THE INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY

HC Deb 28 March 1985 vol 76 cc683-96

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 13, line 3, at end insert 'and such enactments shall have effect subject to the provisions of Section 82 and sub-sections (7), (8) and (9) below. (7)(a) In the principal Act, after section 141(2) there shall be inserted— (3) For the purposes of this section, the Inner London Education Area shall be deemed to be a county and the Inner London Education Authority shall be deemed to be the council of that county. (b) The Inner London Education Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of sections 132, 136, 137, 138, 142, 144 and 222 of the principal Act. (8) (a) In section 31 of the London Council Council (General Powers) Act 1921, references to the Council shall be construed as references to the Inner London Education Authority. (b) The Inner London Education Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 32 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. (c) in section 20(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983, after the words "Isles of Scilly" there shall be inserted the words "the Inner London Education Authority". (9) For the purposes of facilitating the proper performance of the functions conferred on the Authority by section 44 of this Act and for that purpose onlyߞ

1. (a) references to the Council in paragraphs 16 and 17 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 shall be construed as references to the Authority;
2. (b) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority within the meaning of section 25 of the Public Libraries and Museumns Act 1964;
3. (c) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority to whom the order confirmed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 applies;
4. (d) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority to whom section 15 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 applies.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 20, page 15, line 1, leave out from `agree' to end of line 2.

No. 10, in page 15, line 6, at end insert 'but no such guidance shall have the effect of requiring the authority to change policies which it has itself determined, unless such policies are in breach of any later legislative requirement.'.

No. 11, in page 15, line 9, leave out from `request' to end of line 10.

No. 12, in clause 21, page 15, leave out line 18 and insert— '(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, the Secretary of State may before 31st March 1991, '.

No. 13, in page 16, line 6, at end insert— '(7) No review shall be held under this section unless each House of Parliament agrees that the review is necessary'.

Mr. Straw

Amendment No. 83 provides that the Inner London education authority be treated as an ordinary local authority. The other amendments in the group are designed to constrain the Secretary of State's powers in the Bill to order a review of the operation of ILEA and to effect changes in 1991.

In theory, the Bill sets up an autonomous free-standing education authority for inner London. In practice, however, it will lack the powers necessary to function effectively. The Bill applies to ILEA all the powers and responsibilities in the Education Acts, but, because it is also a local authority, the Government have recognised that the new ILEA must have powers additional to its education responsibilities. Clause 82 and schedule 14 amend existing local government legislation to provide ILEA with some of those general powers.

The problem is that the range of powers that has been given to ILEA is incomplete. That flows from the haste with which the Bill has been drafted and perhaps the Government's intention to constrain ILEA's non-statutory educational functions, especially in regard to adult, youth and community education, for which it has always had to use the wider powers available to the GLC as the umbrella authority.

I should like to list the powers with which we believe that ILEA should be provided. I hope that the Minister will accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. We believe that there is a genuine problem which the Department has perhaps not fully anticipated. That happens with complicated legislation. If the Minister is not able to agree to our amendments, I hope that he will say that he is willing to take the matter away and have it raised in another place.

The powers that we believe ILEA should have are available to every education authority. We are not asking for anything extra. Section 141 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives authorities the power to conduct research and collect information. ILEA has power to carry out educational research under the Education Acts, but many education problems can be illustrated only by wider social research, for example, which seems to be constrained by the powers presently available.

Section 132 of the same Act enables local authorities to provide accommodation for public meetings. At the moment, ILEA will be empowered to provide accommodation in schools only.

Section 136 of the 1972 Act provides for the joint funding by local authorities of overlapping functions. It is of considerable importance to ILEA, especially in regard to social services provisions for the under-fives and children with special needs. ILEA has always been in special circumstances in that, unlike any other local authority in the country, it does not also provide social services in its area. There is an important overlap of service provision, especially for children under five, where the social services department provides day care and ILEA provides nursery education, and a desire, shared by the Government and the authorities, to make joint provision, to ensure effective delivery and to prevent a waste of resources. That power is needed.

Every authority in the country has the power under section 137 to raise up to a 2p rate to provide for services which it considers necessary in its area. That power will no doubt be further constrained by general legislation but, whatever the overall constraints, it should be available to ILEA. At present it uses that power for entirely legitimate community purposes — for example, to let education premises to non-education users, such as community groups.

I think that there must have been an omission regarding section 138. It gives a local authority power to take such action as it thinks fit in the event of a disaster or emergency. It would seem essential for a large local authority with more than 1,000 public buildings to have such a power. That cannot be in dispute, but it seems to have been overlooked when the Bill was drafted.

Section 142 provides a power which enables a local authority to publish information. That power and the power provided in section 137 are the subject of the Widdicombe inquiry, which will no doubt make recommendations. Hon. Members will accept that, whatever final conclusion is reached by the inquiry and approved by Parliament, it should be applied in an evenhanded way to all local authorities. Some of the use that ILEA has made of section 142 has been controversial between parties, and has been tested in the courts. However, a large part of its exercise of the power has been entirely non-controversial—for example, the publication of consultation documents about its budget. I hope that the Minister believes that ILEA should continue to have that power to publish information about its operations.

Section 144 provides the power to encourage visitors, and to provide conference and other facilities. The existing ILEA makes use of this power to let its colleges for conferences and thus to generate income and offset charges that would otherwise fall on ratepayers. I cannot believe that the Government are opposed to that sort of operation, which provides a return which is of benefit to ratepayers. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

Section 222 gives local authorities power to prosecute or defend legal proceedings and to make representations at a public inquiry. I am unclear why that should not be available.

Section 31 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 is necessary to transfer to the authority the power to make payment to employees, former employees and their dependants in the event of the abolition of the GLC. Why has that not been included?

Section 32 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 enables ILEA to maintain premises outside ILEA boundaries. These include special boarding schools, a county boarding school, rural and residential centres, school sports centres, a mountain centre and field study centres. Other education authorities maintain such premises within their areas, but our advice is that they do so under the powers available to their parent authorities. Our advice is that ILEA would lack such powers.

Section 20(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 does not apply to ILEA. Therefore, it would appear that the new ILEA would not gain exemption from VAT. There are also problems about powers relating to transfers of parks and museums.

Everyone accepts that almost all the powers to which I have referred should be available to an education authority. It is not a matter of controversy. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said, and give the House and the other place a detailed reply about each power.

The other amendments relate to the power within the Bill to require a review of the exercise of ILEA's function at any time before 1991, and, if a review does not take place before 1991, to make it mandatory in 1991. We discussed the matter at length in Committee, and there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments. It is extraordinary that after lengthy consideration the Government, having for once listened to what people have to say, decided that the single-purpose ILEA should be maintained and, having therefore accepted the worth of ILEA, should now say, "All that being so, we shall still point a pistol at ILEA for a further six years in case we disagree with how it operates."

The Government claim to be a Government of good managers, but that is not the way to manage. The children who are served by ILEA are what matter. The quality of service with which they are provided is bound to be adversely affected if the people who run the service are constantly facing uncertainty about the future of the organisation. They have already faced such uncertainty for many years.

Our amendments aim to provide that the review clause can be triggered only by an affirmative resolution of the House. If there is a good case for a review, it is reasonable that the House should accept it, and no doubt it will. That is the least that the Government should accept before triggering such a review and all the uncertainty following from it.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate)

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was in his most beguiling and treacherous mood, reminiscent of the days when he led the National Union of Students. One learns to read behind his gentle words. Only he could have said that in a non-political sense the Inner London education authority's consultative document on the budget was non-political. Anyone who looked at it would know that it was one of the many reasons why this provision, which permits expenditure on information, has been heavily criticised by people of all political persuasions. We should not listen too much to what he said on that point.

I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 83. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friends have drawn the regulations that will cover the new ILEA sufficiently tightly. We have agreed that ILEA is to be a new directly elected body for the first time. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, will he assure us that it will not be able to set up a police committee, a transport committee or a housing committee? Despite what the hon. Member for Blackburn said, it is not a normal education authority. Normal education authorities are committees of a major authority. That has always been the weakness of ILEA. As I said to the House yesterday, it was an afterthought of the Herbert commission. Herbert said that education should go to the boroughs, but Parliament decided otherwise. I do not criticise it for that. The decision put ILEA into an anomalous position. For example, the Greater London council could not decide the budgets that ILEA wanted; it always had to accept the precept.

5.30 pm

Now there is a separate body, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that there will be no repetition of the appalling waste of educational money on matters that have nothing to do with education. I wish that parents would get the message by examining the facts instead of some of the half-baked stories that come from county hall. Although the cost of educating pupils in ILEA's primary and secondary schools is higher than in most of its peer authorities, such as Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool, its results are worse because it will not concentrate on what I understood an education authority was for—the education of children. The authority is involved in areas which will not stand children in good stead when they want employment. Sometimes they are taught nonsense. Most parents who think about these matters—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will endorse this view — would much rather that teachers spent the full amount of educational money, instead of much of it being diverted to other purposes. That is the assurance that I want from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)

I wish to set the clause and the amendments in context, but before I do so I should say a word about the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). He is not well known for his liking of education in London, and he has attacked ILEA and ILEA schools for as long as I have known him. He does the cause of education a disservice by constantly sniping at educational provision in London. He would do well to remember that many of his constituents send their children to ILEA schools, are pleased with those schools, and will not thank him for trying to knock the standard of education provision in his constituency and in London as a whole.

Since the 1979 general election the Government have pursued a vendetta against the Inner London education authority, and this clause is a further stage in the vendetta. Soon after the 1979 election, Tory-controlled Wandsworth council put forward a plan to break up ILEA and to give educational authority to the boroughs. The Minister for Local Government produced a report in support of the proposal. He was a Back-Bench Member at the time, and the report was his bid for ministerial office. Now that he is on the Front Bench, why does he not drop the idea? He knows that it is nonsense. Is he continuing with it simply to justify the report that he wrote some years ago?

What stopped the Government at the time was the enormous wave of public opinion in support of retaining the Inner London education authority. The public said, "We want ever-improved education for our children, but we do not want the complete dismemberment of the authority." The Government drew back. Then came the idea of a joint board as part of the package of proposals which we are now discussing. Again the public said, "No, we want an elected education authority for London." The Government gave way to the force of public opinion, and, at that point, many Londoners believed that they had won the day. Then we heard about the details of the Bill. There will be an elected ILEA, but the Government are taking powers to keep the authority under tight financial control. Moreover, there is a threat to the future of the authority in the form of a review. The Government are taking powers to abolish ILEA, if necessary, or to remove many of its functions.

The Opposition believe that to be unnecessary. The Government can introduce legislation at any time to change local government and to abolish the authority if they so wish. In this case, the Government are practising a dishonest subterfuge. By slipping the powers into this legislation, the Government can say, "Of course, it will not happen for the moment and everything will be fine." However, in future, they can say, "But the House has passed the Bill and given us full authority to dismantle ILEA. All that we need is a one-and-a-half hour debate late at night." That is dishonest, and the Government have not made out a case for such an approach.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)

The hon. Gentleman assumes that the review would have only one result. What would happen if the review discovered that, by 1991, the authority was behaving sensibly and was worthy of being continued?

Mr. Dubs

There are two answers to that. First, the Government do not need statutory powers to carry out a review of a local authority. They could conduct such a review at any time without seeking legislative backing. Secondly, we know what is in the Government's mind. I repeat that there has been a vendetta against ILEA, and the clause is a further stage in that vendetta. If that is not so, why does the Minister not accept the amendments and drop his powers to dismantle or dismember the authority? He could say that if the Government wish to do so in future they could introduce legislation, as they normally would with such major issues, but the Government do not want to do that. The Minister is being dishonest in seeking to take powers now to dismantle or dismember a major education authority by statutory instrument.

I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about limiting the effectiveness of ILEA through a sloppy piece of drafting or through malevolence — I am not sure which it is. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that ILEA must have the same powers as other local authorities if it is to function properly.

Constant politicking by the Government against ILEA has added to uncertainty. It is bad for the morale of those who work in education, and of parents who want the best possible education for their children. Of course, we all believe that ILEA could do better — so could all education authorities — but I believe that it is doing a pretty good job. I want it to be given the opportunity to get on with the job of serving the children, young adults and adults of London. The Government should leave ILEA alone, drop their silly proposals, and allow ILEA to do its job as it wishes without Government interference.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but I shall address my remarks to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which relate to clause 20 and consultation. Hon. Members will know that the clause proposes that the Inner London education authority should consult on its main policy objectives. The bodies with which it must consult are the Common Council of the City of London and the boroughs of inner London. We have tabled the amendments because implicit in the Government's proposals is a substantial risk, which would not apply to any other education authority in Britain, that the Secretary of State could intervene or that agencies other than those responsible for education could have a say in, and be able to determine, the policy of the education authority of inner London.

You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that ILEA has been developing, and now has, the most widespread and comprehensive consultation of any education authority. Each year, it consults parents and their representatives, governing bodies, and many groups that are interested in and directly concerned with education in London, not least teachers and others employed by the service. The result of that consultation is that, each year, the public can judge the priorities for the development of the largest education authority in Europe.

We do not want the Secretary of State to hold for himself the reserve power set out at the end of subsection (4), that he may direct the form of consultation, or the power at the end of subsection (5), that he may direct the matters on which there may be consultation. Most important, far and away the greatest threat is the power given to the Secretary of State, who by issuing guidance to which ILEA will be obliged to have regard, will be able to determine and overrule the policy objectives determined by ILEA. Our amendment would add that no guidance which the Secretary of State issues, and none of his powers, should require the authority to change the educational policies which it has been set up to determine, which it has elected members to determine, and which it should have exclusive power to determine.

This part of the legislation manifests the Government's willingness at all stages to concentrate power in themselves and allow their Ministers to intervene when they wish. We must resist this, and we must allow those who are directly elected to run the education service and be able to make the decisions on what the policy for education should be.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

This is different from waste disposal.

Mr. Hughes

It is not different at all. The Government should never have made these decisions without putting the propositions out to a proper, independent, public inquiry in the first place. If they had done that, they would have realised that education is too precious a plant to be subject to a directive of a centralising Secretary of State.

Mr. Dunn

It may be helpful if I intervene now and attempt to answer some of the points made by Labour Members.

Our purpose in this legislation is to allow ILEA to continue to be maintained as a single purpose education authority. The major change is that it will be a directly-elected authority, and members will be constituted by direct elections. I am glad that there is some agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House that ILEA is there to serve the interests of the children, and that is of paramount and prime importance.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was somewhat militant. We have no vendetta against ILEA. On a number of occasions we have welcomed some of the pioneering work that it has undertaken. However, we cannot and will not be indifferent to some of the perversities that are taking place in the name of education in inner London, on matters that are not educational and can only be against the interests of children in inner London.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

My hon. Friend says that he does not have a vendetta against ILEA, but it would appear that ILEA has a vendetta against children and the people who provide good money. Does my hon. Friend realise that ILEA spends £5 on every child, compared with £3 spent by the other metropolitan districts, and that for every 10 children who get A-level passes in the metropolitan districts, fewer than seven get them in ILEA? Is not ILEA a scandal and a disgrace?

Mr. Dunn

I welcome my hon. Friend's extremely low-profile intervention. I have all the statistics of all the local education authorities by my bed so that every night I can content myself with a perusal of them in order that I may know those which are good, those which are better and those which are downright bad.

5.45 pm

I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in his first debate on education matters as a Front Bench spokesman. He listed a number of measures of which ILEA believes that it will not be able to take advantage under the constraints of the legislation. I understand that ILEA has alleged that the absence of the powers with which amendment No. 83 deals represents a serious deficiency in the Bill, because it would prevent the new ILEA from working as a full education authority if abolition goes ahead.

I should like to put the minds of both the House and ILEA at rest on two points. First, abolition will go ahead. Secondly, the absence of the powers in the amendment is not a serious deficiency, but the result of a reasoned assessment of the powers that will be appropriate to the new, single-purpose education authority.

We have deliberately not given the new ILEA the general powers covered in the amendment. Those general powers are appropriate to a general purpose local authority acting on behalf of the inhabitants of its area. They will continue and will be available for the lower tier authorities, the London boroughs. There is demonstrably no need for the new ILEA to have those powers for the same area.

Mr. Straw

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at present many councils use these general powers for education purposes, and that therefore ILEA will be the only education authority that will not have those powers available for education purposes?

Mr. Dunn

As the hon. Gentleman knows, had we had time for this debate in Committee, I would have responded to the specific section headings that he again listed today. I shall address myself to the sections of the Local Government Act 1972 that would be extended to ILEA by the amendment. They are as follows: section 141, the power to undertake research; section 132, the power to provide accommodation for public meetings; section 136, the power to arrange joint funding of concurrent functions; section 137, the 2p rate provision; section 138, the power to deal with emergencies; and one or two others In the available time, I shall try to deal with them in that order.

If the amendment were accepted, the power to undertake research would be too widely drafted to be appropriate to a single purpose authority. The new ILEA will have adequate powers to conduct research related to its education functions under section 82 of the Education Act 1944.

Section 132—the power to provide accommodation for public meetings — applies to any kind of public meeting and is too wide for the new ILEA. However, the new authority will have power, under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, to provide accommodation for meetings that are incidental and related to its functions.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, at election time, the new ILEA will be in a position, under section 111, to allow rooms to be used for public meetings?

Mr. Dunn

I am sure that that provision is maintained; but if there is any doubt, I shall make the matter clear to my hon. Friend.

Section 136 concerns the power relating to joint funding of concurrent functions. ILEA seems to think that without section 136 it will not be able to fund joint initiatives. However, section 136 is concerned only with concurrent functions—that is, where two authorities have the same function in the same area. An example is grants to voluntary bodies. ILEA, because it is a single-purpose authority, does not have functions which are concurrent with those of any other authority. Section 136 is therefore irrelevant to it. However, any joint initiatives and the joint funding of them are covered by section 101, which is being applied to the new ILEA.

As regards section 137 of the 1972 Act—the 2p rate provision — the Government have concluded that it would not be appropriate for the new education authority to have this wide power. It is suitable only for a general purpose authority acting on behalf of all the inhabitants in its area. That power will continue to be available to the London boroughs.

The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921. Amendment No. 83 would extend to the new ILEA the power in section 31 of that Act, to pay staff enhanced compensation for premature retirement in the interests of organisational efficiency. The 1921 Act is a local Act. In accordance with the precedents of the 1963 and 1972 Acts, the Government have not generally sought to amend local Acts on the face of the Bill. Appropriate amendments to local Acts will be made by order.

I cannot today give the House an assurance that we shall make an order to amend section 31 of the 1921 Act in the way proposed. However, I should be glad to consider detailed representations from ILEA about its successor's need for this power.

I appreciate the concern that has been expressed today and in Committee that the new ILEA should be exempted from the requirement to pay VAT on its non-business activities. That point was raised eloquently in Committee by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), to whom my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government subsequently wrote on 19 March.

As my right hon. Friend made clear in that letter, no amendment is necessary. The new ILEA — indeed, all the new authorities and residuary bodies — will be exempted from VAT by an order made by Treasury ministers under section 20 of the 1983 Act. That is a well accepted mechanism for extending VAT exemption to appropriate new bodies. I hope that the House will agree that that is the right course on this occasion.

A number of points were made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Amendment No. 10 is based on a misunderstanding of clause 20(5). There can be no suggestion — indeed, I am sure that no hon. Member would entertain such a suggestion—that my right hon. Friend's guidance could have the effect of requiring the authority to change its policies. There is no power in the clause enabling my right hon. Friend to use his guidance to bring about that end.

The guidance will seek to help the authority and the councils by explaining what might be regarded as main policy objectives, should they be in doubt on that score. It will be no more than guidance, and the duty placed on them is no more than to have regard to it. I hope that that short, brief, terse, honest and robust explanation will satisfy the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who is not always easily satisfied.

I have attempted in the time available to answer all the points that have been made. I reiterate that the power of review, to come into force by 1991, is right. I must tell the hon. Member for Battersea in all sincerity that whoever controls ILEA following elections must take account of the needs of the children and behave sensibly to avoid being taken the type of route which he particularly dreads. It is, therefore, essential for Parliament to approve the provisions which will lead to review.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

In a recent speech at Newcastle the Prime Minister attributed virtually all the wrongs in Britain to people setting a bad example. The parents and teachers whom I represent, like parents and teachers throughout inner London, would consider that this House was setting an appalling example were they to hear this pathetic half hour's alleged debate which will determine the future of ILEA into the 1990s if this perverse bit of legislation become law.

Whatever the burblings of the Under-Secretary, since 1979 the Conservatives have pursued a vendetta against ILEA and everything that it has attempted to do to raise education standards in inner London. If Conservative Members do not think that it has been a vendetta, I assure them that parents in my constituency who are concerned about their children's education have told me that they would not like to live through a vendetta if this has been friendly treatment.

Since the Conservatives took office, they have taken money away from the ILEA and derided every effort that it has made to improve education standards. When the present Minister of State represented a London seat, he was cajoled into producing what I can only describe as the snide and nasty little Baker report in an effort to damage ILEA so that he could crawl on to the Government Front Bench, having stamped on the faces of the children whom he was supposed to represent.

Following that, the Government ordered a special inquiry to be made by the inspectors of education, who gave ILEA a clean bill of health. There was some more shuffling around, that was followed by another threat to the future of ILEA, and now we are faced with the threat all over again.

The Secretary of State, surprisingly, did the sensible thing and said that he would maintain a unitary authority, but instead of sticking by what people thought he had decided, he is now insisting that he should be able constantly to hover in the background, like the spectre that he is, threatening the future of the education authority with the passage of every day of every year.

The people of inner London are sick to death of their education authority being turned upside down, being threatened and being deprived of money so that it cannot do the job which the people want it to do, and provide a better education service for their children. The Government are depriving the children of inner London of a decent service and are posing a massive threat to ILEA.

Mr. Straw

The figures of the Department of Education and Science show that, adjusting for social composition and class, ILEA's examinations record is better than that of the Wirral, Ely, Surrey and 41 other education authorities. We are dissatisfied with the Under-Secretary's reply and will divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 305.

Division No. 171]	[6 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Ashton, Joe
Alton, David	Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Anderson, Donald	Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnett, Guy	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Barron, Kevin	Janner, Hon Greville
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Beith, A. J.	John, Brynmor
Bell, Stuart	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Benn, Tony	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Bermingham, Gerald	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Bidwell, Sydney	Lamond, James
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Leighton, Ronald
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Buchan, Norman	Litherland, Robert
Caborn, Richard	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Loyden, Edward
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	McCartney, Hugh
Carter-Jones, Lewis	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cartwright, John	McKelvey, William
Clarke, Thomas	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Clay, Robert	McNamara, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Madden, Max
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Marek, Dr John
Cohen, Harry	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Coleman, Donald	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Maxton, John
Conlan, Bernard	Meacher, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Michie, William
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Mikardo, Ian
Corbett, Robin	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Cowans, Harry	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Craigen, J. M.	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Crowther, Stan	Nellist, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Cunningham, Dr John	O'Brien, William
Dalyell, Tam	O'Neill, Martin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Park, George
Deakins, Eric	Pendry, Tom
Dixon, Donald	Pike, Peter
Dobson, Frank	Prescott, John
Dormand, Jack	Randall, Stuart
Dubs, Alfred	Redmond, M.
Duffy, A. E. P.	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Richardson, Ms Jo
Eastham, Ken	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Ellis, Raymond	Robertson, George
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Rooker, J. W.
Ewing, Harry	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fatchett, Derek	Rowlands, Ted
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Ryman, John
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Sheerman, Barry
Fisher, Mark	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Flannery, Martin	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Forrester, John	Skinner, Dennis
Foster, Derek	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Foulkes, George	Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Snape, Peter
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Soley, Clive
Freud, Clement	Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, W. E.	Straw, Jack
Godman, Dr Norman	Tinn, James
Gould, Bryan	Torney, Tom
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Wainwright, R.
Harman, Ms Harriet	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Wareing, Robert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Weetch, Ken
Heffer, Eric S.	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Winnick, David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)	Woodall, Alec
Home Robertson, John	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Howells, Geraint
Hoyle, Douglas	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)	Mr. James Hamilton and
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mr. Ray Powell.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

NOES
Adley, Robert	Forth, Eric
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Fox, Marcus
Amess, David	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Ancram, Michael	Freeman, Roger
Ashby, David	Fry, Peter
Aspinwall, Jack	Galley, Roy
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Beggs, Roy	Goodlad, Alastair
Bellingham, Henry	Gow, Ian
Bendall, Vivian	Gower, Sir Raymond
Benyon, William	Grant, Sir Anthony
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Greenway, Harry
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Gregory, Conal
Blackburn, John	Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Body, Richard	Grist, Ian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Ground, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter	Grylls, Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gummer, John Selwyn
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham	Hanley, Jeremy
Brinton, Tim	Hannam, John
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Brooke, Hon Peter	Harris, David
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Harvey, Robert
Browne, John	Haselhurst, Alan
Bruinvels, Peter	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Buck, Sir Antony	Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Budgen, Nick	Hawksley, Warren
Burt, Alistair	Hayhoe, Barney
Butcher, John	Hayward, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Butterfill, John	Henderson, Barry
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hickmet, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Hill, James
Cash, William	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Holt, Richard
Chapman, Sydney	Hordern, Peter
Chope, Christopher	Howard, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cockeram, Eric	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Colvin, Michael	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Simon	Irving, Charles
Cope, John	Jackson, Robert
Couchman, James	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Cranborne, Viscount	Jessel, Toby
Crouch, David	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Dorrell, Stephen	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Dunn, Robert	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Durant, Tony	Key, Robert
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Eggar, Tim	King, Rt Hon Tom
Emery, Sir Peter	Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Evennett, David	Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Knowles, Michael
Fallon, Michael	Lamont, Norman
Farr, Sir John	Lang, Ian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Latham, Michael
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Lawler, Geoffrey
Fletcher, Alexander	Lawrence, Ivan
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lee, John (Pendle)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Ryder, Richard
Lightbown, David	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Lilley, Peter	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Scott, Nicholas
Lord, Michael	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Luce, Richard	Shelton, William (Streatham)
McCrindle, Robert	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McCusker, Harold	Shersby, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil	Silvester, Fred
MacGregor, John	Sims, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Skeet, T. H. H.
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Maclean, David John	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Madel, David	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Major, John	Speller, Tony
Malins, Humfrey	Spence, John
Malone, Gerald	Spencer, Derek
Maples, John	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Marlow, Antony	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maude, Hon Francis	Squire, Robin
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Steen, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stern, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mellor, David	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Merchant, Piers	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Stokes, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)	Sumberg, David
Moate, Roger	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Moore, John	Temple-Morris, Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)	Terlezki, Stefan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Moynihan, Hon C.	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Murphy, Christopher	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Neale, Gerrard	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Needham, Richard	Thurnham, Peter
Nelson, Anthony	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Neubert, Michael	Tracey, Richard
Newton, Tony	Trippier, David
Nicholls, Patrick	Trotter, Neville
Norris, Steven	Twinn, Dr Ian
Onslow, Cranley	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Oppenheim, Phillip	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Osborn, Sir John	Viggers, Peter
Ottaway, Richard	Waddington, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Parris, Matthew	Waldegrave, Hon William
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Walden, George
Pattie, Geoffrey	Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Pawsey, James	Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Waller, Gary
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Pollock, Alexander	Watson, John
Portillo, Michael	Watts, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Powell, William (Corby)	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Powley, John	Wheeler, John
Proctor, K. Harvey	Whitfield, John
Raffan, Keith	Whitney, Raymond
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Rathbone, Tim	Winterton, Nicholas
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)	Wolfson, Mark
Renton, Tim	Wood, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert	Yeo, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Roe, Mrs Marion	Tellers for the Noes:
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Mr. Carol Mather and
Rost, Peter	Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

6.12 pm

It being after Six o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [11 February] and the Resolutions yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.