Education Bill — Clause 39 — Parliamentary Scrutiny of Exemptions for Schools from Inspections — 14 Nov 2011 at 19:00

The majority of MPs voted against stronger Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers' first use of their powers to exempt schools from inspections.

The majority of MPs voted against the first regulations exempting schools from inspections being subject to the affirmative procedure rather than being subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Without the amendment which was the subject of this vote the Lords' proposal was not to have the first regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, only subsequent ones.

The affirmative procedure involves both Houses of Parliament expressly approving regulations; being subject to annulment means either House of Parliament may vote to repeal regulations after they have been brought in by ministers.

The affirmative procedure provides a stronger check and enables parliamentarians to scrutinise regulations before they take effect.

MPs were considering the Education Bill[1][2] and voted on:

  • Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 27.

the question being:

  • That the amendment be made.

The amendment (a) in question stated[3]

  • Line 7, leave out from ‘inspection),’ to end of line 8.

Lords amendment 27 prior to the amendment stated[4][5]:

Page 36, line 16, at end insert—

  • “(9) In section 121 of EA 2005 (parliamentary control of subordinate legislation)—
  • (a) in subsection (2)(a), after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;
  • (b) after subsection (2) insert—
  • “(2A)
  • This subsection applies to regulations under section 5(4A) (power to prescribe schools exempt from inspection), apart from the first regulations to be made under that subsection.
  • (2B) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations to which subsection (2A) applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

The new subclause would have been added to clause 39[6] of the Education Bill.

During the debate prior to the vote Nick Gibb MP[7] stated:

  • The amendment made in the other place will allow for appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is not necessary for the first set of regulations to be subject to that because it has been fully consulted on.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con239 (+1 tell) 0078.4%
DUP0 3037.5%
Lab0 191 (+2 tell)075.1%
LDem46 (+1 tell) 0082.5%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP0 1033.3%
Total:285 196076.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive