§ Amendment made: No. 37, in page 11, line 14, column 3, at beginning insert—
§ 'In section 308(2), the words "(referred to in this Act as "the Education Acts")".'.
§ [Mrs. Gillan.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.9.24 pm
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard)
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is about promoting choice, diversity and standards in education, and those have been at the heart of the Government's education reforms. I shall deal first with choice. It is parents who know what is best for their children, and it is teachers, parents and governors who know what is best for pupils at local schools. The Bill will, over time, deliver choice to parents who want to give their four-year-olds the best possible start in life, and it will extend the range of options that are open to grant-maintained school governors who want to improve the facilities that they provide for pupils.
Secondly, I shall deal with diversity. In order to have genuine choice, there must be diversity of provision. The Bill will encourage such diversity. It will expand the provision of the good-quality nursery education that parents want in the maintained, the private and the voluntary sectors. It will help to drive up standards by providing good-quality, inspected education with agreed 265 outcomes for all four-year-olds, and it will allow grant-maintained schools to build on their individual strengths by acquiring appropriate new assets. In short, the Bill will help parents, teachers and governors to make their own decisions about their own affairs.
I was pleased to note the extent of agreement in Committee and in the House today about the importance of good-quality nursery education. We want a significant expansion of nursery education. Over time, the expansion will lead to a place for every four-year-old whose parents want one, and we have no intention of compromising on quality. We already have the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's desirable learning outcomes. These goals for pre-school education resulted from extensive consultation and command widespread support among parents and professionals. The Bill contains proposals for an inspection system under Ofsted which will ensure that all providers are working towards those goals.
I note the concerns about staff qualifications, ratios and premises. Those matters are important and nursery education providers are in no doubt about what is required of them, but it will be up to them to decide how to achieve the goals that we have set.
§ Dr. Hampson
Will there be flexibility about how those standards are determined? Much of our debate on Report was about standards seemingly being related to buildings, the size of the classroom and classroom facilities and so on. In my constituency there are hardly any local authority-provided nursery facilities, and about half of them would not meet the requirements on buildings and classrooms that Opposition Members insisted upon in our earlier debate. I am talking about places that are provided by local authorities in their buildings. We have to acknowledge, do we not, that it is about standards of teaching and not—
§ Mrs. Shephard
Of course the arrangements will be interpreted flexibly, but it is important that the educational outcomes and inspections are considered and applied with great care because our quality controls are clearly focused on the outcome, which is good-quality education for four-year-olds. That is what matters most and the twin pillars of the SCAA's desirable learning outcomes and Ofsted's inspection framework will help institutions to achieve such quality. Most importantly, the introduction of nursery education vouchers will put parents in the driving seat.
§ Ms Hodge
In Norfolk after 1 April, when parents, one presumes, have their £1,100 voucher, but find that they have no place, to whom will they turn—to the school, to the local education authority, to Capita or to the Government? Who is responsible for not giving that choice to those parents in April?
§ Mrs. Shephard
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but 388 providers from the voluntary and private sectors are registered for the scheme and there will be 22 new nursery units. Those providers in Norfolk must provide only eight places each to ensure that every child 266 in Norfolk who is eligible for a place but who has no place in local education authority provision will have one provided in the private and voluntary sectors. I recognise that that is a disappointment to her, but that is how it is.
Local authorities and other providers already do much for four-year-olds in a variety of ways. The Bill will not necessarily change the pattern or diversity of provision where that provision is good, where it meets parents' needs and where that is what they choose. Vouchers will be a stimulus to parents and providers alike. It is parents who will choose the right setting for their children. Our proposals will ensure that providers are responsive to what parents want.
One Wandsworth head teacher said:This arrangement"—the voucher scheme—pushes me to raise standards. We cannot afford to be lax or complacent. Anything that forces me to give my utmost should be welcomed.Another said:If private nurseries are providing a better quality of education and my parents are looking to go out there, then I want to see what they are providing, and improve my position. That's what it's about. That's what education is about.Parents naturally have the highest aspirations for their children. Our proposals will allow them to realise those aspirations. Unlike Opposition Members, we believe in fulfilling the aspirations of all parents. In contrast, Opposition Members would deny to other people's children the opportunities that they seize eagerly for their own. When nursery education will be extended for the first time and funded to the tune of a total of £750 million to every parent who wants it in this country, with an inspection framework and with agreed educational outcomes, I find it extraordinary that all we should hear from the Labour party is a collective whine about such education not being confined to the public sector. How well that illustrates that, despite its new designer vocabulary, which extends to knowing the word "diversity", it is still locked in the grip of institutions at the expense of individuals' interests.
§ Mr. Don Foster
The Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to join us in Committee, but she will have discovered from her ministerial colleagues that, throughout the deliberations in Committee, no hon. Member from either side of the Committee suggested that the state sector was the only way in which high-quality provision could be made. Does she agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that high-quality provision can be made by a mixture of state, private and voluntary sector provision?
§ Mrs. Shephard
I am delighted to hear it and pleased that, during a few short weeks, my colleagues have achieved such good conversions among Opposition Members.
We are already beginning to see the fruits of our plans in the four authorities involved in phase 1. Interest in the scheme has been great. In the phase 1 regions, more than 600 private and voluntary sector providers have registered to join the scheme, alongside maintained schools. Of those, at least 40 have no four-year-olds now and will be providing new places. Some 200 providers have 267 already inquired about phase 2. The helpline has taken more than 20,000 calls from parents and others and some 95,000 copies of the information pack are in circulation.
It gives me great satisfaction that children and parents in those regions will shortly benefit. The first vouchers are already in the hands of parents.
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that North Yorkshire education authority has not joined the pilot scheme—even though it claims, rightly, that the majority of four-year-olds are provided for in nursery education? Will she confirm that local authority provision is not threatened by the Bill? Does she agree that a written answer by our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary stating that there are still some 880,000 surplus school places shows that there is plenty of capacity for expansion of nursery education in the state system?
§ Mrs. Shephard
My hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that the time draws nearer for North Yorkshire children and other children and parents throughout England and Wales to benefit from phase 2 of the scheme, under this Bill.
§ Sir Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the same question I asked on Second Reading, in common with other hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who spoke earlier—about the assessment of phase 1. Will she reiterate her view that there will be genuine assessment; that if there are lessons to be learnt, they will be; and that where something does not work, it will not be imposed in phase 2 without that fact being taken into account?
§ Mrs. Shephard
My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in these matters. I assure him that we shall evaluate exactly how the scheme works as phase 1 proceeds. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already given an assurance that we shall consider evidence from the inspections when they come on stream this autumn.
I need to make some speedy progress, so I will not take further interventions. I shall also curtail what I had planned to say to give other hon. Members time to speak.
The second part of the Bill concerns grant-maintained schools, which are a success story. There are now 1,100 stretching from Devon to Cumbria. They include schools large and small; primary, secondary and special. Parents from all walks of life make GM schools their first choice. Those parents include several hon. Members—indeed, some distinguished Labour Members—who obviously appreciate the freedoms that enable GM schools to produce such excellent results. It is a pity that their views are not shared by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). His plans would destroy the essence of the GM schools that some of his colleagues enjoy. We, on the other hand, have always said that self-governing status would be successful. Parents also say so when they vote for schools to become self-governing, and now Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed it.
Since 1989, the schools have built up a well-deserved reputation for high standards, excellence of provision and popularity with parents. That is because they believe in 268 themselves and in what is best for pupils. It is small wonder that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and several of their colleagues are queuing up for places at GM schools for their own children. [Interruption.] GM schools quite naturally want to provide the best possible facilities for their pupils—[Interruption.]
§ Mrs. Shephard
Commercial borrowing will provide additional resources on top of grants already available. Controls on borrowing operated by the Funding Agency for Schools, on behalf of the holder of my office, will ensure that schools are prudent. Subject to those controls, commercial borrowing will enable more capital projects to be supported in more schools. It should also help governors to enter into partnerships with the private sector under the private finance initiative.
Giving borrowing powers to GM governing bodies will bring them into line with other self-governing institutions, such as colleges of further and higher education. It will help them to run their own affairs. It will give them increased power to decide how they want to develop to meet the needs of their pupils and the local community.
The Government's policies have transformed the educational scene. We have driven up standards, increased parental choice and put the power of decision making back where it belongs—with parents, teachers and governors. By contrast, Labour Members say that they support choice—they certainly support it for some. They have learnt how to pronounce the word "diversity". Yet when presented with the chance to give positive support to real choice for all parents and real diversity of school provision, they retreat to the familiar collective protection of the interests of the institution over those of parents and children.
This Bill is about real choice, real diversity and a real increase in standards. That is what Conservative Members believe in. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)
In opposing Third Reading, I thank my hon. Friends who spoke both for England and for Wales from the Opposition Front Bench, and also my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, for the excellent way in which they have dealt with the Bill both in Committee and throughout today. They have drawn attention to the fact that where there is no place, there is no choice, and where there is no provision, there is no opportunity for parents to redeem their voucher.
The notion that the Secretary of State has put forward tonight, that this is the first major expansion of nursery education in this country—she has just reiterated it—is a shocking observation which will be resented by parents, schools, other providers and by the local education authorities, most but not all of them Labour controlled, which have expanded the nursery education programme against the vehement opposition of the Government over 17 years.
We have welcomed the Conservative party's conversion, at last, to the idea that nursery education is right for the children of this country and that by expanding 269 it we can give children a decent start in life, and build the opportunities and standards that the Opposition have been promoting. In authorities across the country, against the odds, with reductions in budgets and the abuse that we experienced 15 months ago, when authorities were held to account for daring to spend money on nursery education, we have pressed forward with that cause.
To suggest, as the Secretary of State has done tonight, that providing a paper promise is an alternative to expanding real nursery education, is an insult to the British people. They know, as people involved with the pilot projects have discovered, that a voucher does not offer a nursery place in their locality or within their reach.
Instead of proceeding as the Government are doing, we have offered to sit down with the Government, with the Liberal Democrats and with the private, voluntary and statutory providers to arrange for development plans to be drawn up in every local authority in England and Wales to ensure that we provide those nursery places. But the Government have rejected that suggestion, as they rejected every amendment and every effort to try to make sense of a nonsensical Bill.
The Government rejected the proposal that special consideration and weighted provision should be given to children with special educational needs. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, expressed his interest in special needs. I accept his commitment and his belief in the importance of that area—but he of all people, as a former Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as for Education, should know the difference between standard spending assessment and grant, between a myth or a shadow and real resources.
The Government may be able to play ducks and drakes with the British people for one more year, but they will not be able to continue to draw a veil over the eyes of those who will soon see what is being done to them. People will try to redeem their voucher and find that there is no place. As in the pilot projects, people who are already receiving a perfectly decent free place, with highly qualified staff, for their children, and who therefore understandably throw their vouchers in the bin, will not be able to understand why their local nursery school or reception class asks them to fish it out again and present it, so that it can be sent round in a bureaucratic nightmare, to redeem through a chaotic bureaucratic mechanism the same money as is already being provided.
This is the biggest nonsense that the Government have ever invented. They have attempted to create an artificial market where none exists instead of drawing together private, voluntary and local authority providers to plan places. I have to tell the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) that the Government have not planned it in a way that would make it possible to build up places by planning them in neighbourhoods that did not have them and working with parents and teachers in schools to provide them. The idea that a market system and a piece of paper can provide something that people sitting down and working together cannot plan is nonsense. The Secretary of State knows that. It is not only that in its early stages she opposed the scheme, but that her colleagues know that she did.
270 In the Sunday Express last Sunday—[Interruption.] That is not exactly known as a socialist newspaper. It said:Sources close to Mrs. Shephard say the voucher scheme—launched last month … has flopped.They say that she thinks it is Mr. Major's fault for forcing her to go ahead with the scheme despite her doubts.It continues:
'It is the same old story with the vouchers and grammar schools. Some bright spark in Downing Street has a bright idea, but doesn't think it through properly,' said a senior Tory who is close to Mrs. Shephard.'She warns them of the pitfalls, but they don't want to know. They go ahead and announce it, shove it on her desk, and tell her to get on with it.'
§ Mr. Blunkett
I am apparently under-performing because I am quoting the Secretary of State's friends, who believe that she has been dropped in the mire. She was quoted as saying:She did not so much want to ring Mr. Blackwell."—of the No. 10 policy unit—She wanted to ring his neck.One cannot blame her for that when a right-wing Tory could be so indecent and lacking in gentlemanliness as to say that Secretary of State wasso sopping wet … you could shoot snipe off her.One must know Norfolk and the wetlands to know what a snipe is.
Snipers from the rear, snipers from the left of her, snipers from the right of her. They are all over the place. The right hon. Lady is being shot at by people who know nothing about education and who have, on the whole, educated their children privately. That is why she is so safe. Few of her Cabinet colleagues could dare to take her place. She is pushing forward with something that she does not believe in and knows will fail, but she has been forced to accept it.
Every scheme that the policy unit at No. 10 comes up with is another way of trying to create an ideological divide rather than caring about and investing in the needs of children. We and the British people are sick and tired of ideological experiments and laboratories.
§ Mrs. Gillian Shephard
The hon. Gentleman talks of splits and divides. Would he like to tell the House where he stands onmiddle class left-wing parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area"?Does he have "no truck" with them or has that particular split been healed?
§ Mr. Blunkett
The difference between me and the Secretary of State is that I stand where I have always stood. I stand for parents, for information, for decent, high-quality provision. Decent, high-quality provision requires a qualified teacher to supervise and organise nursery education.
How can the Secretary of State suggest that she is providing nursery education and expanding the scheme, when she will not accept amendments that ensure that a qualified teacher is in charge of those nursery classes and 271 can supervise what takes place? I promise the Secretary of State that if the scheme goes ahead without qualified education and provides something that is less than the nursery education that the Prime Minister promised, we shall harry her now and throughout the general election.
We shall also challenge—if necessary, in the courts—the provision of a voucher for something that is not education and should therefore be taxed. In the words of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), the cost of the scheme is the "dead-weight cost" of providing a subsidy to those already buying private care, for whom the whole of the voucher scheme has been invented. It subsidises the better-off and denies those who need nursery education. It denies those who require special needs provision and provides a shoddy and unacceptable bureaucratic scheme instead of a clear commitment to expanding nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in England and Wales. It is time to put a stop to this nonsense and, instead, join together to co-operate and do what we have offered to ensure that every parent can have the security of a free nursery place for their child.
§ Mr. Don Foster
Choice, diversity and standards—that has now become the Government's mantra; but they should recognise that merely repeating the words does not mean that something will happen. The policies that the Government have promoted and their funding regime will not ensure choice, diversity and the raising of standards; the policies contained in the Bill certainly will not do that. Nothing has happened during the Bill's passage to reassure me on the numerous concerns that I expressed when the Secretary of State first introduced the proposals. There has been overwhelming opposition to the proposals contained in the Bill. The Government have refused to listen to any of the voices that have raised serious opposition to them.
The Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic—a view that is understandably shared by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). As we have seen, the Bill will fail to ensure the rapid provision of the extra infrastructure needed for the high-quality nursery education that we desperately need in this country. It will not provide significant increased provision; it will not boost provision and may even harm what exists for three-year-olds. It will fail to cover the cost of full-time provision, which will mean that the less well-off, who are unable to afford the necessary top-up fees, will receive nothing.
The Bill will fail to provide extra support for children with special educational needs. It will provide nothing for the training of the additional teachers and inspectors; it will fail to ensure that the full evaluation of the pilots takes place before the scheme starts. It will fail to encourage strategic planning and links between education and care provision. In short, the Bill will fail to provide what is desperately needed: high-quality early years education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. How bizarre of the Secretary of State to devote so much of her speech to grant-maintained schools; how bizarre to draw attention to the least successful of all the Government's education policies.
During the Second Reading debate, I argued that the Bill should be rejected because it contained too many blanks; none of those blanks has been filled in. The hon. 272 Member for Meriden feared that the Bill would be another Dangerous Dogs Bill. Just like Sherlock Holmes' famous dog in the night, let us hope that this one will not bark.
§ Mr. Steinberg
My hon. Friends and I have long campaigned for publicly funded, high-quality nursery education for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want it. After years of Tory hostility towards nursery education—both here and in Tory local education authorities—the Prime Minister promised us nursery education for all four-year-olds. Every parent of a four-year-old should expect their child to obtain a nursery education which is from a qualified teacher and properly trained support staff, which will allow their individual learning needs to be met, which is in premises suitable to those needs and with sufficient teaching space, which has safe indoor and outdoor play areas and appropriate health and welfare facilities, and which has class sizes and staffing ratios that take into account both educational and child care needs.
However, what have we got? The measures outlined in the Bill, as it stands now, will not deliver high-quality nursery education. Such a system of voucher, pupil-led funding threatens existing high-quality and full-time nursery education, will not guarantee an increase in local provision, will punish those local education authorities that are already committed to expansion and may even reduce provision in some areas. The Bill wastes public money on a private company to administer and to police the system. It also raises expectations of increased choice, which will ultimately lead to parental disillusionment.
According to a parliamentary question that I asked recently, there are 145,000 four-year-olds in the voluntary and private sectors who will qualify for nursery vouchers in the private sector. This is a massive subsidy to the private sector. Many of the parents who are receiving the vouchers are too embarrassed to take the money. Huge sums of taxpayers' money are going into private, profit-making nursery establishments that may or may not give a quality provision.
There is nothing for local education authorities to expand their provision. It is common sense that at the present time a local education authority has only a certain number of places for children—and whether it be many or few, the nursery voucher scheme will not allow them to expand. There is no capital to build. It is impossible to provide places without the resources to do so. In some areas, where there are no or few nursery places in the local education authority sector, this will stay the same and parents can go only to the private sector—parents will not have a choice.
In areas such as Durham, which have good and reasonable provision, the position could be made even worse. Not only will they not be able to expand, but they may lose places. Why? Because money is to be clawed back from the local education authorities to pay for the scheme—clawed back not from those authorities that get under-fives allocations in their standard spending assessment but do not use it for the nursery provision, but from authorities that do use it to provide nursery places. That is illogical and unfair. Durham will lose £2.5 million in the deal. Authorities that provide nursery places will be penalised, and the authorities that do not provide them will be rewarded. Only this Government could be so daft or so sinister. The Bill should be defeated, and I hope that that happens this evening. We shall vote against it.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I shall plagiarise the marvellous adjective of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for the final time: this spatchcocked piece of legislation deserves to go down for a number of reasons. In terms of inspections, it fails in relation to the premises, which seemed to exercise the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) so much, and it fails in relation to standards. It fails on the commitment—or lack of it—to qualified teachers in all institutions.
The Bill fails in terms of the provision of places, and not only in the 200 black holes identified by the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Conversely, it will damage good providers, whether in Solihull or the majority of Labour councils that make excellent provision. The Bill also fails in terms of children with special educational needs. Despite the arguments of hon. Members, and even the support of some Conservative Members, no concession was made by the Government. Crucially, the Bill fails because it does not properly consider the need for an evaluation of phase 1 before a commitment to phase 2.
The other half of the Bill fails in terms of the facility that is offered for borrowing to grant-maintained schools. It will do nothing to increase provision in the majority of those schools, as they showed by their lack of interest in the proposals. It does nothing to help the vast majority of our schools—the other 24,000. I shall use a fencing metaphor: the Government have approached this with a sabre while we have danced with foils. To put it in a boxing simile: the Government have used brute strength to push through unpopular proposals like a Mike Tyson, while the Muhammed Alis of the Labour party have given them a lesson in the science of dealing with it.
I note the absence, yet again, of members of the Standing Committee. No commitment was made in Committee by members of the Committee, and no commitment has been made tonight by members of the Government, to fair provision for all our children.
I urge the House to reject the Bill.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 238.277
|Division No. 84]||[10.00 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Booth, Hartley|
|Alexander, Richard||Boswell, Tim|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)|
|Amess, David||Bowden, Sir Andrew|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bowis, John|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Brandreth, Gyles|
|Ashby, David||Brazier, Julian|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Bright, Sir Graham|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Burns, Simon|
|Bates, Michael||Burt, Alistair|
|Batiste, Spencer||Butcher, John|
|Bellingham, Henry||Butler, Peter|
|Bendall, Vivian||Butterfill, John|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Carlisle, John (Luton North)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Carttiss, Michael|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Cash, William|
|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)|
|Conway, Derek||Hunter, Andrew|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Jack, Michael|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Couchman, James||Jessel, Toby|
|Cran, James||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Day, Stephen||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Key, Robert|
|Devlin, Tim||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Dicks, Terry||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Knapman, Roger|
|Dover, Den||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Elletson, Harold||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Lang, Rt Hon Ian|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Evennett, David||Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)|
|Faber, David||Lidington, David|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lord, Michael|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Luff, Peter|
|Forman, Nigel||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Forth, Eric||MacKay, Andrew|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)||Malone, Gerald|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Mans, Keith|
|French, Douglas||Marland, Paul|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Martin, David (Portsmouth South)|
|Gale, Roger||Mates, Michael|
|Gallie, Phil||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Merchant, Piers|
|Garnier, Edward||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Gill, Christopher||Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)||Needham, Rt Hon Richard|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald||Norris, Steve|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy||Ottaway, Richard|
|Hannam, Sir John||Page, Richard|
|Hargreaves, Andrew||Paice, James|
|Haselhurst, Sir Alan||Patnick, Sir Irvine|
|Hawkins, Nick||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Hawksley, Warren||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Hayes, Jerry||Pawsey, James|
|Heald, Oliver||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Pickles, Eric|
|Hendry, Charles||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Higgins, Fit Hon Sir Terence||Portillo, Rt Hon Michael|
|Hill, James (Southampton Test)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Richards, Rod||Thomason, Roy|
|Riddick, Graham||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Robathan, Andrew||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Thurnham, Peter|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Tredinnick, David|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Trend, Michael|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Sackville, Tom||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy||Viggers, Peter|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Walden, George|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Shersby, Sir Michael||Ward, John|
|Sims, Roger||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Waterson, Nigel|
|Soames Nicholas||Watts, John|
|Speed, Sir Keith|
|Spencer, Sir Derek||Whitney, Ray|
|Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Spink, Dr Robert||Wilkinson, John|
|Spring, Richard||Willetts, David|
|Sproat, Iain||Wilshire, David|
|Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Steen, Anthony||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stewart, Allan||Yeo, Tim|
|Sumberg, David||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Sykes, John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Tapsell, Sir Peter||Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Canavan, Dennis|
|Ainger, Nick||Cann, Jamie|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Chidgey, David|
|Allen, Graham||Chisholm, Malcolm|
|Alton, David||Church, Judith|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Clapham, Michael|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)|
|Ashton, Joe||Clwyd, Mrs Ann|
|Austin-Walker, John||Coffey, Ann|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Cohen, Harry|
|Barron, Kevin||Connarty, Michael|
|Battle, John||Cook, Robin (Livingston)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Corbett, Robin|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Corston, Jean|
|Bell, Stuart||Cousins, Jim|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)|
|Benton, Joe||Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cunningham, Roseanna|
|Berry, Roger||Dafis, Cynog|
|Betts, Clive||Davidson, Ian|
|Blunkett, David||Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)|
|Boateng, Paul||Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)|
|Bradley, Keith||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Denham, John|
|Burden, Richard||Dewar, Donald|
|Byers, Stephen||Dixon, Don|
|Cabom, Richard||Dobson, Frank|
|Callaghan, Jim||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Dowd, Jim|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||McNamara, Kevin|
|Eastham, Ken||MacShane, Denis|
|Etherington, Bill||McWilliam, John|
|Fatchett, Derek||Madden, Max|
|Faulds, Andrew||Maddock, Diana|
|Flynn, Paul||Mahon, Alice|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Marek, Dr John|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Foulkes, George||Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)|
|Fyfe, Maria||Martlew, Eric|
|Galbraith, Sam||Maxton, John|
|Galloway, George||Meacher, Michael|
|Gapes, Mike||Meale, Alan|
|George, Bruce||Michael, Alun|
|Gerard, Neil||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Milbum, Alan|
|Godsiff, Roger||Miller, Andrew|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Gordon, Mildred||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Graham, Thomas||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)||Morley, Elliot|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Gunnell, John||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Hain, Peter||Mudie, George|
|Hall, Mike||Mullin, Chris|
|Hanson, David||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Henderson, Doug||Olner, Bill|
|Heppell, John||O'Neill, Martin|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Hodge, Margaret||Pearson, Ian|
|Hoey, Kate||Pendry, Tom|
|Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)||Pickthall, Colin|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Pike, Peter L|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)||Pope, Greg|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley North,||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Hoyle, Doug||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Hutton, John||Randall, Stuart|
|Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jamieson, David||Rendel, David|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mùn)||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Rogers, Allan|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Ruddock, Joan|
|Jowell, Tessa||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Keen, Alan||Sheerman, Barry|
|Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Khabra, Piara S||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Short, Clare|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Simpson, Alan|
|Lestor, Joan (Eccles)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Terry||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Litnerland, Robert||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Soley, Clive|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Spellar, John|
|Loyden, Eddie||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|McAllion, John||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McCartney, Ian||Stott, Roger|
|Macdonald, Calum||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|McFall, John||Straw, Jack|
|McKelvey, William||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|McMaster, Gordon||Timms, Stephen|
|Tipping, Paddy||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Touhig, Don||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Trickett, Jon||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Turner, Dennis||Wilson, Brian|
|Tyler, Paul||Worthington, Tony|
|Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold||Wray, Jimmy|
|Walley, Joan||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Wareing, Robert N||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Watson, Mike||Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Mr. John Cummings.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.