§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells)I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26, after `repayments,' insert—
'(ia) such terms relating to the interest to be borne by the loan,'.
§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 5.
§ Dr. HowellsThis is a small technical amendment to a Bill that is already purely technical. It would require that loan agreements specify how and when inflation is measured in setting the annual interest rate payable on the loans. It involves no change in our policy towards borrowers, or towards the debt sale itself. For the borrowers, the key point remains that they will repay no more in real terms than they borrowed. Interest rates will continue to be pegged to the rate of inflation.
The method used in calculating the annual interest rate already exists in the student loan regulations. The amendment will not change the method, the index used or the period over which inflation is measured. In line with our objectives for the rest of the Bill, we are simply transferring a provision in the loan regulations to loan agreements.
The need for the amendment is straightforward. If we do not introduce it, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will continue to have discretion over the period in which inflation is measured and over which the index is used to measure inflation. We have been advised that even that limited discretion could create potentially significant levels of uncertainty on the part of those buying the loans. That uncertainty would be priced into the bids and would add to the Government's costs. Removing the uncertainty will increase the competitiveness of the bids.
The change is entirely in line with the broad thrust of the Bill. Clause 2 already freezes the time and manner of repayment of the loans and the borrowers' right to deferment and cancellation. The amendment will freeze the method used to calculate the annual rate of interest. There will be no losers from the change. The Government will get more competitive bids, and borrowers and debt purchasers will know where they stand and that no adverse changes can be made at a later date. I urge the House to accept the amendment.
§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)We have no objections.
§ Amendment agreed to.
77
§
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) For paragraph 1(4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
(4) Regulations made in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ia) above shall make such provision with respect to the rate of interest for the time being applicable to a public sector student loan as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amount of the loan.
(5) The provision required by sub-paragraph (4) above shall be framed by reference to such index of prices as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations".'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out '1(3)' and insert
`1(5) (as substituted by subsection (3A) above)'.
No. 4, in page 2, line 33, leave out '(3A)' and insert '(6)'.
§ No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out '1(3A)' and insert `1(6)'.—[Dr. Howells.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
7.26 pm§ The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I stress that the Bill does not deal with measures arising from the Dearing report or the Government's response to it. It relates solely to the student loan book and the debt that we intend to sell on to the private sector.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in the Budget on 2 July, we intend to raise £1.6 billion from the sale of part of the student loans debt in this financial year, to be followed by a further £1.5 billion in the next financial year. We have ensured that the changes introduced by the Bill will not adversely affect students. The key terms of the loans will be frozen to protect student borrowers, and we shall retain an independent assessor to deal with any complaints from students. Because the loans will become commercial agreements, they will be subject to both consumer and data protection legislation. Minimum collection standards will be laid down in the sale agreement. Borrowers with a disability are presently treated as a special case, and that will continue.
The Bill will protect students, and it also reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to sound public finance. The sale proceeds of more than £3 billion will be used to meet the Government's expenditure commitments, including those in higher education. The Bill will help to support our education plans based on raising standards, extending access and high quality provision. I commend it to the House.
§ Mrs. BrowningI shall not detain the House long, because, as was outlined on Second Reading and in Committee, the Opposition recognise that the Government are building on a measure introduced by the previous Government. Therefore, we have no objections to the measures that the Minister has outlined tonight. I noticed, however, that his opening remarks about the Dearing report were somewhat defensive. Since we first debated the matter, the Government's response to Dearing has become clear and students' 78 loans will be much larger as a result. We await tomorrow with interest, because we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Government's response to Dearing in more detail. I have nothing more to add, so I shall not detain the House unnecessarily.
§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)I hate to break into this collusion between the Conservative party and the Labour Government but, as on Second Reading, the Bill has been allowed to slip through as if it does not matter. It does matter; far from helping students, the measure will be a great burden on future generations of students. I find it disgraceful that those of us who benefited from the grant system should be the very generation to impose massive debt problems on future generations of students.
It is important to point out that the co-operation between the Government and the official Opposition is not accepted by every opposition party. The Scottish National party's view has remained unchanged throughout the Bill's passage—we are opposed in principle to student loans, whether in government or, as the Government wish, private hands. We see it as anathema that current and future debt should be transferred into the hands of private profiteers.
The collusion between the two main parties will ensure that the Bill goes through this evening, as they have decided to get it through as quickly as possible. However, we must not forget that this is a Tory proposal from before the election, and the Bill is yet another example of the Labour Government doing the Tories' dirty work. I urge the Government to come clean on how they expect to redirect the resources that will arise from this latest sell-off.
On 10 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Government's reasons for proceeding with the privatisation of the Student Loans Company. He said:
Given the tightness of our plans generally and in particular the priority we wish to give to education programmes, the Government have decided to proceed with the sale."—[Official Report, 10 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 608.]Does this mean that the, as-yet undefined, resources released by the sale will be reinvested in education? How much do the Government expect to "save", in their own words'? Will the money be redirected? If so, will it be reinvested in higher education?I have a suggestion for how to spend £3 million to £5 million of the money. The House will be aware of the absurd position whereby Scottish students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years' tuition fees for their four-year courses, while English, Welsh and Northern Irish students studying in Scotland will pay for the full four years. The Scottish universities have suggested that the cost of removing this anomaly would be between £3 million and £5 million.
I ask the Minister to give a guarantee this evening that the money raised from the sale will be used to remedy that outrageous situation. I am happy to give way to the Minister. As he does not rise, I presume that he does not have an answer, which is very enlightening, in terms of the Government's attitude. Many folk who voted for them will be shocked, as they will have expected more from the incoming Government—particularly given the nature of the Government they replaced. 79 The Minister will be aware also of recommendation 82 in the Dearing report, which stated:
We recommend to the Government that the Inland Revenue should he used as the principal route for the collection of income contingent contributions from graduates in work, on behalf of the Student Loans Company.To my mind, that is a clear sign that Sir Ron Dearing and his committee viewed their suggested reforms of student finance within a context of a state-owned and operated loans company. Are the Government considering using the good offices of the Inland Revenue to allow private companies to collect their debts? The House is entitled to hear the Government's view on that.
The Bill forms the basis of the Government's other student finance reforms. The privatisation of the Student Loans Company—with one or two companies eager to win control of student debt—is a necessary first step towards expanding the level of student debt burden. To ease the way towards ever-higher loans for tuition fees and maintenance, the Government are prepared to hand over student debt to companies whose sole motivation is profit; profit at the expense of student need and in the face of student hardship. Under the private profiteers, student debt will quadruple.
The average student will have no option but to take out those additional loans, but will do so with no real guarantee that their loan arrangements will not or cannot change in future. The Government have opened the door to future private exploitation of students and student debt, and that is the real failure of the measure. Student drop-out rates have increased by 12 per cent. under the state-owned Student Loans Company. I dread to think what that rate will be under the higher levels of private debt.
The Bill represents a new dogma shared by the Labour and Conservative parties, and forms part of a cosy consensus between the parties. It is the first blow of many in a year that will hit students, universities and colleges with outrageous and, to my mind, unjustifiable changes to the established pattern of student finance. The Scottish National party opposes the Bill in principle, and I hope that the Minister will listen to the message from students the length and breadth of the country. Some 6,000 students gathered in Edinburgh to make clear their objection to what the Government are doing. Many of them voted Labour in the hope that there would be a change in philosophy and policy. They have been quite shocked to find that the Labour Government are carrying out a Tory policy.
I will be interested to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say, although I notice that they accentuate their opposition to tuition fees while quietly forgetting student loans which—tonight and on Second Reading—they support. The Scottish National party is opposed not only to the privatisation of student loans but to the whole concept. It hits directly at the traditional philosophy of Scottish education—a system that is open to all according to ability and irrespective of wealth or any other consideration. The Labour Government have attacked that traditional Scottish outlook. Totally against the Scottish tradition, they will remove from a swathe of the population the ability to go on to further and higher education. That is why 1 am against the Bill and the consensus among the Labour, Conservative and—I presume—Liberal Democrat parties.
80 To put it mildly, this would not have been the first measure that we would have introduced to try to solve the problems. In our view, it will only deepen the crisis facing our students. For that and many other reasons, we shall vote against the Bill. I invite the Liberal Democrats to join us, but—as on Second Reading—they will no doubt support the Government. I find it objectionable that the measure has been rushed through. Nobody consulted my party, and we were excluded from the normal channels, which agreed to rush it through. If we had been consulted, we would have informed the Government of our opposition. Tonight, we shall vote against the Bill on principle. Labour Members ought to be ashamed of this unacceptable measure. If they do not believe me, they should ask the students who are up in arms about what they are trying to do.
§ Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)I can assure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh)—who is not party to Liberal Democrat deliberations—that it will become clear where we stand on this Bill as I speak for the next hour and a half.
I find it extremely difficult to listen to Government and Conservative Members speaking with one voice. I can understand why the Minister wishes to rush the Bill through. It is increasingly evident that it is not the Government who are pushing through the Bill, but the ghosts of the previous Administration. As the Tory party tears itself apart and gives the appearance of a party in terminal decay, it continues to have an iron grip on education spending in this House.
This sordid little Bill was conceived in Tory central office and born in Walworth road. It was sordid when the present Minister opposed the concept before the election, and it is sordid now. It is going through the House at the speed it is, not because Ministers believe in it, but because the proceeds are essential to the Chancellor's spending plans for this year and next.
Before the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) turned on the Liberal Democrats, he made a good point. No student will benefit as a result of the passing of the Bill, and not a single penny extra will go to our universities. It is important for hon. Members on the Government Benches—and for those on the packed Conservative Benches—to understand that. It does not matter that the proposals are no different from the sales of other public assets that were so derided by the Government when in opposition.
The student loan portfolio that is under the hammer today is a national asset. It is worth £3.1 billion and it is being offered to the City at a knockdown price. Can the Minister tell the House what is different about this sale to the City? What was so wrong about selling the National Grid or Railtrack at knockdown prices to the so-called City fat cats, but not this public asset? What is the difference? How does such a fire sale fit with the Government's proposals rightly to demand the test of best value on the awarding of local government contracts, for instance? 81 Can the Minister answer those two questions clearly, openly and without prevarication? Does he believe that the sale of those enormous public assets—on the terms you have agreed—represents the best value to taxpayers, yes or no? Secondly, if you say yes—
§ Mr. WillisI am sorry. My apologies to the Minister—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. If I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. He has now corrected himself. He has already made a number of speeches in the House, and that is a point of procedure that he should have absorbed by now.
§ Mr. WillisMy apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the Minister. If he is prepared to say that this is best value to the taxpayers, will he be prepared to say what is the level of discount being sought by investors in order that the debt can be bought? I do not expect him to give me a precise figure, but the level of subsidy is directly relevant to the cost of selling this portfolio to the taxpayers.
The Minister said, in his former life as Opposition spokesman, that any subsidy above 25 per cent. would be excessive for the sale of the student loan portfolio, when the former Government wanted to attract private sector lenders into the student loan market. Perhaps he will say whether he expects the subsidy to be greater or less than 50 per cent. of the total value of the loan portfolio.
While Liberal Democrats understand the predicament that the Minister has been placed in by the Chancellor's commitment to the previous Government's tax and spend proposals for the next two years, he must understand the outrage felt on our Benches when we see what may be as much as a £1 billion subsidy paid to the private sector when our universities are experiencing the worst cash crisis in their history.
In effect, the £1 billion that the Minister is potentially giving away would stave off for the lifetime of this Parliament the requirement to introduce tuition fees. The sum of money saved would be far more than the total amount of money that will go to our universities because of imposing tuition fees in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the Minister disagrees with that assessment, can he say how much additional money will go to our universities in the lifetime of this Parliament from the imposition of tuition fees?
Another issue is the redefinition of lending proposed by the Secretary of State for the future treatment of student loans. If the Secretary of State is successful in persuading the Chancellor to change the redefinition of lending, we shall support him in his efforts. Could that principle not be applied to the existing loan portfolio? In that case, would the Minister consider not proceeding with the second tranche of the £1.5 billion sale next year?
Finally, I must ask the Minister whether at least one of the institutions that he expected to bid for the portfolio has already dropped out. Can he tell the House how many institutions are still actively bidding for the portfolio?
82 I must inform the hon. Member for Angus that, if a Division is called tonight, the Liberal Democrats will be opposing the Bill.
§ Mr. ByersI shall answer those points, many of which will be more appropriately debated tomorrow during the Conservative Opposition day debate on Dearing and the Government's response to it.
To answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), we shall be publishing the names of those companies that are submitting for the portfolio. It would be inappropriate to give the information that he has requested tonight.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)Why?
§ Mr. ByersFor the simple reason that we are in the process of running a strong competition to get the best deal for the taxpayer. It is the competition that will ensure that we get the best deal—a fact expressed by Opposition Members. I can give a guarantee that the details of those companies that are interested and are moving to the final stage of the process will be made public, as we made public the names of the 20 companies that entered the first phase of the competition.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talk about the outrage on the Liberal Benches about this measure. It is a pretty recent outrage, because not one of them voted against it on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate we had when the previous Government introduced their attempt at a twin-track approach to student loans—a different approach from the one that we are proposing. It was in that context that we objected to the subsidy that was being offered. We have a strong competition in relation to the student loans book. We shall be receiving a number of substantial offers. It would be inappropriate this evening to reveal details of the discounts that we expect to be offered. Doing so would not get the best possible deal.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), the Prime Minister has committed the Government to extending access to further and higher education by an extra 500,000 places by the end of this Parliament—not rhetoric, but commitment to open up access. This measure will open up access, extend opportunities and ensure that we can continue to provide high-quality provision. On the basis of those three principles, I urge the House to vote for Third Reading.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 24.
85| Division No. 79] | [7.47 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Barron, Kevin |
| Ainger, Nick | Battle, John |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Bayley, Hugh |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Beard, Nigel |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Ashton, Joe | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Austin, John | Benton, Joe |
| Barnes, Harry | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Berry, Roger | Foulkes, George |
| Best, Harold | Fyfe, Maria |
| Betts, Clive | Gapes, Mike |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Gardiner, Barry |
| Blizzard, Bob | Gerrard, Neil |
| Borrow, David | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Godman, Norman A |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Goggins, Paul |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Grocott, Bruce |
| Burden, Richard | Grogan, John |
| Burgon, Colin | Gunnell, John |
| Byers, Stephen | Hain, Peter |
| Caborn, Richard | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hanson, David |
| Caplin, Ivor | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Casale, Roger | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Caton, Martin | Healey, John |
| Cawsey, Ian | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Chaytor, David | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Heppell, John |
| Clapham, Michael | Hewitt, Ms Patricia |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Hill, Keith |
| Clark, Dr Lynda | Hinchliffe, David |
| (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Hoey, Kate |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Home Robertson, John |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hope, Phil |
| Clelland, David | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Clwyd, Ann | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Coaker, Vernon | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Coleman, Iain | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| Colman, Tony | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Connarty, Michael | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hurst, Alan |
| Cooper, Yvette | Hutton, John |
| Corbett, Robin | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Illsley, Eric |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Cousins, Jim | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Cranston, Ross | Jamieson, David |
| Crausby, David | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Cummings, John | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Jones, Ms Jennifer |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | (Wolverhton SW) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jowell, Ms Tessa |
| Denham, John | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Dismore, Andrew | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Dobbin, Jim | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Dobson, Rt Hon Frank | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Doran, Frank | Kemp, Fraser |
| Drew, David | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Khabra, Piara S |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kidney, David |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Edwards, Huw | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Efford, Clive | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Ennis, Jeff | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Fisher, Mark | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Laxton, Bob |
| Flint, Caroline | Lepper, David |
| Follett, Barbara | Leslie, Christopher |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Levitt, Tom |
| Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | Rooney, Terry |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Linton, Martin | Ruane, Chris |
| Livingstone, Ken | Ruddock, Ms Joan |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| Lock, David | Salter, Martin |
| McAllion, John | Sawford, Phil |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McCafferty, Ms Chris | Shaw, Jonathan |
| McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) | Sheerman, Barry |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Macdonald, Calum | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| McDonnell, John | Singh, Marsha |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Skinner, Dennis |
| McIsaac, Shona | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Smith, Miss Geraldine |
| McLeish, Henry | (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| MacShane, Denis | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| McWatter, Tony | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Mallaber, Judy | Soley, Clive |
| Marek, Dr John | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Martlew, Eric | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Maxton, John | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Meale, Alan | Stott, Roger |
| Merron, Gillian | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Milburn, Alan | Stringer, Graham |
| Miller, Andrew | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) | (Dewsbury) |
| Morley, Elliot | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Mountford, Kali | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Mudie, George | Timms, Stephen |
| Mullin, Chris | Todd, Mark |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Touhig, Don |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Trickett, Jon |
| Norris, Dan | Truswell, Paul |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Turner, Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Vaz, Keith |
| Pearson, Ian | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Pickthall, Colin | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Pike, Peter L | Watts, David |
| Plaskitt, James | White, Brian |
| Pollard, Kerry | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Pond, Chris | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Pound, Stephen | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Wills, Michael |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Winnick, David |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Wood, Mike |
| Purchase, Ken | Woolas, Phil |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Worthington, Tony |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Wray, James |
| Rammell, Bill | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Rapson, Syd | Wyatt Derek |
| Raynsford, Nick | |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N) | Mr. Jon Owen Jones and |
| Rooker, Jeff | Mr. Greg Pope. |
| NOES | |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Cotter, Brian |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Dafis, Cynog |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Fearn, Ronnie |
| Breed, Colin | Gorrie, Donald |
| Burnett, John | Harvey, Nick |
| Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Chidgey, David | Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) |
| Öpik, Lembit | Webb, Steve |
| Rendel, David | Welsh, Andrew |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Willis, Phil |
| Sanders, Adrian | |
| Stunell, Andrew | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Swinney, John | Mrs. Margaret Ewing and |
| Tyler, Paul | Mr. Elfyn Llwyd. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.