§ 87B.—(1) The Secretary of State may impose on a person appointed under section 87A(1) ("an authorised inspector") such requirements relating to, or in connection with, the carrying out under substitution agreements of the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
§ (2) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that there has been a failure to comply with section 87(1) in the case of a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates, the inspector shall give notice of that fact to the Secretary of State.
§ (3) Where, in the course of carrying out under a substitution agreement the function mentioned in section 87A(2)(b), it appears to an authorised inspector that a child provided with accommodation by the school to which the agreement relates is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, the inspector shall—
- (a) give notice of that fact to the local authority in whose area the school is situated, and
- (b) where the inspector is required to make inspection reports to the Secretary of State, supply that local authority with a copy of the latest inspection report to have been made by the inspector to the Secretary of State in relation to the school.
§ (4) In this section—
- (a) "proprietor" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1944, and
- (b) references to substitution agreement are to an agreement between an authorised inspector and the proprietor of an independent school by virtue of which the local authority's duty in relation to the school under section 87(3) is suspended."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jonathan Evans.]
§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
This is another group of amendments to which we take the gravest exception, and we shall divide the House.
It is wrong that the Minister should seek to remove from the public domain and to privatise the inspection of independent schools. Under the legislation, the schools will be entitled to choose their inspectors and to pay for them. We all know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the basic flaw in the legislation.
The party that has done so much to support the private inspectorate service is making sure that tenders are given and that private schools will be able to have their own inspection system. That commands almost no support from independent bodies and there is no support from any body that is not directly concerned with the profit-making private school sector. We shall oppose the amendments.
§ Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)
I oppose Lords amendment No. 26 which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said, allows 1521 independent and private boarding schools to opt out of the local authority social services inspection system that was set up under section 87 of the Children Act 1989.
I shall outline my reasons for total opposition to the new clause. It is worth reminding ourselves why section 87 was put in the Children Act. Hon. Members will recall that in the late 1980s there was concern about abuse of children in a small number of private boarding schools. At that time Crookham Court school was highlighted by the "That's Life" programme. I believe that the proprietor and one of the teachers are still serving prison sentences for offences against children in that school. I am glad to say that Crookham Court school was not typical and that most of the boarding schools work to high standards. However, that case highlights one extreme of what can happen if there is no proper system of regulation.
Under section 87 of the Children Act, the local authority social services inspectors inspect for various purposes. First, they respond to complaints or suspicions that there may be abuse of children. Secondly, they inspect to ensure that there is good practice in the schools and that the systems of care are in place. Thirdly, they take action if it is needed and if there are complaints that can be justified.
We were told that the purpose of the Bill is to remove oppressive regulation that creates undue burdens relative to its benefits. I have heard or seen nothing to convince me that the new clause to be added to the Children Act will help in that respect. The Department of Health did a survey of 250 heads of private and independent schools. A total of 77 per cent. of the head teachers said that the social services inspections were useful or very useful. I submit that the schools that were not satisfied with those inspections should attract our greatest concern.
There has been no outcry from the schools about oppressive regulation. In fact, there is clear evidence that there has been widespread satisfaction with the inspections that have taken place. The House has an interest in the matter and we need to legislate both for the general welfare of children and because many of the schools are being supported by the taxpayer to a substantial extent. Each year, private and independent schools receive up to a third of a billion pounds in taxpayers' money through the service boarding scheme, the assisted places scheme and other schemes that Ministries run so that children may receive private education.
In my constituency, a large number of families benefit under the service boarding scheme—my particular interest in this matter. Children, particularly those of service families, are often detached not just in terms of being away from home, but because their parents are in another country. They are, therefore, denied ready and easy access to their parents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said, the main objection to the new clause involves the fact that, to be effective, inspection should be impartial and take a detached view. Most of all, however, it should be independent. The amendment allows private schools to choose their own inspectors—albeit ones approved by the Secretary of State—to carry out that vital inspection under the Children Act, although the school will pay for the 1522 inspection. That creates a client relationship—the school becomes a client of the inspector. How can that possibly be an independent system of inspection?
The big danger is that the relationship between the school and the inspector could become too cosy. The inspection system through local authorities must be proactive. It must be put into action not when it has been stimulated to do so by the school, but when it has been stimulated by other sources or by the need to carry out the inspection at a certain time. I liken the proposed system to a café choosing its own food hygiene inspectors.
I feel that the amendment was spawned in the other place from misleading information. The first amendment was moved by Baroness Young on 4 July this year in the other place. Her statements were made in good faith but they were misleading and inaccurate. I shall cite two. She said:There is hardly an independent school now without a telephone line where children can make private telephone calls home.I have read some of the few Ofsted reports on private schools. One of the criticisms that they consistently make is that those schools do not have private telephone lines so that children can call home in privacy. Often, the telephone is located in a teacher's office with children having to make the call in front of the teacher.
The most misleading information that led the Government to propose the amendment related to Childline, which was set up at that time for six months. Baroness Young stated thatnot a single case of sexual abuse came to light."—[Official Report, House of Lords,4 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1122-23.]
The Minister now knows that that information was inaccurate and totally false. In fact, 155 children rang Childline from private or independent schools and made allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. Another 37 children made complaints of another nature. That must justify having an independent system of inspection and take away any suggestion that inspections can be carried out by bodies appointed by schools. They must be carried out by independent people, working independently.
The Government are pandering to producer interests. I remind the Minister that many of the schools, such as the one that I mentioned earlier, are run by one proprietor, sometimes for private profit. I fear that if the amendment is passed, we shall in the very near future have to return to this issue because of serious concern about the abuse of children.
§ Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith)
I oppose the amendment. I first became interested in the subject when two parents came to see me a few months ago to complain about something that had happened to their children at Fettes college in Edinburgh. I shall not go into details of the various incidents but I wrote to the director of social work about one of them, which makes it relevant to our debate.
Briefly, the incident involved the child of one of the parents being locked up for nine hours without food until a confession of drug-taking had been extracted. The boy denies the charge but, in a sense, that is not relevant to the story. I wrote to the director of social work who wrote back, saying that he could not get involved, although if he were in England he could have got involved. That is one more reason why we must have a children Bill for Scotland and why it must provide for social work departments, as we call them in Scotland—social services 1523 departments in England—to have the power to inspect private schools. From that point, knowing that a children Bill was coming for Scotland, I took it on myself to ensure that I lobbied for that provision.
I was told, not only by the director of social work for Lothian region but by others involved in social work in Scotland, that they were all looking forward to the provision because they had heard from their colleagues in England how helpful it had been in improving the lot of children in public schools. I was, therefore, utterly amazed when I heard fairly recently that it was being sabotaged in another place. I read the report of the debate on 4 July and noted the Government's intention to table their own amendment, which is that which we are debating now.
There is nothing in the amendment to improve the lot of children in boarding schools—quite the opposite, in fact. The bodies set up to protect children can testify to that. We have already heard about Childline and the figures that were possibly not deliberately misquoted in another place. The National Children's Bureau is worried, as is the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I stress that fact to the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs as I am told that he was a parliamentary consultant to that body. I therefore suggest that he listens to what the NSPCC is saying.
To accept the amendment would be a retrograde step. One point that I do not think has been mentioned is that there will be far less frequent inspections. I believe that they will occur once every four years but perhaps the Minister will confirm that. In any event, they will be far too infrequent.
Most important, schools will be able to choose their own inspectors on the "choose and pay" principle. That is the fundamental flaw in the amendment because it means that the school can choose someone much more sympathetic and far less critical than an independent social services or social work department. That was confirmed when I read the debates in another place. I especially remember the speech made by Earl Ferrers, who moved the amendment. I could hardly believe what I was reading. He said that people from social services departments had talked to pupils when teachers—or masters, as he called them—were not present. He thought that that was quite inappropriate, which let the cat out of the bag. The amendment is about protecting the schools, and especially the head teachers, and ensuring that there is no interference in the way they run the schools.
An especially obnoxious feature of the scheme is the kind of people moving the amendment: Earl Ferrers admitted that he was a fellow of Winchester college and Baroness Young, who first suggested it, is chairman of the Governing Bodies of Girls Schools Association, although she did not declare an interest. The public school lobby in the Conservative party is trying to protect what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) called the producer interest while the best interests of the children are not being considered.
What we really have here is a heads charter. Yet what is wrong with public schools at the moment is the fact that heads have far too much power. I have learnt that from my examination of what has been happening at Fettes. When parents—not only those who came to me—complained to the board of governors, the matter was simply referred to the head. Indeed, in the case of Fettes, 1524 writs were sometimes issued if parents made statements in public. All the power is concentrated in the head. 'We need supervision of those schools, but if the amendment were passed we would lose that.
We need not a heads charter but a children's charter. I remind the Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which they have signed. If they read both the small print and the large print of that convention they would realise that they must act to protect children in schools, and must ensure that there is an independent inspectorate.
As for the end of the incident that I described, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) about it, and under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, inspectors have been able to go into Fettes. Although the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber, he probably cannot speak in the debate. None the less, I hope to receive a guarantee that the report will be published.
Even that, however, would take place two years after the incident, and some of the other incidents, happened. It would be far better if there were on-going annual inspections of such schools. That would benefit some, of their present pupils—and if such inspections had taken place in the past, how many more children would have benefited? If we are to believe the book recently written by Jonathan Dimbleby, one of the people who would have benefited would have been the heir to the throne.
§ Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North-West)
I, too, shall speak against Lords amendment No. 26. I apologise for keeping the House up at this hour, but in terms of social policy and children's welfare we are dealing with a substantial matter, which the House should consider carefully even at this late hour.
There is something terribly wrong about tagging such an important debate about social policy on to a Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. If there was a case for an amendment, one should have been introduced by the Department of Health. Ministers from that Department, advised by the social services inspectorate, should have presented an argument to the House at a sensible time. We are talking about a major amendment to the Children Act 1989—an Act for which I commend the Government because it is a major piece of social policy. I hope that the amendment will not be passed; if it is, it will constitute a betrayal of that Act and it stands every chance of harming children.
If the amendment is carried we shall hear in future about cases of abuse within such institutions, and people outside will shake their heads in bewilderment that the amendment was carried at this hour, in such a Bill, and that so little attention was paid to it by most Members of the House. Such a change should not have been presented to the House of Commons in that way, so late, tagged on through a Lords amendment.
There are two important questions. First, does abuse occur in private schools? Secondly, if it does occur, can it be safely and responsibly left to the schools and the schools' own inspectors to cope with the problem?
As I have argued, the background to the measure is nothing to do with deregulation, but involves the growing concern about children's welfare in Britain and in societies such as ours over the past 10 to 15 years—and, sadly, the growing evidence of physical and sexual abuse, 1525 often against very young children. No one can quantify that, or say with any confidence how much abuse occurs in different institutions, but it is clear that abuse occurs.
We know that the child abuser can strike within the child's family, in foster care and in institutional care of different kinds. Our private schools, especially boarding schools, are not immune. That is obvious, and I hope that that much is agreed. The evidence has already been cited that when, for six months in 1991, Childline had a special telephone line, 155 children telephoned with allegations of sexual abuse, mainly by teachers. There were only allegations, and I recognise that we can never find out the truth about them, but to ignore cries of help from young children would be a fatal mistake by the House.
Can regulation be safely left to the schools? I understand that the Secretary of State will keep an eye on who the inspectors are, and that Ofsted has a role. But how often will schools be inspected? From the point of view of a child—perhaps a tiny child—who is being abused and is afraid, how often will the inspectors come around? That is a genuine question which I hope that Ministers can clarify. There is a suggestion that Ofsted might inspect only every 10 years. Is that the case? Will the Independent Schools Joint Council—the school authority itself—inspect only every 10 years?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis)
§ Mr. Wicks
The Minister shakes his head, and I hope that he is right. I have no interest at this hour in making a debating point, but the Minister owes it to the House to tell us how often the schools will be inspected, not least from the perspective of a small child who may be being abused on a day by day, week by week basis.
We are told that the inspectorate teams appointed by schools will contain people with welfare expertise. That was stated in another place. What will be the nature of that welfare expertise? What will be the training and the experience of the people appointed? Are there criteria laid down? The Minister must reassure the House on that point.
There is a question, too, as to how independent the inspectors can be. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again, and I know that there is a difference of opinion in the House as to how independent an inspectorate appointed by and paid for by schools—albeit with some criteria from the Department—can be. I side with those who are concerned that if inspectors are paid by schools which are companies trying to maximise profits, an inspection team which gains a reputation for being tough on child abuse—we should all be tough on child abuse—may not get business in the future.
Will a school that knows that it has a problem say, "We will appoint that team because it was tough in another school"? It defies imagination that that will be the case. Throughout our history, stretching back to the origins of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools—a more noble organisation than Ofsted—we have learnt that inspections must be independent and rigorous if they are to create confidence and make an impact.
Interestingly enough, we have heard that head teachers were cross-examined about that by, I believe, the social services inspectorate. I do not know if that report has been published. If not, it would be useful if the Minister could 1526 tell us when it will be published. We understand that the majority of head teachers found that social services inspections were useful. That seemed to be their evidence—if I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt tell the House.
If the head teachers find the visits useful, why has the amendment appeared? I think that it is because the private school industry—with a lack of imagination about its own role which will lose it the confidence of many parents and much public opinion—decided that it was too much of a bother to have inspections from social services agencies. Clearly, and sadly, the industry used the Government and its contacts in another place, and said, "Look, this is all a great mistake. We are finding this to be a hassle and a nuisance. Some social workers are starting to ask difficult questions. Can you amend the Children Act?"
It is an abuse of the parliamentary system that this matter should be brought forward through a deregulation Bill by Ministers who do not have authority to make judgments about children's welfare. It has come forward as though it were a bit of commercial deregulation, and it will produce major arguments which will adversely effect the welfare of some children. It is a serious matter and I believe that there are serious people on the Conservative Benches who will understand the force of the argument. I hope that they will have the courage, for the sake of our children, to vote accordingly.
In another place, Earl Ferrers said—I am never sure whether one is allowed to quote from the House of Lords—that the amendment had been drafted after discussion with the Independent Schools Joint Council. That is an honest statement and it shows where the impetus comes from: it comes from the industry.
I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions on which he may wish to consult Ministers from the relevant Department before answering. Has he sought the views of major children's organisations about the amendment? If so, what organisations did he consult and what are their views? The House needs to know them. Many of us might regard the views of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau and others as more important in this context than those of the Independent Schools Joint Council.
Secondly, what is the view of Childline? What discussions has the Minister or the relevant Ministry had with Childline about its experience of the nature and incidence of child abuse, either sexual or physical, within children's institutions, which is what independent schools are? The Minister must spend some time telling the House the answer to that question because it is important.
What is the evidence from the Minister's own social services inspectorate? I say the Minister's own, but obviously I mean that of the Department of Health. You will have to excuse me for talking about the relevant Department in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The social services inspectorate has investigated many of the schools and the inspectors are the experts. We have a chief inspector with a status rather like that of the chief medical officer. Was he consulted? What was his advice? The House needs to know the answer to that question if we are to make a wise judgment even at this late hour when wisdom is not always in large quantity.
We know from experience that the child abuser can be found in many institutions. As we have found out more about the problem, we have found that the child abuser is 1527 often ruthless about finding his way into institutions where the most vulnerable are to be found. The paedophile network and paedophiles are remarkably and tragically able to find the weakest points of the system. If we accept the amendment, another weak point will emerge. To suggest that there are not paedophiles in the public school system would be extraordinarily naive. We need to remember that. Paedophiles and child abusers will be in some of the most humble children's welfare institutions. They may also, equally tragically, find their way into some of our most famous public boarding and day schools.
Some child abusers will be fellow pupils. Some will be teachers. Some, I suspect, will be head teachers. After a decade of mounting evidence and concern, the amendment is not only an affront to well-informed opinion in this area but a tragic betrayal of some of our weakest children. We cannot, should not and must not sacrifice the frightened and sometimes abused child on the ideological altar of deregulation.
§ Mr. Jonathan Evans
We have heard some misinformed comment from Opposition Members, possibly as a result of hostility rooted in their objection to the private education system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) correctly pointed to the fact that, prior to my appointment to this office, I was the honorary consultant in the House to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. May I make it clear that the Government do not intend to undermine or reduce in any way welfare protection for children, and the new clause will do nothing of the kind.
The Children Act 1989 currently requires local authority social services departments to take action to satisfy themselves that independent boarding schools are adequately safeguarding the welfare of boarders. I should remind the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given to keep that provision under close review. I have just reassuringly informed my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London that I have a speech on the Children Act which takes an hour and a half. I am sure that my hon. Friends will not want to hear it on this occasion. Thus, the matter has been flagged up as an issue to be kept under review in that way.
The new clause will enable the Secretary of State for Health to appoint to undertake the function of inspection an organisation that already inspects the education service of the school, provided that it has the necessary expertise. It is important to stress what we regard as the necessary expertise. An approved body would be required to follow the same guidance as social services authorities are required to follow in their inspections and would be subject to statutory requirements to notify the Department for Education and local social services authorities as appropriate if it discovers serious concerns.
Inspection teams will be expected to include at least one member with the necessary expertise or experience of running or inspecting residential child care services. It is envisaged that the organisations that wish to carry out the functions must undertake to include at least one such person with that experience.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West asked about frequency, may I inform him that it is expected that inspections should take place no less frequently than every four years, in view of what has been said about the 1528 10-year figure during this debate. The organisations will have a statutory duty to report schools' failure to safeguard welfare to the Secretary of State and report child abuse allegations to local authorities, as I have described.
The new clause will give schools a choice of who should undertake the monitoring arrangements at independent boarding schools, but subject to the same provisions as I have already outlined.
§ Mr. Evans
As the NSPCC has been quoted so much in this debate, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not only local authorities that may undertake inspections in relation to allegations of child abuse. This House has given statutory authority to the NSPCC along exactly the same lines as local authorities. Nobody dismisses the NSPCC's role or expertise in conducting inspections in exactly the same way. So the presumption that only local authorities can undertake that function is misplaced.
§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
In pursuing that point, may I put it a little more succinctly to the Minister? I refer him to the words at the beginning of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) says:the effect of the provision is such as to impose, or authorise or require the imposition of a burden".What is the burden to which the Minister specifically refers? He has yet to explain that.
§ Mr. Evans
I have made it clear that, when the Children Act was passed, a commitment was given that the provision would be kept under review. The proposal does not alter the protection given to children, but if schools so wish, at the time of an education inspection they will be given the alternative of having an inspection undertaken by an organisation that has the necessary expertise, as I have outlined. I make it clear that that is a situation that does not in any way undermine the protection of children, as has been claimed by some Opposition Members.
I consider that protection of children is a matter of special importance. I believe that the measure is sensible.
§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
The Bill is about removing burdens. Which burden is being removed by the measure?
§ Mr. Evans
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government are thereby responding to the commitment given at the time of the passage of the Children Act 1989, and a commitment given in the House.
The measure is sensible. I hope that the House will approve it.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 29.1530
|Division No. 336]||[03.30 am|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Amess, David|
|Alexander, Richard||Arbuthnot, James|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Baldry, Tony||Legg, Barry|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Lidington, David|
|Booth, Hartley||Lightbown, David|
|Boswell, Tim||Luff, Peter|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||MacKay, Andrew|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Maclean, David|
|Bowis, John||Malone, Gerald|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Merchant, Piers|
|Brazier, Julian||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Browning, Mrs. Angela||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Burns, Simon||Norris, Steve|
|Carrington, Matthew||Ottaway, Richard|
|Cash, William||Page, Richard|
|Chapman, Sydney||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Clappison, James||Pickles, Eric|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Colvin, Michael||Richards, Rod|
|Congdon, David||Robathan, Andrew|
|Conway, Derek||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Robinson, Mark (Somerton)|
|Couchman, James||Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Day, Stephen||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Devlin, Tim||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Dover, Den||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Duncan, Alan||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Spring, Richard|
|Elletson, Harold||Stephen, Michael|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Stewart, Allan|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Streeter, Gary|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Sweeney, Walter|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Sykes, John|
|Fabricant, Michael||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Forth, Eric||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|French, Douglas||Thomason, Roy|
|Gallie, Phil||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Garnier, Edward||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Gill, Christopher||Thurnham, Peter|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Gorst, Sir John||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Viggers, Peter|
|Hague, William||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Waller, Gary|
|Hawkins, Nick||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Waterson, Nigel|
|Heald, Oliver||Watts, John|
|Hendry, Charles||Wells, Bowen|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)||Whittingdale, John|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)||Wilkinson, John|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Willetts, David|
|Jessel, Toby||Wolfson, Mark|
|Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)||Wood, Timothy|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Mr. Michael Bates and|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Dr. Liam Fox|
|Barnes, Harry||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Jamieson, David|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Clelland, David||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||McMaster, Gordon|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Miller, Andrew|
|Harvey, Nick||Olner, William|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Purchase, Ken||Welsh, Andrew|
|Rendel, David||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Salmond, Alex||Wise, Audrey|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Spearing, Nigel||Mr. John Spellar and|
|Turner, Dennis||Mr. Jim Dowd|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.