Education and Inspections Bill — Requirement "to have regard to" the Secretary of State's Code for School Admissions — rejected — 24 May 2006 at 17:30
George Osborne MP, Tatton voted in the minority (Aye).
The majority No voters rejected an amendment to the Education and Inspections Bill. The Bill, as it stood, would have required local education authorities, governing bodies of state schools, appeal panels and adjudicators "to act in accordance with" a code of practice decided by the Secretary of State on how they discharged their duties.
This Conservative amendment, which was defeated, aimed to prevent this change in terminology so that the actors outlined above would merely be required "to have regard to" the Secretary of State's code of practice.
The main aims of the Education and Inspections Bill were to:
- Allow schools to achieve 'foundation' or 'trust' status - this gives governing bodies greater freedom to manage the school.
- Reaffirm the existing ban on selection by ability and proposes a ban on interviewing.
- Give local authorities greater scope to intervene more quickly in failing schools.
- Ensure local authorities provide free school transport for the poorest families.
- Enable nutritional standards to be applied to all food and drink on school premises.
- Allow staff to discipline children for bad behaviour even outside of school.
- Ensure parents are held responsible for excluded pupils.
-  Nick Gibb MP, House of Commons, 24 May 2006
-  BBC Summary of the Education and Inspections Bill, 8 March 2006
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||1||156 (+2 tell)||0||81.5%|
|Lab||316 (+2 tell)||0||0||90.1%|
|Bob Spink||Castle Point||whilst Con (front bench)||no|
|Ian Paisley||North Antrim||DUP (front bench)||no|