Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 11, line 31, leave out
and the results of their assessments under this Chapter
(including the results of any assessments of those pupils, whether under this Chapter or otherwise, for the purpose of ascertaining those achievements).
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, leave out 'including' and insert`together with a statement by the local education authority as to the social composition of the school and its area, and a statement by the governing body as to matters it considers relevant to those achievements and'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 28 in page 12, line 2, leave out "under this Chapter" and insert(whether under this Chapter or otherwise)
§ Mrs. Clwyd
Instead of standing at the Dispatch Box moving the amendment I should have been cheering on the House of Commons side in the tug of war, but fate has decreed otherwise.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert into the Bill the one major and outstanding recommendation of the task group on assessment and testing report which has still not been accepted by the Government. It deals with the publication of reports on the social position of the school by the local education authority and the governors at the same time as the publication of test results. The original consultation document on the national curriculum stated that national assessment would enable LEAs to be better placed to test the strengths and weaknesses of their schoolstaking due account of relevant socio-economic factors.That would include cultural differences.
The thirtieth recommendation of the TGAT report states:the only form in which results of national assessment for, and identifying, a given school should be published should be as part of a broader report by that school of its work as a whole.Recommendation No. 31 stated:Any report by a school which includes national assessment results should include a general report for the area, prepared by the local authority, to indicate the nature of socio-economic and other influences which are known to affect schools. This report should give a general indication of the known effects of such influences on performance.The Government have repeatedly given assurances that they do not wish to create local league tables of schools resulting from the publication of raw data, and on both 3 and 5 May, in another place, Baroness Hooper repudiated any intention to create league tables. In the Bill, however, there is nothing to prevent the publication of such tables.
The Government may say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent school governors and LEAs from producing statements on social indicators if that is what they wish to do. On 5 May, the Baroness Hooper said in another place: 865It may well best be left to local initiative within some general guidance rather than even spelt out in regulations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 701.]When pressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last Wednesday on the issue of relative handicap in the tests at seven of children who have not received nursery education—and we have talked often enough about that particular problem, without having any effect on the Government's policy—the Secretary of State said that it was up to schools and LEAs to decide whether to publish the results, although earlier he had said that that was recommended and that schools could show the number of children with or without formal pre-school education in their reports if they so wished.
The lack of importance that the Government place on social factors is evident. The Government state that aggregated test results "must" be published for pupils at the ages of 11, 14 and 16. However, it is "recommended" that aggregated test results are published for pupils at the age of seven. That means that there will be unreal and artificial comparisons between schools and a comparison of like with unlike. We should not be surprised at that, because the Government have been completely insensitive to the effect of their policies on children and their families.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group, the number of children living in poverty, on or below supplementary benefit level, rose by 72 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. One in five families in Britain are now estimated to live on or below the poverty line. Recent changes in the social security system have had a severe effect on families throughout Britain. The new social fund provides loans in place of the single payment grants for items such as furniture, children's clothes and cooking equipment. That imposes a further hardship on families by requiring them to make repayments on those loans from their already inadequate levels of benefit.
I am sure that I do not need to repeat the elements that determine whether a person is classified as deprived. I simply remind Conservative Members that in my constituency—as in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies—nearly one in three men have no job and 61 per cent. of those working have incomes of £4,000 a year or less. There is absolutely no comparison between the circumstances of and opportunities for children who grow up there and the circumstances of children who grow up in the lush, leafy lanes of Hampshire, where privilege and plenty are taken for granted.
Children living in poverty are not evenly spread throughout the school system. If they were, there would be no need for my proposal. However, like it or not, social conditions have an enormous effect on performance in tests, as is shown by the work published by researchers at Sheffield university in an attempt to find a fair system of comparing examination results.
Despite what Ministers say, when the results are published, inevitably they will be used to compare schools. League tables will be drawn up of local schools, despite the protestations of Baroness Hooper, who, on 3 May, said in another place:It is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 501.]She repeated that on 5 May saying: 866It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 704.]What will prevent that? The Bill will not stop it. What did the noble Lady's colleagues mean, or did Baroness Hooper not understand? Was she simply groping in the dark? Was she as confused as everyone else about the Government's intentions? That includes the Secretary of State.
We all know what will happen. There will be a wide publication of league tables of exam results. Local journalists will vie with one another to be the first off the mark with shock horror stories of successes and failures.
If the Bill remains as it is, the results will be incomplete. They will provide a false impression of the performance of a school and its pupils. Without some form of adjustment, parents and policy makers will make judgments on the basis of incorrect information. Those judgments will perpetuate disadvantage because they will not examine the performance of the school and its children in relation to the surrounding conditions. Instead, they will ignore the factors that contribute to the results.
§ Mrs. Clwyd
As the hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish whether I am a lady or a gentleman and since he will not lift the guillotine motion, I will not give way.
One of the Government's main arguments for the abolition of the Inner London education authority was its supposedly poor performance in exam results. Using the Sheffield study, ILEA was placed in an average position among LEAs once social factors were taken into account. In that study, the London borough of Bromley was given a very poor rating in exam results once its favourable social factors were taken into account. An under secretary at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Barry Wakefield, was reported in the Evening Standard on 31 May as saying that it was vital to consider much more than exam results when rating a school's performance. Does that mean that the Secretary of State is out of tune with his own officials as well as with the Prime Minister?
Universal health care based on need is under severe attack. While individuals may not yet live or die according to their hank accounts or their employer's insurance, for many the quality of life is set from birth. The same process is now occurring in our schools where the size of parents' bank accounts increasingly determines whether there are enough books to go round or whether children learn to play a musical instrument. The hardship funds of many parent associations are overstretched for basic educational needs. That cycle of deprivation means that the children of the poor and deprived are condemned to become the parents of the poor and deprived. Our amendment will ensure that far better information about the quality and performance of schools will reach parents and LEAs than would result from the publication of the crude test scores that the Government plan.
The Government will claim that there is nothing to stop LEAs publishing a statement on the social composition of the school if they so wish. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent governors from publishing what they believe is relevant in achieving the results. They may even go so far as to promise that they will give guidance to governors and local authorities in publishing the statements. However, that is not enough. If a statement of 867 the social composition of a school is purely voluntary, some schools and LEAs will not publish it. Unless all schools publish a statement, it will be a worthless exercise. People will still compare like with unlike.
We are asking the Government to accept the recommendations of the TGAT report in full. We believe that the implementation of the Bill without our amendment will result in the publication of test results that falsely indict a teacher or a school. To do that on the basis of the publication of incomplete and therefore unrepresentative inaccurate test results is completely immoral.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)
The Lords amendments clarify the scope of the provisions covering the publication of assessment results, so that they might also cover, for example, GCSE and A-level results. Those are already covered by the Education (School Information) Regulations 1981, but it will be helpful to have them brought within the scope of the new provisions to ensure the consistent treatment of results of various assessments.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) seeks to add to those amendments an amendment dealing with the publication of aggregate assessment results. In a moment, I shall deal with our reasons for not wishing to accept that amendment, but at this stage I shall make certain general remarks about the assessment arrangements for which the Bill provides so that they may be set in context.
My right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 7 June, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), defined the main principles that the Government have decided should form the basis for a national assessment and testing system. First, the task group on assessment and testing endorsed the Government's proposal to test pupils at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. It pointed out that age seven in particular represents the point of transition from one phase of schooling to the next, when children move from an infant to a junior school. If at that point a pupil's literacy and numeracy foundations have not been properly laid, he is more likely to fall increasingly behind than if assessed and tested at that age so that one can know exactly what progress the child has made. Age seven also comes at least two years into the first phase of schooling, so that pupils feel settled by that time and teachers will have an opportunity to know them better.
Secondly, we are not talking about a series of pass or fail examinations, as Opposition Members sometimes like to portray, consisting entirely of pencil and paper tests. We refer rather to attainment targets, set to establish what children should normally be expected to know, understand and be able to do at given ages. They will enable the progress of each child to be measured against national standards. Assessment will be by a combination of national external tests and internal assessment by teachers, moderated to ensure consistent standards. Both teacher assessment and testing will be curriculum-related, focusing on attainment targets for the core and foundation subjects.
At age seven, and also largely at age 11, the TGAT report sensibly recommended the use of topic-style tasks as the main form of test, in assessing attainment in the core 868 subjects and in certain other key areas. At all ages, oral and practical—as well as written—means of assessment will be employed. In other words, the work that will be tested and assessed will be very much the kind of best practice that one sees currently in our schools.
Assessment results will be used formatively to help better teaching and guide teachers' decisions about a pupil's next steps, and summatively to inform parents about their child's progress; in other words, to answer those frequent questions from parents which are often considered simplistic but the answers to which indicate to the parents, if to no one else, how much progress their child has made.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that adequate resources will be available to help those children who are found to be falling behind to catch up—in particular, educational psychologists who may be needed to discover the specialised problems that children have? Testing is all right, but the key is whether the resources will be there to help children catch up, if they are found to have problems.
§ Mrs. Rumbold
It is obvious that in taking on the task of trying to ensure that children reach a certain level of attainment, children who have fallen behind will be encouraged—as I hope happens at present—to have extra tuition or other help. I remind the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that such help is consistently given already in a variety of different ways. One would certainly expect schools, through their financial delegation, to allocate sums of money that will ensure that teachers and parents are satisfied, particularly at the child's early age, that any falling behind can be dealt with.
Different levels of attainment and overall pupil progress will be registered on a 10-point scale, as also recommended by TGAT, covering all the years of compulsory schooling. Therefore, at a given age the level reached on the scale for a particular subject area will indicate whether a pupil is making satisfactory progress; whether special help is needed to enable him or her to overcome any apparent weaknesses; or whether such help is rather required to ensure that exceptionally rapid progress is sustained.
At age 16, the GCSE will continue as the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Pupils not taking the GCSE in all the foundation subjects will be assessed in those subjects at an appropriate level under the national assessment system. That assessment framework has been widely welcomed and it will play a key part in maintaining and improving teaching and learning standards in our schools. We are satisfied that it is both practicable and affordable. With SEAC and other appropriate bodies, we shall as a matter of urgency determine the most cost-effective means of providing the necessary organisational and teacher training arrangements to underpin the new framework, with a view to its implementation alongside the national curriculum from September 1989.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about the difficult issues raised by the publication of assessment results. I remind the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that individual pupil's assessment results will not be published as raw material, but that, as she said, aggregated results at ages 11, 14 and 16 will be. That needs to be done so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or local education authority. 869 Parents cannot make a judgment about a school unless they have information about the way in which that school's pupils perform in general, particularly at the key ages. There is no legal requirement for schools to publish results for seven-year-olds, although we strongly recommend that they should do so in the interests of consistency, as well as in the interests of the public's right to know. The importance of that is to enable parents to be informed at that crucial and critical stage about the performance of the primary school they are choosing for their children. We shall not expect or encourage schools to include results of children having special education needs as part of their aggregate figures.
We are aware of the danger of such results being interpreted in an over-simplistic way and will take into account TGAT's advice that they should be presented only in the context of a full report on a school's activities, and with reference to any relevant socio-economic and other factors. However, it would not be appropriate to write into the Bill a detailed description such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
§ Mrs. Rumbold
Because the Bill is a framework, and it is not designed to describe in detail every process for which it makes provision. The exact form of the regulations governing publication of assessment results will be decided following expert advice and after lengthy consultation—which I hope will be welcomed by Opposition Members, as they seem greatly to depend on consultation, and masses of it—and to pre-empt that by making the proposed amendment would be wrong.
I know that many people have been concerned lest children with special education needs or with temporary problems, perhaps caused by trouble in their homes, are neglected under the new arrangements. For example, the needs of children whose first language is not English must be taken into consideration. Where appropriate, the Bill provides for exemption from, and modification to, the national curriculum and assessment arrangements for children with temporary difficulties as well as for those with special education needs. However, I emphasise that, so far as possible, we want all children to have attainable goals, to encourage their development and to promote their self-esteem.
It is a mistake for people to assume that, because some children do not, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley described them,grow up in the lush, leafy lanes … where privilege and plenty are taken for granted",they will not have potential at some point or another. That depends just as much on the quality of the school and its provision as on the child's background. It is a great mistake to make an assumption that will be detrimental to many children simply because they appear to suffer from a social disadvantage.
The test developers will be asked to have in mind the requirements of children with special education needs when devising suitable tests to cover the range of attainment on a 10-point scale, and, where appropriate, TGAT has recommended that pupils having difficulty with English should be tested orally in their own language, except where the assessments relate to progress in English.
I believe that any possible problems are outweighed by the need for schools, local education authorities and the public at large to have a better indication of how schools 870 are performing in relation to others, both in similar localities and across the nation as a whole. We shall certainly consult widely before deciding how results should be presented.
§ Ms. Armstrong
As with other parts of the Bill, there are different reasons why different parts of the Government are interested in publishing results from schools. There is the "rational" reason put forward, as always, by the Secretary of State—and today by the Minister of State—and by some of his civil servants; and there are the atavistic gut feelings of the Prime Minister and her few friends.
Let us pretend that the Secretary of State has won the debate—for the Prime Minister will presumably let him keep some aspects of the Bill for himself. Why would he be interested in publishing these results? In the first place, he argues that they will tell us which are the good schools and which are the bad, and that that knowledge will force schools to do better. Let us take him at his word, and argue the rational case for data about deprivation to be added to the information that he has already said is important.
In the first place, any private enterprise company will only make sense of its output—in this case exam results—in relation to its input—in this case the children and their backgrounds. The DES would, I am sure, admit that all the research on educational attainment demonstrates that different children from different backgrounds have different chances of success in the education system. That is not to say that every child from a certain background will not get on or will inevitably end up taking a particular route, but the research tells us that background has some effect.
I know that the Prime Minister thinks that all those facts are worth nothing when weighed against her corner-shop certainties, but even her friend Ronald Reagan has recognised some elements of the equation and reaffirmed his commitment to Head Start as a means of ensuring some compensatory work on background and deprivation. The Department of the Environment recognises it when it distributes rate support grant. Why cannot the Government recognise it in providing information about schools?
If we fail to do this, it is inevitable that—given the educational knowledge that we have—some bad schools will appear good, favoured as they are by a certain sort of intake but failing to add much to it, or to "stretch" and "push" pupils in the way that we know is possible. I suspect that the few Tory chairs of local education authorities who are still talking to the Secretary of State would readily confirm that to him. By simply publishing outcomes, without the consequences of incomes, we shall lose the possibility of judgment.
Some may argue that it is very difficult to sort out the criteria that matter from those that do not. That is true, but if the Government find it so hard, I suggest that they turn to the Department of the Environment, which has considerable expertise in deciding the different indicators for its distribution of rate support grant. If the Secretary of State has no faith in his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment—which I might understand—perhaps the Government will listen to eduationists who have worked out a series of educational priority indicators.
871 8.45 pm
We are not short of information and knowledge, although we are very short of politial understanding from some. If the Secretary of State has won the argument with the Prime Minister, he will accept our amendment and follow up the debate with his senior officers. If he has lost, however, we shall inevitably be left with a series of meaningless tables that will allow the Prime Minister and the friends in the gutter press whom she has honoured to pillory schools and localities.
One statistic may help the Minister to understand what I am trying to say. Last year's general household survey demonstrated that the daughter of an unskilled worker had a 1 per cent. chance of obtaining a degree, while the son of a professional worker had a 54 per cent. chance. Some would say that those statistics lead us to believe that class and gender bear some relationship to educational opportunity. The Government may be happy with the statistics, but do not let us pretend that they have anything to do with a sensible educational policy or that real parental choice can be provided on the basis of such silly information. We cannot be expected to believe that it has anything to do with increasing opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Opposition Members are interested in giving parents real choice and real information, and in giving real opportunities to children from disadvantaged as well as advantaged backgrounds. If that is what the Government are interested in, they will accept the amendments.
But perhaps all this is just a bad dream. Perhaps this is the Bill of a civilised and intelligent person, and perhaps the civilisation in him will allow him to accept the amendment and provide a proper method of understanding the performance of our schools.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
I am delighted to take part, for the first time, in a debate on the Education Reform Bill, albeit a debate on Lords amendments.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was in a quandary. I remember from the days when I was doing my postgraduate certificate of education that Socialist educationists always claimed that one of the reasons for having comprehensive schools was that it was the environment that shaped children's futures. Conservative Members accept that it is a mixture of environment, heredity and intelligence, and that intelligence is both innate and developed by circumstances. It is therefore important for parents to have the opportunity to see how schools operate to judge whether their children are receiving education appropriate to their intelligence and aptitude.
I cannot understand why, every time we put forward a measure to increase the amount of information available to parents, Socialist Members vote against it. It was true in 1981, when we put forward the Education (School Information) Regulations. At that time we argued that O-level and CSE results should be made available. We heard then from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) the same objections that there would be league tables, that parents would make the wrong decisions and that the press would get the wrong end of the stick. After seven years' experience of the school information regulations, we know that that has not happened.
872 It is important to look at academic information and research. It shows clearly the effect that schools can have on a child's progress. One returns to Neville Bennett's report 'Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress" published in 1976. After he had looked at 871 primary schools in Lancashire, he said that the results formed a coherent pattern and thatThe effect of teaching style is statistically and educationally significant in all attainment areas tested.He said that teaching style clearly had a more powerful effect on progress than does pupil personality, since most pupil types show better progress under formal teaching. Mr. Bennett continued:The central factor emerging from this study is that a degree of teacher direction is necessary, and that the learning experiences provided need to be clearly sequenced and structured.Michael Rutter, writing in 1979 a research paper "15,000 Hours" into secondary schools in the inner London education authority, said that, although they served an inner city area of chronic social disadvantage, some of the schools seemed nevertheless to have provided a positive influence on their pupils' development, while others had been less successful in doing so. He continued:In general, schools performed fairly similarly on all the various measures of outcome. That is, schools which did better than average in terms of the children's behaviour in school tended also to do better than average in terms of examination success and delinquency.The latest research is by Peter Mortimore, a former ILEA officer who was a member of ILEA's staff when I was an ILEA member but is now professor of educational research at Lancaster university. Writing in his book "Better Schools" this year, he said that he looked at 50 ILEA junior schools and that reading progress and the quality of school that a child attended was four times as important as a child's age, sex or background. In maths, he said that the school was 10 times more important. He also said that there is a vast difference between the best and the worst schools. Children in the best schools were 28 per cent. above the average in reading, while those in the worst were 19 per cent. below the average. In maths, pupils at the best schools were performing 21 per cent. above the average, while those at the worst were 21 per cent. below average.
§ Mr. Bennett
No. Peter Mortimore said:The quality of school that children attend has more effect on their educational progress than their social background. The essential factor influencing pupils' progress is the quality of the school.
§ Mr. Bennett
Those are three quotations from three different academic works, published in the last 10 years, that show the importance of the school on the child's progress.
If parents are to make decisions about whether a child's progress is being hampered, they have to have information. Knowledge is power. What disturbs me is that Opposition Members adopt the same attitudes as have pervaded the educational establishment for the last 40 or 50 years. In the past there was the secret garden of the 873 curriculum. Only the teachers' unions had the key to that garden. Parents were excluded. The educational progress was described by writers on education as a black box: children walked into it at one end and walked out of it at the other and what happened in the middle was nothing to do with the parents or the wider community. Those days have gone. We are determined to have open government and open management of schools. Assessment testing at seven, 11 and 14 is vital. We cannot say to parents, "We shall not allow you to see how your child is doing against national standards." The results must be published and parents must be able to see which schools in an area are not doing as well as others.
The time has come when we should trust the people to make sensible decisions on the information that is made available. It is time that the Socialist attitude towards parents of not trusting the people should end. I have been a teacher. I have also been an education officer with responsibility for writing the annual reports of the education committee on the performance of schools and their examination results. I know, therefore, how important it is for parents, councillors and everybody who is involved in education to see exactly how schools are performing.
Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's case. They do not trust the people of Britain. They believe that educationists are the only people who are capable of making decisions and that we should continue to have a secret garden from which the public are excluded.
§ Mr. Matthew Taylor
There are two essential issues. First, how close are the Secretary of State's proposals to the TGAT recommendations? Secondly, how close are they to the wish of the Secretary of State's rival, the Prime Minister, for straightforward, crude testing? The Minister of State offered no reassurance. She offered a softly, softly approach. She said that the Government accept TGAT but that they reject the social factors that are needed to make it work.
The alternative to crude testing is to work with the teaching professions and with educational experts to implement not just the theory but the letter and spirit of TGAT. That will be achieved only with proper resources and only if we are prepared to shoulder the practical difficulties of publishing meaningful background information to illuminate the test results.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) ignored the substance of the Opposition's case, which is to give parents the information that they need and to give them the ability to see what is going on in schools. The Prime Minister will not let her Secretary of State for Education and Science do what he knows is right. Anybody who believes that the Government mean to make TGAT a reality must be worried by what is happening in the school branches of the Secretary of State's Department. The assessment of performance and public examinations used to be part of schools branch 3, in common with curriculum policy under the same Under-Secretary of State. All assessment testing and examination policy has been taken away from that branch and given to the new schools branch 4.
Will the Minister explain why assessment policy in its new home has been put alongside the highly political promotion of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools? It illustrates that real control is in the hands of the political bosses in Downing street, not in 874 those of the educationists in the Secretary of State's Department or the profession. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. Then the hon. Member for Pembroke might look for genuine, real and full information, not for the kind of phoney, half information that he peddled earlier on.
§ Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
§ The House divided Ayes 193, Noes 314.877
|Division No 419]||[8.58 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Flannery, Martin|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Flynn, Paul|
|Allen, Graham||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Alton, David||Foster, Derek|
|Anderson, Donald||Foulkes, George|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Fraser, John|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Fyfe, Maria|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Galbraith, Sam|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Barron, Kevin||George, Bruce|
|Battle, John||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Beckett, Margaret||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Bell, Stuart||Gordon, Mildred|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Gould, Bryan|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Graham, Thomas|
|Blair, Tony||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Boateng, Paul||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Boyes, Roland||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Bradley, Keith||Grocott, Bruce|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Buchan, Norman||Haynes, Frank|
|Buckley, George J.||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Caborn, Richard||Hinchliffe, David|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Holland, Stuart|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Home Robertson, John|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cartwright, John||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Clay, Bob||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Clelland, David||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Illsley, Eric|
|Cohen, Harry||Ingram, Adam|
|Coleman, Donald||Janner, Greville|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||John, Brynmor|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Corbett, Robin||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Kennedy, Charles|
|Cousins, Jim||Lambie, David|
|Cryer, Bob||Lamond, James|
|Cummings, John||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Leighton, Ron|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Litherland, Robert|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Darling, Alistair||Loyden, Eddie|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||McAllion, John|
|Dewar, Donald||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Dixon, Don||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Dobson, Frank||McKelvey, William|
|Doran, Frank||McLeish, Henry|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||McTaggart, Bob|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||McWilliam, John|
|Eadie, Alexander||Madden, Max|
|Eastham, Ken||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Marek, Dr John|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Fatchett, Derek||Martlew, Eric|
|Faulds, Andrew||Maxton, John|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Meacher, Michael|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Meale, Alan|
|Fisher, Mark||Michael, Alun|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Short, Clare|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Morley, Elliott||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Soley, Clive|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Mullin, Chris||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Murphy, Paul||Strang, Gavin|
|Nellist, Dave||Straw, Jack|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Parry, Robert||Turner, Dennis|
|Patchett, Terry||Vaz, Keith|
|Pike, Peter L.||Wall, Pat|
|Prescott, John||Walley, Joan|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Warden, Gareth (Gower)|
|Quin, Ms Joyce||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Radice, Giles||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Randall, Stuart||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Redmond, Martin||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Reid, Dr John||Wilson, Brian|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Winnick, David|
|Robertson, George||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Robinson, Geoffrey||Worthington, Tony|
|Rogers, Allan||Wray, Jimmy|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rowlands, Ted||Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Robert N. Wareing|
|Adley. Robert||Butcher, John|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Butler, Chris|
|Alexander, Richard||Butterfill, John|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Carlisle, John, (Luton N)|
|Allason, Rupert||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Amos, Alan||Carrington, Matthew|
|Arbuthnot, James||Carttiss, Michael|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Cash, William|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda|
|Ashby, David||Chapman, Sydney|
|Atkinson, David||Chope, Christopher|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Churchill, Mr|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)|
|Baldry, Tony||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Colvin, Michael|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Conway, Derek|
|Bellingham, Henry||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Cope, Rt Hon John|
|Benyon, W.||Cormack, Patrick|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Couchman, James|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Cran, James|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Critchley, Julian|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Curry, David|
|Body, Sir Richard||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Boswell, Tim||Day, Stephen|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Devlin, Tim|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bowis, John||Dicks, Terry|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Dover, Den|
|Brazier, Julian||Dunn, Bob|
|Bright, Graham||Durant, Tony|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Evennett, David|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Farr, Sir John|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Favell, Tony|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Burns, Simon||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Burt, Alistair||Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey|
|Forman, Nigel||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Forth, Eric||McCrindle, Robert|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Macfarlane, Sir Neil|
|Franks, Cecil||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Freeman, Roger||Maclean, David|
|French, Douglas||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Fry, Peter||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Gale, Roger||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Gardiner, George||Madel, David|
|Gill, Christopher||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Malins, Humfrey|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Mans, Keith|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Marland, Paul|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Gorst, John||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gow, Ian||Mates, Michael|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mellor, David|
|Grist, Ian||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Ground, Patrick||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Mills, Iain|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Hannam, John||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Harris, David||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Morrison, Sir Charles|
|Hayes, Jerry||Moss, Malcolm|
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Hayward, Robert||Mudd, David|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Neale, Gerrard|
|Heddle, John||Needham, Richard|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Neubert, Michael|
|Hill, James||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hind, Kenneth||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Holt, Richard||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Howard, Michael||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Page, Richard|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Paice, James|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Irvine, Michael||Pawsey, James|
|Irving, Charles||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Jack, Michael||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Jackson, Robert||Portillo, Michael|
|Janman, Tim||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Jessel, Toby||Price, Sir David|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Redwood, John|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Renton, Tim|
|Key, Robert||Rhodes James, Robert|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Riddick, Graham|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Knapman, Roger||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Knowles, Michael||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Knox, David||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Rost, Peter|
|Lang, Ian||Rowe, Andrew|
|Latham, Michael||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Ryder, Richard|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lightbown, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lord, Michael||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Shersby, Michael||Tracey, Richard|
|Sims, Roger||Tredinnick, David|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Trippier, David|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Trotter, Neville|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Viggers, Peter|
|Speed, Keith||Walden, George|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Waller, Gary|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Walters, Sir Dennis|
|Squire, Robin||Ward, John|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Stanley, Rt Hon John||Warren, Kenneth|
|Steen, Anthony||Watts, John|
|Stern, Michael||Wells, Bowen|
|Stevens, Lewis||Whitney, Ray|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)||Wilkinson, John|
|Stokes, Sir John||Wilshire, David|
|Stradling Thomas, Sir John||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Sumberg, David||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Summerson, Hugo||Wolfson, Mark|
|Tapsell, Sir Peter||Wood, Timothy|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Woodcock, Mike|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Yeo, Tim|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 38 agreed to.