LORDS AMENDMENT

HL Deb 24 July 2002 vol 638 cc466-78

12 Leave out Clause 10.

The Commons insisted on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 12 but proposed the following amendments to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement—

12D Page 7, line 12, at end insert— (6A) In exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) the governing body of a maintained school shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time (in relation to England) by the Secretary of State or (in relation to Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales.".

12E Page 7, line 16, leave out from second "company" to end of line 17 and insert "registered under the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) as a company limited by shares or a company limited by guarantee".

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill. In moving this Motion, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 13F to 13M.

With the leave of the House, I begin by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, an extremely happy birthday today. Were we doing something different, it would have been my great pleasure to invite her for a glass of champagne. The night is young and, who knows, we may yet have that opportunity. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my heartfelt good wishes and those of the many who over the years have had the privilege of working with her in education.

I shall give a short explanation of why we have brought back this issue to your Lordships. We have reflected on the lengthy and extensive debates that your Lordships have enjoyed on this subject and we have considered thoroughly the many points put forward. I can fairly say that we have addressed all the questions directed to us. Apart from the answers that my noble friend Lord McIntosh and I have given in debate, we have issued policy statements and corresponded with noble Lords on the issue.

I believe that we are not talking about points of principle here. We all want our schools to be able to innovate, to work in new ways and to engage in partnerships. We believe that this proposal is consistent with other proposals in the Bill to allow schools to work together innovatively, to which the House has already agreed.

The object of groups of schools forming companies is to provide opportunities for schools. We want to prepare our schools for the challenges and opportunities that they face. Allowing them to choose this option will provide exactly that—a simple opportunity that they may elect to take to help them as they face the challenge of raising standards even higher throughout our system.

We have encountered some puzzlement as to why we should allow schools that power. I do not believe that any noble Lords need be puzzled about this proposal. There is no puzzle or mystery about company status. The formation of a company is simply a means of enabling schools to carry out activities by establishing a single legal identity. It is not an end in itself. It is a convenient way of carrying out activities. If schools want to exercise a more convenient way of carrying out activities, we should not stand in their way.

I do not propose to repeat in detail the further advantages that company status brings. I spoke yesterday in your Lordships' House of the way in which it allows liability to be limited. I also explained that the company is a very well understood and trusted model. I reiterate the point that we are not debating an issue that would somehow allow schools to lose track of their main objectives—a point about which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is concerned. We are debating a proposal that will allow schools to exploit a simple, convenient vehicle to provide services or purchase goods, where they see fit.

In a nutshell, the proposal would allow groups of schools to form companies to purchase services or facilities for their members or to provide services or facilities to other schools. It is about schools being allowed to flourish, not about restricting opportunity. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested yesterday, about handing over the duties and responsibilities of school governors to school companies. Nothing in these clauses affects the duties and responsibilities of a school governing body, set out in Clause 20, to conduct a maintained school. Nor does anything in these clauses subvert the duty of a governing body to conduct a maintained school with a view to promoting high standards of achievement at the school.

I hope noble Lords will appreciate that throughout the Bill we are concerned with high standards of achievement. It may be that initially only a very few schools will take advantage of the power for groups of schools to form a company. I hope that they may lead the way for others, but at first we may see only a few schools trying it out. But it surely must be the Government's responsibility to look ahead and consider what in the future may be helpful to schools in their goals of reaching and maintaining high standards. That is what these powers propose.

Yesterday, I gave an example of schools forming a company to provide language services. Let me give another example today of what a service delivery company might do. Suppose there are three primary schools with the capacity to offer excellent new technology support to other primary schools. They may want to get together to use their expertise in that area. They may develop packages of support that other schools can use. Those other schools could benefit from purchasing a package of support tailored to their needs within their local area, and the schools forming the company would benefit from being able to reinvest any surplus income in providing even better packages for local schools and for their own. That is yet another example of the way in which those kind of activities might develop.

We want schools to work together. We except company activity to be led by educational institutions. In the context of the built-in safeguards that we have, we want to trust schools to make rational decisions that will benefit them and their fellow schools. I do not believe that participation in school companies would create a distraction from the core goal of educating children and helping all children to achieve the best they can. We believe that this proposal would help individual schools and by allowing schools to group together, freeing up resources and sharing purchasing as they do so give other schools the benefit of their expertise.

I turn briefly to the amendments proposed today. It has become clear that there is some concern that schools could somehow get involved in setting up companies without knowing the precise details of the operations in which they would be involved. We therefore believe that it would assist schools to provide guidance on certain aspects of running school companies. The employment and involvement of teachers in school companies is a subject that has been raised many times in your Lordships' House. That is why I am introducing this amendment, which would enable the Secretary of State to support schools in that area.

We realise that many schools that form companies will examine the same issues over teacher involvement, such as the balance between working for the school, the top priority, and perhaps working, if appropriate, for the company. The guidance will also give schools a greater understanding of the use of short-term secondments to the company. I am aware that noble Lords may be concerned about whether such guidance is necessary. But I am sure that noble Lords would not want to put schools in the position of being unclear on any aspect of staffing, and we have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said in that respect. If schools do not want to set up companies, this guidance would not trouble them.

We bring back today amendments that place on the face of the Bill provisions for companies to be limited by shares or guarantee under the Companies Act 1985. Currently, the Bill states that regulations may provide for school companies to be limited by guarantee. When we decided to offer choice as to the type of limited company, we thought to deal with that in regulations. Following debate, much of it in your Lordships' House, we agreed to make matters clearer in primary legislation that schools will have the choice.

Our amendments also place on the face of the Bill the requirement that only those specified in regulations may join companies. I explained to your Lordships' House yesterday that we wanted to ensure that we put in greater protection. We intend to state in regulations that people joining school companies may include governing bodies, local authorities, independent schools, private companies, further and higher education institutions and individuals not excluded by the regulations. We will not allow to join companies those who currently are not permitted to be school governors or to be teachers.

One of the concerns I have heard expressed in debate is that we are in danger of letting schools get into trouble in setting up such activities. Through these amendments I want to go a step further to ensure that we are all absolutely clear that the supervising authority has a crucial role in the operation of these companies. These amendments will make it mandatory for the Government to regulate certain matters concerning the supervising authority; that is, that it must ensure three things: first, that regulations provide for a local education authority to be designated as a supervising authority; secondly, that they will specify who the supervising authority is; and thirdly, that they will spell out its duties. It will provide extra reassurance for these regulation-making provisions to be mandatory. We have made this change to meet the concern expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place that companies need a secure framework in which to operate.

The other provisions of Clause 11(5) for companies to provide information about their financial affairs to the supervising authority, for the supervising authority to give directions to a governing body and concerning the procedures for such a direction, remain, as they were, discretionary, although I can say that we would intend to make regulations on those matters.

In making these amendments, we are providing further safeguards for those involved in companies. I believe that they clarify the position your Lordships have sought for those wishing to get involved in using this power while still ensuring that we are able to empower schools to explore new ways of working and assist in creating further forms of collaboration within the education system. This proposal, as I have said in your Lordships' House many times, is about leading change and exploiting new opportunities where schools see fit. I commend the amendments to your Lordships' House.

Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Blatch moved, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E, Amendment No. 12F:

12F leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 12".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her birthday wishes. I can think of better ways of spending a birthday. I also thank her for a tentative invitation to take a glass of champagne with her. I have taken a glass of champagne today and it would be unwise to take any more, but. I deeply appreciate working with the noble Baroness and her kind wishes.

I want to take this opportunity to say that yesterday in debate I named Don Foster as the person whom I quoted. That was wrong and I was not quick enough to sort the matter out with Hansard. I meant Phil Willis and I hope that that will be accepted as an apology both to Don Foster and to the Liberal Democrats.

In our previous debate today, much was said about the image of this House. The other place left this Bill largely undiscussed. I believe that this House has acquitted itself brilliantly not only on this Bill but on many others. This Bill has been much improved by the assiduous way in which this House has worked and the other place is only now forced to consider more aspects of it because of pressures from this House.

The noble Baroness addressed the issue of what we are being asked to agree to tonight, stating that forming companies is simply a matter of forming a single identity. If that is what the noble Baroness thinks, it is the most naive of thoughts. Forming a company is not simply forming a single identity.

The Minister in another place, Mr Miliband, said today that he wants to give schools the same freedom—note the words "the same freedom"—as private individuals and private companies. Let me repeat what I said yesterday: I know of no [private] company that has to seek the equivalent of local education authority approval to be set up in the first place. I know of no [private] company that has the equivalent of a local education authority as a supervisory body with powers of intervention. Similarly, I know of no [private] company that has the equivalent of a Secretary of State also with powers of intervention".—[Official Report, 23/7/02; col. 229.]

I add to that statement that I know of no private company that requires permission to borrow. In addition to all those layers of interventionary powers, the companies, as free-standing companies under company law, would be subject to the full panoply of supervision and regulation under company law. Therefore, this is not about giving schools the same powers as private companies.

Mr Miliband also said that the gainers would be pupils. I, and I believe the Liberal Democrats, say that that is not guaranteed. Nothing in the clauses provides that the pupils will be the primary beneficiaries.

My honourable friend in another place, Mr Cash, using a quote from Alice in Wonderland, said that words mean what they want them to mean. I am afraid that at every stage of the Bill when debating the formation of companies, Ministers have said what they believe can be achieved by the clauses. However, they have not faced up to the realities and the Pandora's Box of possibilities, liabilities and culpabilities. None of those issues has been addressed by Ministers in either place.

Ministers talked about schools sharing expertise. They already do so. They say that there will be safeguards but there are no comprehensive safeguards for our schools. The question was asked: can the company sell goods into the private sector? For the first time we saw the Minister in another place looking slightly wrong-footed when he tried to cope with the issue.

My honourable friend in another place talked about grounds maintenance, about outward-bound courses and about selling such services to other bodies. The issue is not one simply of developing a CD or educational services but of selling others. Where in the Bill would a company be prevented trading with other bodies? There is nothing in the Bill which prevents that. School companies would be able to do so.

It was said that schools can benefit from economies of scale. They do so now. For years, there have been corporate purchasing arrangements and co-operative arrangements between schools whereby they have benefited from economies of scale without having all the complexities of forming companies.

The other issue that was not addressed—I shall not deal with it in detail—was the interaction between Clauses 2 and 20 and these clauses. Mr Miliband was at a complete loss to know what to say about that. Whenever government Ministers are giving examples—and more have been given today—they usually choose inoffensive, pro-educational examples. We have heard examples relating to developing curriculum materials and CDs. But other things are not outlawed by the Bill: for instance, the provision of school uniforms and equipment; grounds maintenance; catering; minor maintenance; and outward-bound services.

As regards outward-bound services, Members scoffed at the possibility that there may be a libel claim or a law suit against the company providing such services which somehow go wrong. That was pooh-poohed as being fanciful. I am afraid that it is not fanciful. If a company sets up such services, it accepts all the liabilities that go with that.

We have been told that borrowing would have to be approved by the LEA. No private company would have to go to a third party for that. It would be governed by the laws that govern private companies.

Mention has been made of disreputable persons. School companies would provide a wonderful safe haven for a private company seeking to do business with school corporate bodies where, if it goes wrong, the tab is picked up by a local education authority—no risk. Where is the risk in that? It is risk-free because the LEA, according to Ministers in both Houses, picks up the tab if the company goes belly-up.

It was said that we will give our schools the same freedom as private companies. Private sectors do not have that kind of third-party intervention. The honourable gentleman, Mr Phil Willis, in another place talked about individuals taking profit out of a company. It was said—and we should all like to believe, and I suspect in most cases it would happen— that profits would be re-invested back into education. But there is nothing in the Bill to stop the private sector partner taking profits away, and nothing that prescribes the use of profits, whether it is by the company set up by the schools or the school together with a private company. The interaction and the possibility of charitable status has not been properly answered. My honourable friend Mr Cash in another place referred to that.

The governing body could not bring in wholesale teaching. That was said in our debate yesterday by the noble Baroness, and referred to again today in another place. The matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. We would probably concede the point that governing bodies go on governing, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to stop a whole staff being replaced under the company arrangements. These are key concerns; they have not been answered.

It is a perfectly reasonable proposal—the wish to give schools more commercial freedom—if only it can be made to work. This proposal would not. It spawns over-regulation. We heard again today of yet more regulation, yet more guidance, yet more for every school to worry about. As the noble Baroness and the Minister in another place have said, "Well, we do not expect many schools to partake of this". But, because potentially any school could partake, every single school in the land will receive all this bumf. We tried yesterday to limit the bumf. The Government said they were with us in spirit. The Bill does not support that.

I turn to accountancy and legal expertise. What happens in liquidation when the company goes bust? What about seizure of assets? None of those points has been dealt with. Something must be said for giving schools more freedom, but the manner in which these proposals will work is unacceptable. At the end of the day, when schools are strapped for funds, when there is a dearth of teachers—both retention and recruitment—and when we have an unprecedented number of teachers teaching subjects for which they were not trained, are we really asking them, out of the precious teaching time of our children, to indulge in some very ill-thought-out proposals? I think not. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to Amendments Nos. 12D and 12E, Amendment No. 12F.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long by saying too much. I start by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a very happy birthday and to say, as she said, "There are better ways to spend a birthday than this".

We have debated this issue many times and at considerable length. I want briefly to say why from these Benches we continue to oppose these clauses standing part of the Bill. First, and primarily, we believe that head teachers, teachers and school governors should concentrate on running schools and not running companies. Neither they nor the LEAs, which are supposed to be supervising them, have the time, the skills, the money or the expertise necessary to do the job properly. They should, as I said yesterday, stick to the knitting. They should be running schools, not running companies.

Secondly, we share with the Official Opposition the feeling that these ideas have not been thought through properly. We are, for example, extremely worried about what liabilities local education authorities might incur as a result of these provisions. We have been given multiple assurances time and again. We understand that these companies are set up on the one hand to purchase materials and on the other to provide services where LEAs will only have to underwrite the purchasing activities. The other companies, which are Companies Act companies, are limited liability companies. Basically, if they make a mess of things and go into liquidation their own debts are their own debts. But I do not understand why there should be this distinction.

Why, if a company is a purchasing company, should the local education authority have to underwrite it? There is still a great deal of uncertainty around these provisions. I share very much the feeling that there are liabilities here. Here we have school governors and teachers who are not used to running companies and may get themselves into deep water. They may incur liabilities. As the noble Baroness said, where do these liabilities end? Who accepts them? At the end of the day it is public money which is at stake here because one is looking at school resources which may be needed to bail out silly mistakes.

Thirdly, in spite of assurances, we are still not clear that there is not a hidden agenda behind these proposals. We have had mixed and contradictory messages about these companies once they are set up. We are told that they cannot run schools. That is the job of the governing bodies. Supposing the governing body wants to contract out the teaching at the school? Is it or is it not allowed to do that? It was clear from the answer given in the other place in Committee by the Minister, at that time, Mr Timms, that he thought that the bodies could do this. We then had a contradictory answer saying that they could not. It is all extraordinarily unsatisfactory. We do not really know where we are.

Lastly, we have argued that the provisions are unnecessary. We have been told time and again that the main purpose is to enable schools to exploit new ideas jointly with other schools. We constantly come back to this idea of developing a CD-ROM. A number of teachers have developed teaching materials and either shared them with other teachers or have set up companies of their own, which they can do perfectly well. They can go into business with printing companies or with CD-ROM stamping companies. They can take the profits or they can put the profits back into schools. There is no need for school governing bodies to have to do it.

The Minister in another place—and I see Mr Miliband standing at the Bar. I am delighted to have you with us, Mr Miliband—ended his speech by saying that we have, and I agree with him, remarkable skills in our best schools; and that the provisions in the Bill are here to enable those skills to be shared among the schools and to support other schools. Yes, but we have been sharing those skills for many a long year. We do not need a company to share those skills. Why we on these Benches feel so unhappy with these provisions is because for many a long year we have had a spirit of co-operation, of mutual trust, in sharing these services between schools. Now we have to sell these services through a company to other schools instead of through mutual trust and co-operation.

It is very much like the internal market which was introduced into the health service by the Official Opposition during their years in government. It did not work in the health service and the internal market will not work in the education services. We do not like these provisions and we do not think they should be in this Bill.

9 p.m.

Lord Dearing

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the extra sparkle that the champagne has given her remarks. May we join her?

There has been much concern on the Opposition Benches about the provision. I do not share that concern. The provision is about schools doing things together through a specific vehicle—a company. It is clear, and we have been given many assurances, that there will be no coercion on schools to form confederations or federations. It will be voluntary. The issue of forming a company will be voluntary. No one can require a company to be formed by a school.

Our concerns turn, therefore, on whether the companies will make a mess of it or whether it is a diversion of energies. I cannot envisage many schools wanting to form a company. But I should have thought that the main energies would come through the use of the time of members of the company who I assume would be members of the governing bodies. The noble Baroness said that these companies are different from ordinary companies. She contrasted the position with that described by Mr Miliband in another place. I welcome the fact that they are different. I welcome the fact that the provisions for regulations have been made mandatory rather than optional and that the local authority will have a supervisory role.

If the Government decide to use their powers to make a regulation under Clause 11(7), I hope that the local authority will be consulted even though it may be thought that the proposal lies outside its scope. The local authority can satisfy itself, as a potentially supervisory body, that there are adequate prudential arrangements, that the memorandum and articles are satisfactory and that the composition of the company board is satisfactory. Subject to that clarification, I hope that the House will support the Bill as now amended.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that he makes valiant attempts to help the Government when they are really in trouble. I am sure they are grateful for that. However, I did not concentrate on whether they make a mess of it. I concentrated on what happens if the body fails. That is the problem. So many other bodies have power to intervene: the local authority, the Secretary of State and other people. These companies are not different from private companies. Under the proposals, they are set up under company law.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the noble Baroness will have an opportunity to reply, in conformity with the rules of this House.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I said, "Before the noble Lord sits down". I shall be guided by the Clerks of the House not by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may say that the bodies are under company law and will be obliged to conform with company law.

Lord Dearing

My Lords, I picked up a point which I understood the noble Baroness made: that Mr Miliband was in error in saying in another place that these companies were like other companies. The reason that they are different is that they are subject to the supervisory oversight of the LEA and that the LEA would have to give consent. Of course, they are covered by company law. They are companies under company law.

As regards what happens if they fail, I understand that if they are a purchasing company the obligations of the LEA are the same as if they were not a purchasing company and it was an informal arrangement. We have been told that several times.

If it is a service providing company, it is a company limited by guarantee or limited by shares. If the company fails, its obligations are determined by the guarantee or the shares which will be very small indeed. They do not need to be substantial. I do not believe that the issue is not clear or that there is some bogey that we do not understand.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I would expect the local education authority to play the role that it plays with all maintained schools in ensuring that schools are behaving in their best interests, and playing the role that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, outlined. I have no difficulty with that.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that of course schools have been sharing their skills for a long time. This is purely an additional way in which schools can operate. It is nothing more. There is no hidden agenda. After all the work we have done together, I was concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, should still consider that there might be a hidden agenda. There is not.

We are looking at ways in which schools can enhance the role they play in the future. This is one way. In another place, my honourable friend Mr Miliband referred to private companies. He referred to the fact that private companies already can sell goods and services to schools. The profits go to the private company. I wish the private company no ill. But I want schools to be able to use their resources, abilities and skills in that way. That is what the provision is about.

Economies of scale are important to schools. Schools often work together in new ways. Through the PFI I was recently involved with a group of schools which will come together on a site—primary schools, secondary schools and further education colleges. Although that does not relate to this part of the Bill, it demonstrates that there are different ways.

Having listened to debate on Clause 20 in another place, I say with deep sincerity that we have had many opportunities in this House to consider the relationship between different clauses.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I listened to the Minister's remarks about private companies. Can the company sell goods and/or services to a third body that is not an educational body?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I am delighted to answer that point directly. In Clause 10(1) the power is limited to forming companies to provide services to schools to facilitate provision to schools. The local education authority functions relate only to education functions. So these companies cannot go further than the provisions specified in those clauses. I hope that I have answered fully the noble Baroness's point.

I have deliberately given inoffensive examples because it is an inoffensive measure. It is not designed to take our schools into an Alice in Wonderland or any other kind of world. It is important that Government think about where schools are going and ensure that they have the ability to develop their resources and skills. The provision is simply a part of that process and no more.

We have debated substantially the issue and the entire Bill. It has been a privilege to be part of that debate. I believe that this is nothing more than an enabling measure for some schools to take forward. On that basis, and on the basis that we have best schools, good teachers and governors who are able to do new things, I commend the Motion to the House.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Clause 10(1)(a) refers to "any schools". There are language schools and private schools, as well as all the maintained schools. The paragraph does not specify "maintained schools"; and there is no qualification in the definitional subsection (8) of what are "schools". So a third body could be another school—"any school", to cite the Bill.

To return to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I refer him to Clause 11(7). That provides that regulations—yet another raft of regulations—can be produced to, restrict the circumstances in which a local education authority may refuse to give any consent applied for under subsection (1)". So it will be possible to second-guess the local authority and remove—airbrush—it from the picture.

I am not satisfied. Answers have always been given in general terms. The specific questions that we have asked since the Bill's inception have not properly been answered.

9.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12F) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kingsland, L.
Alderdice, L.	Knight of Collingtree, B.
Astor, V.	Laing of Dunphail, L.
Attlee, E.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Barker, B.	Lawson of Blaby, L.
Biffen, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Blaker, L.	Liverpool, E.
Blatch, B.	Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Boardman, L.	Lucas, L.
Bowness, L.	Lyell, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Bridgeman, V.	MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.	Maddock, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mancroft, L.
Burnham, L.	Marlesford, L.
Byford, B.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Caithness, E.	Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Noakes, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Northbrook, L.
Chadlington, L.	Northesk, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Norton of Louth, L.
Clement-Jones, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Colwyn, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]	Patten, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Pym, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Rawlings, B.
Denham, L.	Razzall, L.
Elles, B.	Renton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Roberts of Conwy, L.
Elton, L.	Roper, L.
Fookes, B.	Rotherwick, L.
Fowler, L.	St John of Fawsley, L.
Freeman, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Geddes, L.	Seccombe, B.
Goodhart, L.	Selborne, E.
Goschen, V.	Selsdon, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Sharp of Guildford, B. [Teller]
Greaves, L.	Sharples, B.
Greenway, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Hanham, B.	Shrewsbury, E.
Harris of Richmond, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Smith of Clifton, L.
Henley, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
James of Holland Park, B.	Trefgarne, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Tugendhat, L.
Jopling, L.	Vivian, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.	Waddington, L.

Walmsley, B.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Wilcox, B.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Howells of St. Davids, B.
Ahmed, L.	Howie of Troon, L.
Alli, L.	Hoyle, L.
Amos, B.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Andrews, B.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.	Islwyn, L.
Barnett, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Jones, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Judd, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Kirkhill, L.
Borrie, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
Brennan, L.	Lipsey, L.
Brett, L.	Lockwood, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Brookman, L.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Burlison, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.	McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Chandos, V.	MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Christopher, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.	Massey of Darwen, B.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Mitchell, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.	Morgan, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.	Morris of Aberavon, L.
Crawley, B.	Morris of Manchester, L.
Currie of Marylebone, L.	Nicol, B.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
David, B.	Orme, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Pendry, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.	Peston, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Pitkeathley, B.
Dearing, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Dixon, L.	Radice, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Dubs, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Evans of Watford, L.	Renwick of Clifton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Rooker, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Filkin, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.	Sawyer, L.
Gale, B.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.	Serota, B.
Gilbert, L.	Simon, V.
Golding, B.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Goldsmith, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Tomlinson, L.
Grabiner, L.	Turnberg, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Grenfell, L.	Walker of Doncaster, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]	Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Whitaker, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Whitty, L.
Harrison, L.	Wilkins, B.
Hayman, B.	Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Woolmer of Leeds, L.
	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.20 p.m.

On Question, Motion agreed to.