all aspects of the Bill.
On Second Reading, I said that the Bill had beenproudly hailed by the Secretary of State as the largest ever piece of educational legislation"—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. The debate is very circumscribed. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the motion; he cannot refer to general debates about consultation, or to points made on Second Reading.
§ Mr. Foster
I am raising the issue of consultation because it highlights the difficulty that surrounds the motion. The motion was tabled because of a failure to engage in adequate consultation about the four issues covered by the motion, and I fear that there has been the 823 same lack of consultation about all the other aspects of the Bill. I hope, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept that I am in order in that respect.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
So long as the hon. Gentleman continues to develop his argument in relation to the money resolution, he is in order, but if he goes wider than that he is not in order.
§ Mr. Foster
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making, which I believe is relevant, is that during the Second Reading debate I said that this was the largest ever piece of education legislation that there had ever been and that there had been what I understood to be almost the shortest consultation period. I went on to say:If what we hear is true, the shortness of that period has caught out even Department of Education officials. It is almost certain"—I said at that time—
that the Bill will receive as many amendments from them as it will from Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 671.]The money resolution is designed to enable the Government to introduce a very large number of additional amendments that were not considered when the Bill was drafted. What should concern all hon. Members is that a number of the amendments that the Government intend to table relating to the four issues referred to in the money resolution will not be debated in Committee. The Minister has accepted that the Standing Committee has already considered the clauses that refer specifically to the issues raised in the money resolution.
I shall be unable to support the money resolution because the Government have provided us with no details of the four issues with which it deals. That, sadly, is a reflection on the way in which the Government treat the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill, the whole House and the rest of the country. I hope that detailed answers will be given to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Apart from that, I am very concerned about the lack of information as a result of detailed consultations not having taken place.
§ Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend)
A number of points need to be made, to which the Minister ought to respond in some detail.
By voting for the money resolution we would, in effect, give a blank cheque to the Government. So much is left unsaid and unprovided for in the money resolution. Many hon. Members need further details to be provided before they will be prepared even to consider supporting the Government.
I intend to refer to two aspects of the money resolution. Paragraph (b) refers to loans being made available to grant-maintained schools. Section 57 of the Education Reform Act 1988 specifically excludes grant-maintained schools from borrowing money or receiving loans. Can the Minister tell us why, in the light of experience, it is now believed to be essential that such a power should be given to grant-maintained schools? Many of us feel that it is simply because the present grants, which effectively are gifts from central Government to grant-maintained schools, will no longer be made available.
824 Under the present capital spending system, central Government give to individual grant-maintained schools a sum of money. No debt charges are incurred by those schools. Therefore, they can proceed with their capital spending in the knowledge that there will be no additional charge on revenue. The Government now realise that the result of continuing that financial regime could lead to a real financial burden. It is interesting that the applications made by many grant-maintained schools for capital spending this year will be bitterly disappointed by the miserly capital approvals that the Department has made. We had a flavour of that in the summer when the Department sent a letter to every grant-maintained school stating that it was not worth bidding for important capital projects such as a new sixth form block, library provision, sports facilities or drama and play facilities. They would no longer be accepted by the Department for capital grants. What a change we have seen in the past 18 months or two years.
Is the money resolution a way of circumventing that regime, knowing that the cap will be placed on capital grants? If grant-maintained schools now want capital, they will have to get a loan from the relevant Government Department. Is the purpose of the resolution to cover the day-to-day running costs of grant-maintained schools? A number of grant-maintained schools are experiencing great financial difficulties and are trading at a loss, to use the market phraseology of which the Government are so fond. Will the Government give a subsidy to those schools?
It is all part of the deceit that the Government have played on parents. The attractions of grant-maintained status were presented as "additional resources for your school and greater freedom" but the reality is quite different.
The purpose of the money resolution is to offer the Government an opportunity to give additional resources to grant-maintained schools. We must note that those resources will be loans, and there are some important questions that the Minister must answer about the nature of those loans. For instance, what terms will be attached to them? Will they be at a rate of interest? If so, will it be a fixed rate or a variable rate tied to the market? Does it have to be repaid over a fixed term? Indeed, what will be the repayment period for a loan? What will be the security on the loan if the grant-maintained school defaults? Will it be secured on the buildings, plant and equipment of a school, or will the liability fall on the school governors? What will be the relevant body? Will the loan come from the Department for Education, and if so what part will the funding agency play? Will it express a view on whether such an application should be agreed? Will the Department have an annual budget, stated in the accounts, from which loans will be made, or will it be an uncapped amount that can increase and decrease depending on demand from individual schools? Will there be a limit on how much loan a school can get each year from the Department? These questions need to be answered by the Minister because there is not a word in the money resolution to deal with those facts.
Finally, what about the audit arrangements? The Minister will be aware that the National Audit Office has conducted an investigation into the auditing procedures of grant-maintained schools. Its report is due to be published within weeks. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will adopt the recommendations of the 825 report in the Committee considering the Education Bill? Does the Minister agree that the Audit Commission can play a valuable role in the process and that what is good enough for health service trusts is good enough for grant-maintained schools? Auditors for health service trusts are appointed by the Audit Commission; auditors for the grant-maintained sector are not. In view of the fact that grant-maintained schools now receive loans, does the Minister agree that they should be subject to the same auditing process as the national health service trusts? They are important questions because we may be considering potentially large sums of public money.
Paragraph (c) of the resolution covers the payment of expenses for local authority-maintained special schools to become grant-maintained schools. Will the Minister confirm that such special schools can achieve grant-maintained status without a vote by parents? The Government have already conceded that the funding agency will have the power to set up mainstream—if I can call them that—grant-maintained schools without a parental vote. Will the same apply to special schools? The Minister needs to make that clear. As I understand it, it will be a possibility, and the Minister needs to explain why parental views and democracy will no longer extend to the grant-maintained sector. We know that they no longer extend to mainstream schools because the change can occur without a parental ballot, but will the same happen in special schools?
The money resolution proves how bankrupt Government thinking is on education. It does nothing to improve standards, raise the quality of education or extend parental choice. For those reasons, we shall vote against it.
§ 11.5 pm
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)
I am extremely concerned about paragraph (b). The cat was let out of the bag in Committee by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I said that schools would go bankrupt and he replied that colleges of further and higher education went millions of pounds into the red but that it did not matter. That comes from a leading education spokesman for his party, so it is clearly a method of avoiding bankruptcy.
Voluntary aided schools are undoubtedly playing roulette by promising and pledging their buildings which belong to them. They are pledging them against borrowing money—that is not only roulette but Russian roulette.
§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory with the column number in Hansard and the date when I am alleged to have made that statement? He and I enjoy ourselves in Committee, but may I say gently that I am a little surprised that he did not tell me that he was going to refer to me.
§ Mr. Enright
I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, but, as the money order did not appear in my post until this afternoon and I have not seen hide nor hair of the hon. Gentleman since then, I was unable to do so. If he cares to go to the Library, he will find that it has the most excellent facilities for pointing out to him the column in which he made his allegations.
826 I return to the warning I gave to voluntary aided schools—"Do not risk giving this shabby lot your goods and chattels."
§ Mr. Pawsey
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman referred to me by name, as it were, I asked him to provide the column reference and date of the statement that I am alleged to have made. He has not replied. Do you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's lack of information is that the reference should be withdrawn as he is unable to substantiate it?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is a matter for debate. I remind hon. Members that there is a courtesy and a convention in the House that hon. Members, if they intend to mention another hon. Member, should do their very best to inform him or her. A message board is available for that purpose.
§ Mr. Enright
I did my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even latterly, by signalling to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth from a sedentary position, but he was too busy talking to his hon. Friends.
§ 11.9 pm
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
It is gratifying to get a debate such as this on a money resolution. If there were more such debates, it might prevent the Government from tabling sloppy money resolutions in the first place and from turning Parliament into a sausage machine for legislation.
It was as recently as 10 November that the previous money resolution was tabled. If the Government had any idea about what the legislation would cover, they would surely have made adequate provision in the original resolution. They did not. They excluded loans and special schools.
In the previous money resolution, the item in respect of expenses in connection with a maintained school becoming a grant-maintained school applied specifically to balloting. There was a brief debate which, the House may be surprised to learn, I instituted. In a rather bland and effortless reply, the Minister said that the item applied to balloting. Does paragraph (c) relate to balloting or not? Apart from the word "special", the terms are identical to those in the money resolution of 10 November.
I want to give the Minister time to reply adequately, although, if he does, it will be the first time for many months that a Minister has replied adequately on a money resolution. Most Ministers regard a two-minute speech and no information as an adequate reply.
I am pleased to see, once again, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) here after 10.30 pm. I hope that she will keep her attendance in the Chamber consistent and that she will not disappear and slope off before 10.30 pm as was suggested to me previously.
The question of loans is important and a number of issues have been raised. Under paragraph (b), can loans be made without interest payments? Will there be no terms on repayment? Could there be open-ended repayment terms? What rules will be laid down? Where can we see them? Will they be placed in the Library for reference so that we know that, wherever and to whoever the loans are made, the terms will be standard?
Grant-maintained schools are a stage on the journey to the private sector. Why do the Government seek to 827 support them with taxpayers' money by further subventions? Under the terms of the money resolution, there are no clear limitations on the terms.
I have asked an important question. The Government were not thinking about the point when they tabled the original resolution on 10 November. That was only two and a half months ago. Surely the Government should achieve a better standard of competence in dealing with Parliament rather than expecting money resolutions to go through on the nod time after time whether hon. Members want them or not. That will not happen. I am pleased that a debate has taken place tonight as a warning to the Government that they must attain a degree of competence in dealing with Parliament.
§ Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood)
It is clear from what hon. Members have said that the sound that we hear is that of chickens coming home to roost. All the things that were said about the financial side of the Education Bill on Second Reading, which we must not talk about again, are becoming apparent in the money resolution. The Government are desperately trying to fill the gaps. Indeed, those points were made on Second Reading. The strange thing about the money resolution, particularly in respect of the provision about loans, is that it appears that the Government are simply making it up as they go along—not least because the Government, in something of a hurry, issued a document on the funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools only just before Christmas.
Once again, that document asked more questions than it answered. That has been the pattern as the Bill has progressed through the House. One would have thought that the Government could have found a way of explaining in that document why they wanted to make new financial provisions. If there were to be loan arrangements for grant-maintained schools, the Government could have informed the House about that in that document.
However, there was no mention of loans in the "Dear John" letter that accompanied the document. There was no mention of the requirements now being asked of the House in the money resolution. We have the desperate sight of a Bill that is full of holes that are having to be filled as the Bill makes progress. One wonders how many more such resolutions will be necessary.
My second point relates to school governors. It is already clear that governors of all schools, and particularly governors of schools that have the prospect of grant-maintained status and those that already have GM status, are extremely anxious about their responsibilities. In addition to their existing anxieties about their obligations, they are to be asked to undertake loans on unspecified terms and in respect of which the liabilities are not identified.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out clearly and directly to the governors of grant-maintained schools, as they now face the prospect of taking out loans for the first time, on what terms the loans are to be taken out and what liabilities they carry. Nothing else will be satisfactory.
§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister has finally presented himself in Parliament, he might at least have the courage to address the House.
§ Mr. Connarty
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I said the Minister, I meant the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that a point of order is a matter for the Chair. He should not make a party-political point.
§ Mr. Boswell
Before I was interrupted, I was going to say that half a dozen Opposition Members put up a fine show of synthetic indignation and asked a battery of questions. I will cut out the indignation in my response and concentrate on some of the questions.
I want first to establish that I have no apologies to make to the House for the handling of this matter. We consulted the interested parties in the greatest detail on these extremely important matters. As soon as our consultations were complete and our preparations were laid, we were able to present the amendments. We notified the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends as soon as possible in the interests of the fullest debate. That debate will take place next week, in the debate on new clauses or at the appropriate stage on Report.
I want to answer the questions that have been raised. If I fail to answer any of them in the short time left to me, I hope to respond at Question Time or in our subsequent debates in Committee.
I want to deal first with what I believe is the most substantial part of the money resolution—although this view was not shared by some hon. Members—and that is the part relating to grant-maintained special schools in respect of which the amendments have now been tabled by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools.
I confirm to the hon. Member for Dewsbury that integration—which all hon. Members welcome—of special needs children is enshrined in clause 143 and there is no question of freezing the integration process. That is not our intention. I confirm also that it would be possible for the funding agency for schools to establish a grant-maintained special school. It would hardly be possible to consult the parents of a school which did not exist at that time.
Dealing with the perhaps technical but minor provision on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury barely touched, the first part of the money resolution reflects a tidying-up of the long history—all the way back to the Butler Act, with all its subsequent accretions—of the rules covering advances made and grants made to aided schools. That brings the matter into a modern form; it has been substantially agreed with the churches. Indeed, that is why the time has been required.
The second part of the resolution has most concerned the House. It relates to loans. A fine body of indignation and confusion was weaved around the matter. Certain 829 hon. Members decided to play it as if it were intended either to bail out grant-maintained schools or to provide them with massive extra funding.
§ Mr. Boswell
I will deal with the point if the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) will allow me the three and a half minutes left to respond to it.
As for the capital side, we are proposing under this head, exactly as for aided schools—or as near as possible —that if promoters bring forward a grant-maintained school proposal and it is agreed, 85 per cent. of the cost can and will be met by grant from my right hon. Friend. The balance can be borrowed just as it can be by the promoters of an aided school. That is the purpose.
There is a more general point in relation to recurrent funding. It has nothing whatever to do with long-term capital expenditure. The provisions in the resolution try to replicate as nearly as possible the arrangements under the local management of schools where it is possible for a school under LMS to be more favourably placed than under GM because it can carry forward a deficit until a subsequent year—a deficit which might, for example, arise because of a change in the numbers on roll.
I refer to the specific case that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury—Woodruffe school in Dorset. That school came into the grant-maintained sector with a £70,000 inherited deficit from the Dorset LEA. That arose under the existing LEA's LMS scheme. As a grant-maintained school hitherto, it is being denied the flexibility which it enjoyed under LMS and that is clearly unfair. The proposal will rectify that for other grant-maintained schools. There will be no proposal under these terms for long-term funding. The money will have to be repaid, normally in the subsequent year.
Several hon. Members asked for further details of the terms and conditions. They will be set out in the published regulations, including the payment period and rates of interest. No school will be allowed a loan if it is likely to default. If it did, individual governors would not be liable. We shall abide by Treasury rules.
As for the point on mortgages, there is no question of our seeking to change the bar on mortgages set out in clause 60(7), nor is there any intention of permitting loans to the private sector.
Those are sensible, realisitic changes which facilitate improvements in the Bill and the fair treatment of grant-maintained schools and voluntary schools alongside those in the maintained sector. I commend the resolution to the House.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 152.832
|Division No. 124]||[11.23 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Baldry, Tony|
|Alexander, Richard||Banks, Matthew (Southport)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Bates, Michael|
|Ailason, Rupert (Torbay)||Batiste, Spencer|
|Amess, David||Bendall, Vivian|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Beresford, Sir Paul|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Biffen, Rt Hon John|
|Ashby, David||Blackburn, Dr John G.|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bonsor, Sir Nicholas|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Boswell, Tim|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Bowis, John|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Heald, Oliver|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Brazier, Julian||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Hendry, Charles|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Hicks, Robert|
|Browning, Mrs. Angela||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Burns, Simon||Horam, John|
|Butcher, John||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Butterfill, John||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hunter, Andrew|
|Cash, William||Jack, Michael|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Chaplin, Mrs Judith||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Chapman, Sydney||Jessel, Toby|
|Clappison, James||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Key, Robert|
|Congdon, David||Kilfedder, Sir James|
|Conway, Derek||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Knapman, Roger|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Couchman, James||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Cran, James||Knox, David|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Day, Stephen||Legg, Barry|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Leigh, Edward|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Dover, Den||Lidington, David|
|Duncan, Alan||Lightbown, David|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Dunn, Bob||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Lord, Michael|
|Dykes, Hugh||Luff, Peter|
|Elletson, Harold||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Maclean, David|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Maitland, Lady Olga|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Malone, Gerald|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Mans, Keith|
|Evennett, David||Marlow, Tony|
|Faber, David||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas||Merchant, Piers|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Milligan, Stephen|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Mills, Iain|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Forman, Nigel||Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Forth, Eric||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Moss, Malcolm|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Needham, Richard|
|Freeman, Roger||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|French, Douglas||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Gale, Roger||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Gallie, Phil||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Garnier, Edward||Norris, Steve|
|Gill, Christopher||Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair||Paice, James|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Patnick, Irvine|
|Gorst, John||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Pawsey, James|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Pickles, Eric|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hague, William||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Portillo, Rt Hon Michael|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Rathbone, Tim|
|Hargreaves, Andrew||Richards, Rod|
|Harris, David||Riddick, Graham|
|Hawkins, Nick||Robathan, Andrew|
|Hawksley, Warren||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Hayes, Jerry||Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Thomason, Roy|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Ryder, Rt Hon Richard||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Sackville, Tom||Thurnham, Peter|
|Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Tredinnick, David|
|Shersby, Michael||Trend, Michael|
|Sims, Roger||Viggers, Peter|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Walden, George|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Waller, Gary|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Speed, Sir Keith||Watts, John|
|Spencer, Sir Derek||Wells, Bowen|
|Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)||Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Spink, Dr Robert||Whittingdale, John|
|Spring, Richard||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Sproat, Iain||Wilkinson, John|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Willetts, David|
|Steen, Anthony||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Stephen, Michael||Wood, Timothy|
|Stern, Michael||Yeo, Tim|
|Streeter, Gary||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Sykes, John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Mr. James Arbuthnot and|
|Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)||Mr. Andrew MacKay.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Cohen, Harry|
|Ainger, Nick||Connarty, Michael|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Cryer, Bob|
|Alton, David||Cummings, John|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)|
|Ashton, Joe||Dalyell, Tam|
|Austin-Walker, John||Darling, Alistair|
|Barnes, Harry||Davidson, Ian|
|Battle, John||Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)|
|Beith, Rt Hon A. J.||Denham, John|
|Bell, Stuart||Dixon, Don|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Dowd, Jim|
|Bennett, Andrew F.||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Benton, Joe||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Betts, Clive||Eastham, Ken|
|Blair, Tony||Enright, Derek|
|Boyce, Jimmy||Etherington, Bill|
|Bradley, Keith||Fatchett, Derek|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)|
|Burden, Richard||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Byers, Stephen||Fyfe, Maria|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Gapes, Mike|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||George, Bruce|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Gerrard, Neil|
|Cann, Jamie||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Godsiff, Roger|
|Clapham, Michael||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Gordon, Mildred|
|Clelland, David||Graham, Thomas|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Coffey, Ann||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Mullin, Chris|
|Gunnell, John||Murphy, Paul|
|Hall, Mike||O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)|
|Hanson, David||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Hardy, Peter||O'Hara, Edward|
|Heppell, John||Pickthall, Colin|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Home Robertson, John||Pope, Greg|
|Hood, Jimmy||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Prescott, John|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Hutton, John||Purchase, Ken|
|Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Jamieson, David||Raynsford, Nick|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Roche, Mrs. Barbara|
|Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)||Rooney, Terry|
|Khabra, Piara S.||Ruddock, Joan|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Short, Clare|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Simpson, Alan|
|Leighton, Ron||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Terry||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Spearing, Nigel|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Loyden, Eddie||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|McAllion, John||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Tipping, Paddy|
|McFall, John||Turner, Dennis|
|McMaster, Gordon||Vaz, Keith|
|McNamara, Kevin||Walley, Joan|
|Mahon, Alice||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Mandelson, Peter||Wareing, Robert N|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Winnick, David|
|Martlew, Eric||Wise, Audrey|
|Meale, Alan||Worthington, Tony|
|Michael, Alun||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Miller, Andrew||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Morley, Elliot||Mr. Eric Illsley and|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Mr. John Spellar.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education 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—
- (a) grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools;
- (b) loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;
- (c) payments in respect of expenses incurred in connection with any maintained special school becoming a grant-maintained special school; and
- (d) grants to the governing bodies of grant-maintained special schools, including governing bodies in liquidation.