§ 'School premises
- ( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall conduct and publish a review of regulations relating to the size and standard of school premises for the purposes specified in subsection (3) below.
- (2) Before undertaking such a review, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to her to be concerned.
- (3) The purpose of the review referred to in subsection (1) above shall be to enable the Secretary of State to consider, before bringing into force under section 72(3) below any provision amending the provisions of section 259A of the Education Act 1996, the effect on the efficient use of premises and the creation of surplus places of any such provision.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Don Foster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I remind the House that, some time ago, the Government removed the space regulations that applied to our schools. Many of us have been concerned about the removal of those regulations, fearing that in certain circumstances it may lead to further overcrowding in schools. There is clear evidence that the Government are keen on the uncontrolled expansion of pupil numbers in some schools. The matter was debated in relation to new clause 3, which was defeated last night, and discussed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their meeting to 183 prepare the Government's forthcoming manifesto proposals. A review is needed of the space requirements of schools.
It is important to consider the implications of the uncontrolled expansion of schools proposed by the Government. The best evidence of the potential consequences comes from the Audit Commission report entitled "Trading Places", which I am sure that many hon. Members have seen.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
The hon. Gentleman will see that I also have a copy of the report. Will he remind the House of the timing of our debate in Standing Committee and the timing of the publication of that document?
§ Mr. Foster
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He was present in the Standing Committee and is aware of the amazing juxtaposition of those dates. The day after we concluded our deliberations in Committee, the report was published. Had it been available to us in Committee, we might have had an even more well-informed debate on the Government's proposals.
The report contains an indictment of the Government's proposals for the uncontrolled expansion of schools. It identifies a direct conflict between promoting grant-maintained schools and ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places. Since GM status was introduced, 40 per cent. of schools that local education authorities wanted to close have remained open by opting out, despite the clear commitment that opting out was not to be a route used by schools to avoid an LEA reorganisation proposal.
The report shows that the cost of promoting choice undermines the need to control public expenditure, and that there is no clear evidence of the Government's policy in that regard. It reveals a breakdown in the system of capital allocations to schools, which has prevented LEAs from maintaining—let alone improving—their school buildings. It shows the total confusion caused by the Government's use of two different definitions of school capacity, resulting in great overcrowding, especially in popular primary schools.
The report calls on the Government to revise their policies on GM status for schools facing reorganisation, capital allocation to schools, the definition of school capacity, parental choice, and the balance between parental choice and surplus places.
The report suggests that more effective power should be given to local agencies, especially LEAs, to plan provision, in marked contrast to the Government's current proposals to allow the unfettered expansion of some schools. It recommends that local agencies should have more powers to manage the market, and that an improved set of incentives should be introduced to promote value for money.
In the light of the Audit Commission report, the Minister will have to reconsider parts of the Bill and new clause 3, which the Government will no doubt seek to reintroduce in another place. The report is a condemnation of existing and planned Government policies. Although it is couched in the impeccably professional terminology that one would expect from the Audit Commission, its recommendations, taken together, raise serious questions about the Government's policy approach.
184 The attempt to replace rational planning with a market-driven consumerist approach is, according to the evidence in the report, patently failing to deliver parental choice or real diversity and, as far as the Audit Commission can tell, is not even leading to a rise in standards in our schools.
In reviewing recent experience, the Audit Commission paints a picture that is all too familiar to education officers, head teachers and parents in many parts of the country. Nationally, nearly 20 per cent. of schools are operating at 105 per cent. or more of their physical capacity and more than 50 per cent. of primary classrooms offer less space per pupils than recommended. There is overcrowding in spite of the fact that in popular schools'choice' is primarily exercised by the schools deciding which pupils they will accept … rather than by parents deciding which school their children will attend.5.30 pm
Parental satisfaction—or lack of it—can also be measured by the increase in primary and secondary appeals of 58 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively between 1992 and 1995. In one example, the "plethora of admission arrangements" means that parents have a choice of seven varieties of school, with a large number of schools of each variety, many of which have individual admission arrangements. The net result is that one group of parents can hold on to a sheaf of offers while others go through an appeals procedure that frequently causes parents distress and must have serious effects on the pupils involved.
The study quotes the evidence of a specially commissioned MORI poll on secondary transfer, the first such poll to dig beneath the surface of parental choice. It found that, in addition to the 10 per cent. of parents who did not get their first choice of school, another 9 per cent. did not even feel able to ask for their genuine first preference, in case it stopped them getting their second or third genuine preference.
In some parts of London, where the Government's encouragement to parents to shop around has been made much easier by the Greenwich judgment—whereby local authorities are prevented from offering any priority to their own residents—49 per cent. of parents are failing to obtain a place for their child in their genuine first preference school. Huge numbers of children trek across the capital to distant schools and other children travel from Brighton to schools in south London.
§ Mr. Foster
The right hon. Gentleman asks me to name them. I have not yet had the opportunity on the Floor of the House to congratulate the Minister on his recent elevation and I do so now, but I strongly suggest that he should talk to LEAs such as Richmond and ask them about the serious difficulties created by the Greenwich judgment.
§ Mr. Foster
No doubt the Minister is hoping that I will refer to some of his would-be future constituents and give 185 him some publicity in that respect. I have no intention of helping him out, but I am sure that he would not deny what I said.
By far the shortest chapter in the Audit Commission report is that dealing with the impact on LEA performance. A minority of LEAs are criticised for failing to close schools or tackle the problem of small sixth forms. However, there is scant mention of schools threatening to seek grant-maintained status if reorganisation, let alone closure, is even mooted. The report makes no mention of the Education Bill, which will enable grant-maintained schools to expand by 50 per cent. and to open a sixth form and a nursery without having to seek approval. Had such a reference been made, I have no doubt that the condemnation in the report would have been even greater.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
Quite manifestly, those schools would not be seeking to increase their numbers if they did not have demand from parents. We are in favour of parental choice.
§ Mr. Foster
The hon. Lady has failed to understand the principles underlying the Government's proposals. Let me explain. At present, it is perfectly possible for a popular school to expand its numbers subject to approval and the appropriate funding becoming available within the local education authority arrangements, but those arrangements require the publication of the appropriate statutory notices, the appropriate consultation and, if there are objections, the ultimate opportunity for the Secretary of State to reject those proposals if, for example, he believes that they may have significant damaging effects on the education provided in neighbouring schools.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) fails to recognise that the Government are now proposing to allow schools to expand without even seeking the approval of the Secretary of State and certainly without taking into account the impact of that expansion on the education provided in neighbouring schools. She should reflect on the fact that in the past, under current arrangements, the Secretary of State has rejected proposals for the expansion of certain schools, no doubt for good reasons. Whatever other concerns she might have, the hon. Lady ought to be concerned about the constitutional position. Individual schools are given the unfettered right to do almost whatever they want, regardless of the impact on any other schools and without the Secretary of State having the right to intervene.
To return to the Audit Commission report, the most telling comment on Government policy is contained in the long chapter devoted to the impact of national policy. It states:the pursuit of a wide range of competing objectives has generated tensions and conflicts … and risks the school planning system becoming gridlocked.That must concern us all. The report states that ways must be found to avoid the impending gridlock in the allocation of places and to restore parental confidence in a system in which recent changes have led to more overcrowding, a frantic scramble for places in popular schools at infant, junior and secondary level, more appeals, higher levels 186 of expectation and even higher levels of disappointment, longer journeys to school for pupils of all ages and significantly—I hope that the hon. Lady is listening—a waste of resources through duplication in some areas and shortages in others.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
The hon. Member has not had the misfortune of dealing with Lancashire county council, which deliberately keeps open many secondary school places in east Lancashire, where the population is not increasing, to the detriment of the schools in north Lancashire, where the population is increasing. The population is not increasing in Skelmersdale and Burnley, but it is certainly going up in Garstang, Lancaster and the entire Wyre district.
§ Mr. Foster
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her consistent concern for the educational provision in her constituency. I cannot speak as eloquently as she does about her area, as she knows it far better than I do. I merely assure her that according to the Audit Commission report, one of the key blocks to the ability of LEAs to take out surplus places is existing Government policy, particularly the policy that has been promoting competition between schools so vigorously. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is what the report says. She cannot deny that.
In conclusion, the new clause represents a modest proposal. It does not go so far as to reimpose a formal space limit—as I would do, in an ideal world. It requires the Government to undertake a serious review of the effects of their earlier action in removing those space regulations. There is now powerful new evidence that such a review is not only prudent but urgently needed. If it revealed that the removal of earlier regulations had produced results that created cause for concern, there would be a strong case for their reintroduction. I suggest that, without a review, it would be wholly and absolutely wrong for the House to support legislation that would provide an unfettered opportunity for schools to expand the number of places they offer without any control whatsoever.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I wish to add to the comments by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In general, I support his contention regarding the conclusions of the Audit Commission report known as "Trading Places". When we examine some of those conclusions, we understand how fortunate the Government were that the report was published the day after we finished our deliberations in Committee. It is important to place those conclusions on the record, because they have a bearing on the important new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bath.
There are an estimated 900,000 surplus places in schools. If the Government of the day were to remove a realistic percentage—say 40 per cent.—£100 million a year would be saved, which might be better employed on progressive educational policies. One school in six has more than 25 per cent. of its places unfilled, and that position is not restricted to any one type of school or any one local education authority—it is spread throughout the spectrum. The position has improved significantly since previous studies, but there is still a very long way to go. One school in five is overcrowded. That leads to larger classes, but I shall not stray on to the subject of a later debate.
187 The report signals the problems of sink schools and over-subscribed schools and says that neither type of school is in a position to respond to its situation, one because of loss of funding and the other because of lack of capital. I am moved to recall the comments of a former Secretary of State, Mark Carlisle, who said that schools did not have elastic sides. Schools, even when over-subscribed, can deal with only a finite number of pupils. It is very difficult to reallocate places. We accept the difficulty; we do not understand the Government's unwillingness to do anything about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has mentioned the gridlock of places several times, and the hon. Member for Bath referred to it earlier. We need a national policy framework to prevent the whole system from being placed at risk of gridlock.
In "Trading Places", the Audit Commission said:The pursuit of a wide range of competing objectives has generated tensions and conflicts between policies which prevent any of them from being implemented with full effect, and risks the school planning system becoming gridlocked. It is not possible for LEAs to move forward on all of these policies as currently defined, and maximise value for money.The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the problem of schools opting out to avoid closure. I have had experience of it in my home town and it is not beneficial in any shape or form, even to the illusion of selection.
I note what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said about the belief in parental choice. I also note the Under-Secretary's comments on new clause 1, when she said that parents do not have choice where there is an over-subscribed school. I believe that the record will show that there is a contradiction there. If we want further evidence, we need only consider the steep rise in the number of appeals to recognise that people are not getting the choice that they wish for their children.
On the subject of schools opting out to avoid closure, the Audit Commission said:There is a tension between the policy of promoting GM schools and that of ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places.
§ Mrs. Gillan
I would like the hon. Gentleman to square his recent remarks with the fact that last night he voted against popular schools expanding.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
Last night, the Government failed abysmally in that vote. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about basic skills. Whether there was a deficiency in numeracy or in communication skills, it certainly showed in the Government Whips' abject failure to deliver a vote for the Government on one of their flagship policies.
Last night, we voted against allowing one part of the maintained sector to expand without reference to the impact on provision generally in the vast majority of our schools. The proposal was unconscionable and inefficient and the House delivered its judgment—on the second occasion. I hope that, when the Government attempt to raise that matter in another place, their Lordships will take a similar view.
"Trading Places" flagged up the inefficiency of planning, with both LEAs and the Funding Agency for Schools making proposals for new capacity where basic need exists. That has already occurred in Epsom and Colchester—hardly bastions of the hard left. "Trading Places" says: 188If the proposals in the 1996 White Paper to allow the FAS to propose new GM schools in all LEAs become law, duplication may become common"—not my words, but those of the Audit Commission. It described the difficulties that the Government have caused popular schools that wish to expand. They lead to larger classes and, as the Audit Commission said in "Trading Places",Satisfaction through achieving the school of your choice may lead to dissatisfaction with its large class sizes".How do our schools compare with those of our overseas competitors—those people against whom we must compete in education, as in all things, to succeed in the modern world? The majority of the 10 overseas primary schools that were surveyed had either minimum space requirements, which the Government in their wisdom lifted in September 1996, or an upper limit on class size, or both. Pointedly, the Audit Commission report states that this country has neither.
On LEAs' planning of school places, "Trading Places" warns:there is a danger of establishing a vicious circle … The dispersal of LEA powers encourages central government to take more powers to itself and to use these powers more actively; which in turn limits the scope and incentives for LEAs to act of their own volition; which in turn encourages central government to assume more powers of direction and co-ordination; which in turn reduces the LEA role still further.Those are not my words or those of local education authorities or of any alleged vested interest in education; they are those of the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission argues that there is a need for a local solution. It says:Such problems require local intelligence, local judgment, and local action—and national government is too remote to be able to provide these as quickly or as effectively as a local agency.That points to the need for a local solution:the need for effective local intervention and co-ordination to manage the market".Pointedly, the Audit Commission comments:Inaction is not an option. Unwanted and unnecessary school places lock up scarce resources which could be used elsewhere. Class sizes continue to rise in popular schools. Appeals are on the increase. Schemes for school rationalisation are decreasing. Government and LEAs blame each other"—and that is where the deadlock is risked.
I shall finish by quoting once more from "Trading Places"—that splendid piece of research and erudition by the Audit Commission. It was a pity that we did not have the opportunity to use the material contained therein in Committee.
"Trading Places" suggests a stronger role for local agencies in managing the local market—I am quite taken by the phrases used by Government these days. I quote:Local problems are solved most efficiently by agencies operating at the local level. Such agencies could be given duties to plan the supply and allocation of places in the local area, to co-ordinate admissions … and intervene where a school was not delivering an adequate standard of education … One approach would be for agencies to develop local education plans".Now there is a marvellous phrase. It seems to echo down the years—certainly recent years—in Labour party education policy. 189One approach would be for agencies to develop local education plans, consulting extensively with interested bodies in the area. These plans, covering a 3 to 5 year period, would be submitted to central government for approval, after which as many decisions as possible should be taken by the agency without reference to the Secretary of State".I conclude my remarks there, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will take heed of the very serious comments, reservations and proposals of the Audit Commission—a body with no partiality in these matters except for effective good practice.
§ Mrs. Gillan
We have had quite a lengthy debate on new clause 2. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) wishes to discuss placing conditions on the operation of a clause that is not part of the Bill. His approach shows a justified awareness—
§ Mr. Don Foster
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is suggesting that the debate is not in order because it was not agreed that new clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. Would I be correct in reminding the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you gave a ruling when I raised the matter yesterday? You said that it would be perfectly in order to discuss the matters that have been raised in this debate, and that it was for the Government to sort out the difficulties that they have created.
§ Mrs. Gillan
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bath jumped to his feet so prematurely before I had completed my sentence. He is showing a justified awareness that any reversals in the Bill's progress will be merely transitory. I wished to thank him for his vote of confidence in the Government.
§ Mr. Jamieson
I am interested in what the Minister has just said. She described the problems that the Government are having with the Bill as transitory. How do the Government intend to reintroduce new clause 3?
§ Mrs. Gillan
The Government remain committed to the clause that was lost last night. We shall therefore seek to reintroduce it in another place.
There is no need for a review of school premises regulations. The regulations were revised only last year, as many hon. Members will remember only too well. We eliminated much that was bureaucratic and inflexible and retained the minimum standards that count. It is predictable that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) will try to relive that previous debate.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
Predictably, the Minister is wrong. I intended to ask her to confirm that the Government, in removing school places, took away the miserly minimum space per child and the minimum space for recreation that had prevailed for a long time before changes were made in the regulations.
§ Mrs. Gillan
I remember that we gave more powers to local education authorities. It has been argued from the 190 Opposition Dispatch Box this afternoon that centralising is wrong and that decentralising—making power more local—is correct, but when it came to minimum teaching areas the Opposition did not apply the principle that they preach so often.
We are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of pupils, which is why we have retained the minimum standards that count. Before the new regulations were made, we carefully considered which elements of the old regulations needed to be retained. We consulted schools and LEAs, among others. Whatever were their individual concerns, there was consensus that change was needed. The new regulations retained the essential safeguards and eliminated irrelevant detail.
§ Mrs. Gillan
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because we have had several exchanges on these matters in previous debates. I know that he feels strongly about them. I am sure that he is about to say something that we have heard before, but I am willing to give way to him.
§ Mr. Spearing
I am grateful to the Minister. It is right that we have had detailed debates in Committee on a former Bill. We are now, however, in the House. We did not have much opportunity to discuss the statutory instrument that followed that former Bill.
The Minister has talked about minimum standards that count. Of course there must be hygiene, fire and ventilation regulations, for example. Is the hon. Lady saying to teachers that adequate space and flexibility in a secondary school in arranging lessons and a timetable are not physically important standards that must be achieved—standards that she and the rest of the Government have swept away?
§ Mrs. Gillan
I agree that such matters are important. The hon. Gentleman puts a great deal of faith in LEAs, and so did we on this occasion. It is for LEAs to manage their affairs, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
Does my hon. Friend accept that if the regulations had not been modified, the vast majority of village schools, which do an excellent job, would have faced closure?
§ Mrs. Gillan
I cannot confirm what my hon. Friend says at the moment. I know, however, that many village schools do an excellent job. I am sure that all Members would endorse that.
When deciding to deregulate to allow grant-maintained schools to expand by up to 50 per cent. without the need to publish statutory proposals, we considered the effect on surplus places throughout the country. We believed that the net effect on the total number of surplus places would be minimal.
Yes, the expansion of popular GM schools may lead to surplus places in unpopular schools. As a result of parental choice, parents will choose the schools that they think best for their children. If that means that an unpopular school becomes unviable, there will be ways to deal with that. I hope that Opposition Members will not suggest that parents should be forced to send their 191 children to schools that they do not wish them to attend so that no school should have to close or improve its performance to enable it to compete.
We want to allow good and popular schools to expand. One effect of that will be to identify more sharply unpopular schools, which should be the first in line when considering how and where to remove surplus places. If the net effect is more places at good and popular schools and fewer at unpopular schools, will Opposition Members object to that outcome?
If surplus places and expanded GM schools are worrying Opposition Members, they do not need to become too concerned. Grant-maintained schools are popular with pupils and parents and they achieve good results. If there is no demand in a certain area, schools within it will not seek to expand. I remind the House that grant for capital work will not be automatically available to GM schools that wish to expand. Such schools will need to make a good case to the Funding Agency for Schools, or raise the money themselves.
It is—[Interruption.] I was not quite sure. I did not know whether you were looking at me in an appealing fashion or whether you wanted to intervene.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I shall address you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What does the Minister foresee in the theoretical demand for expansion of a GM school? How does she see the transition of other schools that, of necessity, will lose pupils to GM schools? Does she see those schools withering on the vine as pupils move out of them? Does she see them developing into sink schools, for example?
§ Mrs. Gillan
The hon. Gentleman is not up to date. He seems to be caught in a time warp of grammar schools and comprehensives. I see choice and diversity. A school that is not grant-maintained may try to improve its targets. It may go for technology college or language college status. We are creating choice within the education system, but the hon. Gentleman is talking the language of 20 years ago.
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my inaccuracy. I am sorry that I addressed the Chair incorrectly. I did not think for one moment that you. Madam Deputy Speaker, were looking appealingly at me.
The hon. Member for Bath queried the timing of the production of the Audit Commission's report. I think that he should apologise to the commission. It would not take kindly to having the date of its reports dictated by the Government or the Opposition. The report was published in December, and we shall obviously reflect on what it has to say. We welcomed the attention that the report gave to removing surplus places. We in the Department have been stressing the importance of that for some time. Considerable progress has been made. The number of surplus places has been about halved over the past 10 years.
§ Mr. Don Foster
The Minister is talking about the removal of surplus places. A short while ago she referred to the Audit Commission's report. For the enlightenment 192 of the House, will she tell us whether her Department had sight of the draft of the report before the final report was published?
§ Mrs. Gillan
I have no idea. I have, however, had sight of a press release that was issued by the Department yesterday in the name of my hon. Friend with responsibilities for schools, which includes the latest figures on the reduction in surplus places. There has been a 1 per cent. fall to about 10 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.6 million places. That is encouraging, but some local authorities could do better. We share the Audit Commission's view that more could be done, such as encouraging LEAs to follow the examples of good practice contained in the report. Officials will continue to follow up individual local authorities whose returns suggest scope for action where it is not being taken.
Time is running short and we have ranged widely over topics related to the new clause. We have discussed briefly the Audit Commission's report, "Trading Places", and in rejecting the new clause I can safely say to Opposition Members that we will not be trading places with them.
§ 6 pm
§ Mr. Don Foster
As the Minister said, the debate has been wide ranging, and rightly so, because this important issue goes to the heart of the difference between the Opposition's approach to planning for education and that of the Government. Liberal Democrats believe that there should be an element of strategic planning to maximise parental choice. I would argue that that view is supported by the conclusions of the Audit Commission's report, which makes it clear that the Government's policies are leading not to increased parental choice but to reduced choice.
The Minister seems unconcerned about the effect of the removal by her Department of the space regulations. To date, she has not given us a clear explanation of why the regulations were removed, and has consistently refused to make available to hon. Members the details of the alleged extensive review undertaken by her Department, which she claims led to the Government's policy in this area.
§ Mr. Spearing
The Minister referred to surplus places, but she will not give a definition of a place, so how do the Government know how many places are allegedly surplus?
§ Mr. Foster
The hon. Gentleman has referred to that confusion on a number of occasions. He rightly points to the fact that neither this Minister nor any other Minister has ever answered that question.
The Minister continues to peddle the notion that grant-maintained status is popular, whereas in reality it is not. As I have said in the House before—I happily repeat it—the best evidence to justify my claim is the simple statistic that in the past 12 months only 0.5 per cent. of all eligible schools even bothered to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status. It is not popular, and it cannot be right for grant-maintained schools to be given the unfettered right to expand their school premises and pupil numbers without having any regard to the impact that that may have on neighbouring schools. I hope that the new clause will receive the widespread support that it deserves so as to avoid further chaos in our education system, such as the Government's policies have already caused.
§ Question, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 304.196
|Division No. 55]||[6.3 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Dixon, Don|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Dobson, Frank|
|Ainger, Nick||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Allen, Graham||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Alton, David||Eastham, Ken|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Ennis, Jeff|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Etherington, Bill|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Fatchett Derek|
|Ashton, Joseph||Faulds, Andrew|
|Austin-Walker, John||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Fisher, Mark|
|Barnes, Harry||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Barren, Kevin||Foulkes, George|
|Battle, John||Fraser, John|
|Bayley, Hugh||Fyfe, Mrs Maria|
|Beith, A J||Galbraith, Sam|
|Benn, Tony||Galloway, George|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Gapes, Mike|
|Benton, Joe||Garrett, John|
|Bermingham, Gerald||George, Bruce|
|Berry, Roger||Gerrard, Neil|
|Betts, Clive||Gilbert, Dr John|
|Blair, Tony||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Blunkett, David||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Boateng, Paul||Gordon, Ms Mildred|
|Bradley, Keith||Graham, Thomas|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Gunnell, John|
|Burden, Richard||Hain, Peter|
|Caborn, Richard||Hall, Mike|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hanson, David|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hardy, Peter|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Harvey, Nick|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Hattersley, Roy|
|Canavan, Dennis||Heppell, John|
|Cann, Jamie||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Chidgey, David||Hinchliffe, David|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Clapham, Michael||Hoey, Kate|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Home Robertson, John|
|Clelland, David||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hood, Geoffrey|
|Cohen, Harry||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Connarty, Michael||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Corbett, Robin||Hoyle, Doug|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)|
|Cousins, Jim||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Cox, Tom||Hutton, John|
|Cummings, John||Illsley, Eric|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Ingram, Adam|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)||Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Jamieson, David|
|Dalyell, Tam||Janner, Greville|
|Darling, Alistair||Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)|
|Davidson, Ian||Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)|
|Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)|
|Denham, John||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)|
|Dewar, Donald||Jowell, Ms Tessa|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|Keen, Alan||Purchase, Ken|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)||Radice, Giles|
|Khabra, Piara S||Randall, Stuart|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Raynsford, Nick|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)||Reid, Dr John|
|Lewis, Terry||Rendel, David|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Litherland, Robert||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)||Rogers, Allan|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Rooney, Terry|
|Loyden, Eddie||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|McAllion, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Macdonald, Calum||Sheerman, Barry|
|McFall, John||Sheldon, Robert|
|McKelvey, William||Shore, Peter|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Short, Clare|
|McLeish, Henry||Skinner, Dennis|
|Maclennan, Robert||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Smith, Chris (Islington S)|
|MacShane, Denis||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|McWilliam, John||Snape, Peter|
|Madden, Max||Soley, Clive|
|Maddock, Mrs Diana||Spearing, Nigel|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)|
|Marek, Dr John||Steel, Sir David|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stevenson, George|
|Martin, Michael J (Springburn)||Stott, Roger|
|Martlew, Eric||Strang, Dr Gavin|
|Maxton, John||Straw, Jack|
|Meacher, Michael||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Meale, Alan||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Michael, Alun||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Milburn, Alan||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Miller, Andrew||Thurnham, Peter|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Timms, Stephen|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Tipping, Paddy|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Touhig, Don|
|Morley, Elliot||Turner, Dennis|
|Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Tyler, Paul|
|Morris, John (Aberavon)||Vaz, Keith|
|Mowlam, Ms Marjorie||Walker, Sir Harold|
|Mudie, George||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Mullin, Chris||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Murphy, Paul||Wareing, Robert N|
|Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)||Watson, Mike|
|Oakes, Gordon||Wicks, Malcolm|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Olner, Bill||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Wilson, Brian|
|Orme, Stanley||Winnick, David|
|Pearson, Ian||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Pendry, Tom||Worthington, Tony|
|Pickthall, Colin||Wray, Jimmy|
|Pike, Peter L||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)||Mr. Archy Kirkwood and|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Mr. Simon Hughes.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Ashby, David|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Atkins, Robert|
|Alexander, Richard||Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)|
|Alison, Michael (Selby)||Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Baldry, Tony|
|Amess, David||Banks, Matthew (Southport)|
|Ancram, Michael||Banks, Robert (Harrogate)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bates, Michael|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Batiste, Spencer|
|Beggs, Roy||Forman, Nigel|
|Bellingham, Henry||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Forth, Eric|
|Biffen, John||Fowler, Sir Norman|
|Body, Sir Richard||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)|
|Booth, Hartley||Freeman, Roger|
|Boswell, Tim||French, Douglas|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Fry, Sir Peter|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Gale, Roger|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Gallie, Phil|
|Bowis, John||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Boyson, Sir Rhodes||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Garnier, Edward|
|Brazier, Julian||Gill, Christopher|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Gillan, Mrs Cheryl|
|Brooke, Peter||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Gorst, Sir John|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)|
|Burns, Simon||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Burt, Alistair||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Butcher, John||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Butler, Peter||Gummer, John|
|Butterfill, John||Hague, William|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)||Hamilton, Sir Archibald|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Cash, William||Hannam, Sir John|
|Channon, Paul||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Harris, David|
|Churchill, Mr||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Clappison, James||Hawkins, Nick|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Heald, Oliver|
|Coe, Sebastian||Heath, Sir Edward|
|Colvin, Michael||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Congdon, David||Hendry, Charles|
|Conway, Derek||Heseltine, Michael|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Higgins, Sir Terence|
|Cope, Sir John||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)|
|Couchman, James||Horam, John|
|Cran, James||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Howell, David (Guildf'd)|
|Curry, David||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Davis, David (Boothfeny)||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Day, Stephen||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Hunter, Andrew|
|Devlin, Tim||Hurd, Douglas|
|Dicks, Terry||Jack, Michael|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)|
|Dover, Den||Jessel, Toby|
|Duncan, Alan||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Jones, Robert B (W Herts)|
|Dunn, Bob||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Dykes, Hugh||Key, Robert|
|Eggar, Tim||King, Tom|
|Elletson, Harold||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)||Knox, Sir David|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Kynoch, George|
|Evennett, David||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Faber, David||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Fabricant, Michael||Legg, Barry|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Leigh, Edward|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Lidington, David||Shephard, Mrs Gillian|
|Lilley, Peter||Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)|
|Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Lord, Michael||Sims, Sir Roger|
|Luff, Peter||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Lyell, Sir Nicholas||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|MacGregor, John||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfl'd)|
|MacKay, Andrew||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Maclean, David||Soames, Nicholas|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Speed, Sir Keith|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Madel, Sir David||Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Malone, Gerald||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Mans, Keith||Spring, Richard|
|Marland, Paul||Sproat, Iain|
|Marlow, Tony||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Stanley, Sir John|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Steen, Anthony|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Stephen, Michael|
|Mates, Michael||Stern, Michael|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stewart, Allan|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Streeter, Gary|
|Mellor, David||Sumberg, David|
|Merchant, Piers||Sweeney, Walter|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Sykes, John|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Moss, Malcolm||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Nelson, Anthony||Thomason, Roy|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)|
|Newton, Tony||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Norris, Steve||Tracey, Richard|
|Onslow, Sir Cranley||Tredinnick, David|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Trend, Michael|
|Ottaway, Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Page, Richard||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Paice, James||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Viggers, Peter|
|Patten, John||Waldegrave, William|
|Pattie, Sir Geoffrey||Walden, George|
|Pawsey, James||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Waller, Gary|
|Pickles, Eric||Ward, John|
|Porter, David||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Portillo, Michael||Waterson, Nigel|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Watts, John|
|Rathbone, Tim||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Redwood, John||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Renton, Tim||Whittingdale, John|
|Richards, Rod||Widdecombe, Miss Ann|
|Riddick, Graham||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Robathan, Andrew||Wilkinson, John|
|Roberts, Sir Wyn||Willetts, David|
|Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)||Wilshire, David|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)|
|Ross, William (E Lond'y)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rowe, Andrew||Wood, Timothy|
|Rumbold, Dame Angela||Yeo, Tim|
|Ryder, Richard||Young, Sir George|
|Sainsbury, Sir Timothy||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Mr. Bowen Wells and|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Mr. Roger Knapman.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.