§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I beg to move amendment No. 15, line 36, at end insert—'(3A) The Secretary of State may not give consent under subsection (6) of section 68 of the Education Act 1993 unless he is satisfied that—The amendment seeks to safeguard grant-maintained borrowing. That raised much raucous laughter in Committee, because members of the Government could not understand how we would wish to protect the interests of schools that may or may not have opted for grant-maintained status but necessarily remain part of the educational fabric and will shortly be integrated into a new framework of local management of schools.
- (a) the school will be able both to repay the sum borrowed and to pay interest thereon without recourse to additional grant from the funding authority for schools; and
- (b) the borrowing is not to be secured against core fixed assets
and he shall by regulations specify the definition of core fixed assets for the purposes of this subsection.'.
The amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill safeguards that were set out in the earlier consultation on that issue by the Department for Education and Employment, for which the Government repeated their support in Committee.
§ Mr. Pawsey
May we tease the hon. Gentleman to say a little more about the way in which grant-maintained schools will be reintegrated?
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
It is a very simple matter, which we have well rehearsed on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The hon. Gentleman well knows that we propose a tripartite system of schools—community schools, aided schools and foundation schools—and that grant-maintained schools will be part of that. We are great advocates of that; we are not great advocates of a status that advantages a small number of schools to the disadvantage of many.
In Committee, while expressing support for the underlying objectives of such safeguards, Ministers argued that advice to the Funding Agency for Schools on considering applications—through a remit letter, whatever that might mean—would set out those safeguards and that it would be best to leave decisions to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances rather than set out the safeguards in legislation. Indeed, we have been told several times that that will include a requirement for grant-maintained schools to prove their case first to the Funding Agency for Schools.
Opposition Members should be forgiven if we take such assurances with a large pinch of salt. I, for one, recall the assurances that the Opposition were given that grant-maintained status in itself would not be extended to schools that were due to be closed under the surplus places proposals, but that somersault took place in the face of a decline in the number of applications for grant-maintained status at that time. While that programme continues to grind to a halt, a desperate Government are liable to do anything to encourage schools to become grant-maintained.
252 The amendment provides an opportunity to probe further into the nature of the remit letter and what factors the Funding Agency for Schools for England should bear in mind when considering whether assets are core assets. It will also provide an opportunity to explore the links between core assets and the new Education (School Premises) Regulations, which were approved yesterday against strong opposition from Labour Members. We argue that links between the two proposals are indissoluble.
On the question of the relevance of inserting these safeguards into legislation, it might be sensible to stress that little should be left to chance when defining the terms under which such borrowing can take place because we are dealing with the future of education for the nation's children. Placing conditions in the Bill will help to ensure that there is no abuse of borrowing arrangements, and that the effect on children's education will be limited. At the very least, this debate will provide useful material in Hansard for hon. Members to digest and it should provide some further insight on the status of a remit letter.
I do not mean to suggest that there will be any impropriety by schools, but some school governors might feel that they can embark on a set of proposals for which they are particularly ill-suited because they do not have the depth of experience or knowledge. We examined that possibility in great detail in the debate. I expect that the Minister will come back on that and say that that is the role of the FAS, but many Opposition Members would argue that that agency is very partial when it comes to reflecting the whims of Government policy.
The Under-Secretary of State's contributions on core assets in the Standing Committee were less than clear. He argued that there was a proposed working definition of core assets, covering those that areessential to a school's function or needed to meet statutory requirements.He then explained the problem of providing such a definition because circumstances in schools varied—of course they vary. The FAS should decide instead on a case-by-case basis, though he suggested two rules of thumb:Is the asset essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements? Is the asset essential to its functions in other respects?Later still, he suggested:The starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools for England is that all school buildings are core assets. It would be open to a school to argue when it submits its loan application to the FAS that particular buildings are not essential to the school's functioning".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 406–7.]Which is it to be? Who will decide—the FAS or the school itself? How will a remote body, such as the FAS, be able to assess whether a school's assertion that an asset is not essential is accurate? Should not the views and advice of parents, governors and the local education authority—which would still have an overarching responsibility in the vast majority of local education areas—be sought? Would it not be more sensible to set out in regulations a framework against which applications should be judged? Could not that include some scope for local discretion?
We believe that it would be far better for the legislation to go further and spell out detail along the lines set out in the earlier consultation. When the Minister responds and 253 defines core assets, perhaps she will tell us which of the following, many of which I adumbrated in Committee, are open for use as collateral: classrooms; subject rooms such as art, drama, photography and history rooms; common areas such as assembly halls and gymnasiums; common open areas, including those that are planted with grass or landscaped, and car parks; playing fields; playgrounds; office accommodation for senior staff, which is particularly appropriate because we expect that there will be more administration, whether in grant-maintained or locally managed schools; and staff rooms and rooms made available to sixth formers or to pupils for club activities—we know that such provision was singularly lacking in the regulations passed yesterday, but there are still references to that type of provision in the guidelines.
Could any of the following be used as collateral: accommodation for caretakers and other staff, science laboratories, technology rooms and workshops, audio-visual and theatre facilities, swimming pools or libraries? The list is endless. We would like the Minister to tell us which of those core assets will covered by the legislation.
I should like to tell the Minister about three of my recent experiences in schools while travelling around the country. I do not expect her to comment on individual schools, and I know that she has already declined to comment on one, for very good reason, but I think that my experiences can serve as good illustrations of the problems that schools face.
The first school was the Monk Fryston Church of England primary school, in the Selby area of Yorkshire. That school was originally built for 40 children, but it now takes in 120 children. We can argue all we like about the way in which one classroom serves as the school hall, gymnasium, dining room and storage room, or about the overcrowding of the various facilities there. Outside that school, however, encroaching on the playgrounds—which were conveniently taken out of the Education (School Premises) Regulations last night—are demountables. Are they core assets?
As I mentioned demountables, the second example came to mind. Last Friday, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) at Sowerby Bridge high school. I have also noted what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said in the debate about the time when he was education chairman for Calderdale, when that school was pleading for new demountables, some of which had been there for 40 years as temporary accommodation. The hon. Gentleman was subsequently elected as a Member of Parliament, and he has presumably failed to advance the case of that high school and its problems with its 13 demountables. Are they core assets? I doubt very much whether Sowerby Bridge high school could deliver the national curriculum without those demountables. Are they permanent features?
The third example is probably one of the strangest I have encountered, and I have travelled to many schools. I was recently at a primary school in Gravesham, which is adjacent, on a very large site, to a grant-maintained secondary school. The peculiarity is that the primary school is on one part of an open site. After a forced route 254 march, one gets to the other half of the school, which is part of a quadrangle, three parts of which belong to the secondary school. That is a grant-maintained school. One has to cross the playground to get to the primary school. I wonder which is the core asset. We know that, under the minimum space regulations, schools have been allowed much latitude in terms of playgrounds, but is the playground a core asset? Is it a core asset of the secondary grant-maintained school, or is it a core asset of that primary school given that it provides access from one half of the school to the other?
I know that the Minister wants to reply, so I shall conclude soon. We have more than 24,000 schools. We know that only a small minority of them—about 1,100—are in the grant-maintained sector, but policies affecting grant-maintained schools have a habit of being introduced for other schools. I am sure that many of the grant-maintained schools are also in difficult circumstances.
I can foresee that, without a definition of core assets, many problems will arise when loans are taken out on the basis of core assets. I foresee at least two results. First, it will damage the provision of what we term core education and, in particular, provision of the national curriculum. Secondly, unless we are extremely careful, someone else will pick up the tab for it. In Committee, we were told that governors would not be jointly and severally liable, which I accept, but we were also told that no guarantee will be provided by the Secretary of State or the FAS. That being so, and if one cannot convince potential lenders that they have an asset that is a realisable security, why, for goodness sake, does clause 6 provide for such borrowing? We asked the same question repeatedly in Committee. A paradox seems to exist and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain it to the House.
§ Mr. Jamieson
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has clearly marked out the difference between the Opposition and the Government on this important matter. We are in favour of the careful and prudent use of taxpayers' money, but the Government are quite happy about the careless and imprudent use of the exceedingly limited resources for school buildings.
The Opposition know that clause 6 is largely superfluous. I have already spoken to a number of grant-maintained school heads and their governors, who cannot conceive how they will find the money from their revenue budgets to pay back the loans envisaged under the Bill. They do not understand what part of their land or buildings they could use as collateral against such loans.
As I said to the Minister in Committee, even a modest building in a school could cost up to £500,000 to provide. At the very minimum, a school would have to pay back about £50,000 a year out of its revenue budget to finance that building. That is approximately the cost of two and a half teachers. That repayment could go on not just for one or two years but for between 10 and 30 years. Such is the length of time that that school would have to forgo teachers in order to provide for the new building. Unfortunately, the Government are trying to treat schools rather like businesses, but very few comparisons can be properly made.
255 Yes, we are happy that schools should have financial autonomy, but no, schools do not have an unlimited ability to expand. Of course, schools get most of their money from the public purse.
§ Mr. Jamieson
Time is short and the hon. Gentleman seems to have just popped in for a few minutes, so he will understand why I will not give way to him.
The amendment would ensure, as any lender would in other circumstances, that the borrower could pay back the money. The key question is whether a borrower can pay back the loan and the interest. It seems infinitely sensible to the Opposition that that safeguard should be included in the Bill. We want to know that that borrowing can be repaid without further recourse to other funds that a school may call upon the Funding Agency for Schools to provide.
The amendment would also ensure that the borrowing is not made against core assets. At this stage we need a clear definition of the core assets against which a school cannot borrow. No clear definition is supplied in the Bill. It is important to know that definition because, if a school defaulted on its payments, are we to assume that those assets could be repossessed? Could the bailiffs go into the science room and take the equipment out? Is that what the Minister is suggesting? If not, what is the point of using those assets as collateral? Children's education is far too important to be left to the vagaries in the Bill. We need a clear definition of the core assets.
We are told that the Funding Agency for Schools will consider loan applications. If, once the Bill is enacted, the agency received between 100 and 200 applications, to how much scrutiny would it subject each of those bids? Will it find time to send officials to look closely at a school's buildings and assets to see whether they meet the definition of core assets? Those of us who sat on the Committee considering the Education Bill in 1993 will know that we were told that the Funding Agency for Schools would have a light touch. If it is required to scrutinise in detail loan applications, that is not equivalent to a light touch. For that reason, the Bill needs to contain a clear definition of core assets.
What we need, and, most of all, what parents and governors need, is a yardstick against which the applications will be measured. The Opposition appreciate that the matter is too important to be left to the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill should contain a clearer definition of core assets. I invite the Minister to make that clear to us now.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan)
The one thing that the Opposition cannot bear is the success of the Government's education policy—for example, on the national curriculum, testing and, in particular, grant-maintained schools. Those schools are successful and well run. They have demonstrated that they know how to use self-governing status wisely. We want to recognise that fact by giving them the additional freedom to borrow money on the commercial market.
Amendment No. 15 would include in the Bill some of the Government's proposed administrative safeguards on borrowing by GM schools. We have made it clear on a 256 number of occasions that those schools will be allowed to borrow only if they can service any debt from their income without prejudicing their main business. I can assure the House that there is no question of the Government making additional grant available to GM schools to allow them to take out larger loans. Recurrent funding for GM schools will continue to be directly related, as it is now, to the funds received by schools maintained by local education authorities.
The other part of the amendment relates to core assets. I can confirm that GM schools will not be allowed to offer core assets—those that are essential to their functioning—as collateral. I am pleased to see that the Opposition have taken on board those proposals and agree with us about the need for safeguards on commercial borrowing by GM schools.
Safeguards are necessary for three main reasons: first, to protect the public interest in publicly funded assets; secondly, to ensure that schools can continue to provide education in accordance with their statutory responsibilities; and thirdly, to maintain public accountability for the use of public funds.
Although we agree with the Opposition about the need for safeguards, we think that applying them in the form implied by the amendment will introduce unnecessary inflexibility. We resisted similar amendments in Committee. We resist amendment No. 15 because we take a sensible and consistent view about what should properly be contained in primary legislation and what should not.
That represents the essential difference between our approach and that of the Opposition. We are in favour of choice and diversity, whereas the Labour party is in favour of uniformity and prescription from the centre. In diversifying circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate for such detail to be prescribed in legislation. We want to leave GM schools the ability to act effectively.
I can understand that the Labour party, which seeks to prescribe a uniform system, would want to enter every small, detailed point in primary legislation. Even if we agree with the general objective, we do not want to reach it by some form of Procrustean bed.
Opposition Members also want us to define in regulations what is a core fixed asset. That is both unnecessary and undesirable, although we understand the concerns that underlie it. Defining core assets in regulations is difficult because the circumstances of individual schools vary so widely.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) repeated word for word what we said in Committee, so he knows our two simple rules of thumb: whether the asset is essential to allow the school to meet statutory requirements and whether it is essential to its functioning in other respects. I am pleased that he appears to have listened carefully in Committee as he noticed that the starting assumption of the Funding Agency for Schools is that all buildings are core assets.
I hope that Opposition Members recognise that, although we share their concerns about the importance of protecting publicly funded assets, such decisions are best left to administrative discretion in the light of specific local circumstances.
In Committee, Opposition Members produced a number of powerful arguments against their own amendment. They gave us a long list of facilities— 257 including photographic studios, gymnasiums, information technology rooms, assembly halls, sports halls and landscaped areas—that they thought should be defined in regulations as core assets.
We agree that such units may well be essential to a school's functioning, but whether they are or not depends on such considerations as the use to which governors wish to put them and the other facilities that are available on the school's site—in other words, on specific local circumstances. Opposition Members think that photographic studios should be core assets, but what if a school has two? Should they both be core assets? The answer will depend on local conditions and it does not make sense to anticipate all possible contingencies in regulations.
I thought that the House would want to know the reason for the legislation, as Opposition Members have asked. They have often alluded to the fact that schools would not want to borrow. I am pleased to say that a school in the south-east wants to borrow funds and extend its buildings and has already, in anticipation of the Bill, had discussions with bankers in principle about a loan. Two schools in the south-east intend to borrow £500,000 each, in both cases to finance the construction of a performing arts centre. Another wants to borrow to improve its sports facilities. A school in East Anglia is currently preparing a substantial project to be financed by borrowing. Another in the south-east intends to borrow money to build a new caretaker's house.
The grant-maintained school movement has been a great success for the Government. Opposition Members take every possible opportunity to try to scupper the grant-maintained movement. To put it into perspective, the hon. Member for Walton has said on many occasions—but it bears repetition—The Minister cannot be in any doubt that we"—in the Labour party—have made a firm commitment to abolish GM status because it is not compatible with our new arrangements for schools."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 22 February 1996; c. 373.]That is another Procrustean bed.
The amendment is not necessary. It is a mischievous, dog-in-a-manager amendment. The Opposition want to get rid of grant-maintained schools, but they want to spoil them on the way. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against this useless amendment.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
The hon. Lady has evinced on many occasions her interest in all matters concerning the regions of outer space between the galaxies. She has a far more informed knowledge of the core of the galaxy than she has of core assets. It is the height of gall that she should accuse us of having stolen the Government's ideas on core assets.
Conservative Members might argue that we explored GM borrowing ad nauseam. As for the Procrustean beds that the hon. Lady accuses us of desiring, there must be a black hole in my knowledge of Greek mythology. I put it down to the notion that working-class heroes like myself were lucky to find a potato sack on the dock road.
258 The proposals put forward by the hon. Lady tonight will do nothing to advance the educational interests of the vast majority of our children. More importantly from the hon. Lady's perspective, they will do absolutely nothing to encourage the grant-maintained sector. That is evidenced by its response, which was mentioned on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement several weeks ago: less than 5 per cent. of grant-maintained schools bothered to respond. Overwhelmingly, grant-maintained schools were not interested in taking on further debt.
Given the Government's failure to make a clear commitment on what core assets ought to be, so that schools can guarantee the delivery of the national curriculum, we feel impelled to vote for the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 271.261
|Division No. 83]||[9.04 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Ainger, Nick||Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)|
|Allen, Graham||Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Alton, David||Cunningham, Roseanna|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Dafis, Cynog|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Davidson, Ian|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)|
|Austin-Walker, John||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Barron, Kevin||Denham, John|
|Battle, John||Dewar, Donald|
|Bayley, Hugh||Dixon, Don|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret||Dobson, Frank|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Bell, Stuart||Dowd, Jim|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Benton, Joe||Eastham, Ken|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Etherington, Bill|
|Berry, Roger||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Betts, Clive||Fatchett, Derek|
|Blunkett, David||Faulds, Andrew|
|Boateng, Paul||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Bradley, Keith||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Foulkes, George|
|Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Fyfe, Maria|
|Burden, Richard||Galbraith, Sam|
|Byers, Stephen||Galloway, George|
|Caborn, Richard||Gapes, Mike|
|Callaghan, Jim||Garrett, John|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||George, Bruce|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Gerrard, Neil|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Cann, Jamie||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chidgey, David||Godsiff, Roger|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Church, Judith||Gordon, Mildred|
|Clapham, Michael||Graham, Thomas|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Coffey, Ann||Gunnell, John|
|Cohen, Harry||Hall, Mike|
|Connarty, Michael||Hanson, David|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Corbett, Robin||Henderson, Doug|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Heppell, John|
|Corston, Jean||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Cousins, Jim||Hodge, Margaret|
|Cummings, John||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Olner, Bill|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)||O'Neill, Martin|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley North)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)||Pearson, Ian|
|Hoyle, Doug||Pendry, Tom|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Pickthall, Colin|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Pike, Peter L|
|Hutton, John||Pope, Greg|
|Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)||Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Jamieson, David||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Randall, Stuart|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jowell, Tessa||Rendel, David|
|Keen, Alan||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Khabra, Piara S||Rogers, Allan|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Rowlands, Ted|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Ruddock, Joan|
|Lestor, Joan (Eccles)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Lewis, Terry||Sheerman, Barry|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Litherland, Robert||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Livingstone, Ken||Short, Clare|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Simpson, Alan|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Skinner, Dennis|
|Loyden, Eddie||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|McAllion, John||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|McCartney, Ian||Soley, Clive|
|Macdonald, Calum||Spearing, Nigel|
|McFall, John||Spellar, John|
|McKelvey, William||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Maclennan, Robert||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McMaster, Gordon||Stott, Roger|
|McNamara, Kevin||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|MacShane, Denis||Straw, Jack|
|McWilliam, John||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Madden, Max||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Mahon, Alice||Timms, Stephen|
|Marek, Dr John||Tipping, Paddy|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Touhig, Don|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)||Trickett Jon|
|Martlew, Eric||Turner, Dennis|
|Maxton, John||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Meale, Alan||Walley, Joan|
|Michael, Alun||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Watson, Mike|
|Milburn, Alan||Welsh, Andrew|
|Miller, Andrew||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Morley, Elliot||Wilson, Brian|
|Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)||Wise, Audrey|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Worthington, Tony|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Wray, Jimmy|
|Mudie, George||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)||Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Peter Hain.|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Ashby, David|
|Alexander, Richard||Atkins, Rt Hon Robert|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)|
|Amess, David||Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Banks, Matthew (Southport)|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Banks, Robert (Harrogate)|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Bates, Michael|
|Batiste, Spencer||Gale, Roger|
|Bellingham, Henry||Gallie, Phil|
|Bendall, Vivian||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Garnier, Edward|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Gill, Christopher|
|Body, Sir Richard||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Booth, Hartley||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Boswell, Tim||Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Bowis, John||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Hague, Rt Hon William|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald|
|Brazier, Julian||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy|
|Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Hannam, Sir John|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Hawkins, Nick|
|Burns, Simon||Hawksley, Warren|
|Burt, Alistair||Hayes, Jerry|
|Butler, Peter||Heald, Oliver|
|Butterfill, John||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Hendry, Charles|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Carttiss, Michael||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence|
|Cash, William||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Churchill, Mr||Horam, John|
|Clappison, James||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Coe, Sebastian||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Congdon, David||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Jack, Michael|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Couchman, James||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Cran, James||Jessel, Toby|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Day, Stephen||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Devlin, Tim||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Key, Robert|
|Dicks, Terry||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Dover, Den||Knapman, Roger|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Elletson, Harold||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Lang, Rt Hon Ian|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evennett, David||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Faber, David||Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lidington, David|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Lord, Michael|
|Forman, Nigel||Luff, Peter|
|Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Forth, Eric||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||MacKay, Andrew|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|French, Douglas||Malone, Gerald|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Mans, Keith|
|Marland, Paul||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)|
|Mates, Michael||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Merchant, Piers||Spring, Richard|
|Mills, Iain||Sproat, Iain|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Steen, Anthony|
|Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector||Stewart, Allan|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Sumberg, David|
|Needham, Rt Hon Richard||Sweeney, Walter|
|Nelson, Anthony||Sykes, John|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Norris, Steve||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Thomason, Roy|
|Ottaway, Richard||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Page, Richard||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Paice, James||Thomton, Sir Malcolm|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Tredinnick, David|
|Pawsey, James||Trend, Michael|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Pickles, Eric||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Viggers, Peter|
|Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Walden, George|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Waller, Gary|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Ward, John|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Richards, Rod||Waterson, Nigel|
|Riddick, Graham||Watts, John|
|Robathan, Andrew||Wells, Bowen|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Whitney, Ray|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Whittingdale, John|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Wilkinson, John|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Willetts, David|
|Sackville, Tom||Wilshire, David|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)||Yeo, Tim|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Shersby, Sir Michael|
|Sims, Roger||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Mr. Garry Streeter and Mr. Derek Conway.|
|Speed, Sir Keith|
§ Question accordingly negatived.