REVIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

HC Deb 21 October 1986 vol 102 cc1010-20

`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to review the progress made by local education authorities in implementing those sections of the 1981 Education Act which are concerned with the provision of special education'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 8—Further education for young people with special educational needs— 'In subsection (1) of section 20 of the Education Act 1981 the words "and is registered as a pupil at a school" shall be omitted.'. New clause 9 — Appeals procedure for parents of children with special educational needs— `For subsections (4) to (7) of section 8 of the Education Act 1981 there shall be substituted the following subsections— (4) The decision of an appeal committee shall be binding on the local education authority by or on whose behalf the statement under appeal was made. (5) In any case where an appeal committee confirm the decision of a local education authority as to the special educational provision to be made for the child the appellant may appeal in writing to the Secretary of State. (6) On an appeal under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State may, after consulting the local education authority concerned—

1. (a) confirm the special educational provision specified in the statement;
2. (b) amend the statement so far as it specifies the special educational provision and make such other consequential amendments to the statement as he considers appropriate; or
3. (c) direct the local education authority to cease to maintain the statement".'.

Mr. Bennett

I shall try to be brief as we have a great deal to cover in the Bill.

New clause 7 deals with the provision of special education and asks the Government to undertake a review of the workings of the Education Act 1981. No doubt the Minister will counter by stating that the Government always have the legislation under review. However, I believe that there is a strong argument in favour of a specific review of the workings of the 1981 Act. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will spend a little time explaining how he believes that the legislation is working. There is much evidence that the predictions of the Opposition when the 1981 Act was passed— that the legislation would not work unless the Government came up with extra resources to make it work —have been proved accurate for many local authorities.

It is amazing that the Government can dream up substantial extra sums of money for the new city technology colleges, yet they cannot find any extra money to make the Education Act 1981 work. That is a sign of the Government's priorities. The Government have opted for that gimmick rather than making sure that those youngsters who are born handicapped or who acquire handicaps have extra funding to ensure that they can be integrated into and obtain the full benefit from main stream schools.

I would be especially interested to hear the Government's statistics on the way in which the statements are made in local authorities. My impression is that the statements are made in a very haphazard way. A few local authorities have a good record in ensuring that statements are made on all the children who need statements, that the statements are made as early as possible and that the statements are of a high standard. However, I am aware that some local authorities seem to be making no statements or are making statements when children have reached the ages of seven, eight, or nine, when the problems of handicap have been obvious for many years. These children should have been receiving special assistance at an earlier stage.

I also have some evidence that one or two local authorities are making statements not in relation to the needs of the youngster but in relation to the resources that they have to implement those statements. If a local authority has a shortage of a specific form of special education, it delays making statements for the children who might need that form of special education to avoid drawing attention to the fact that it lacks provision. That is outrageous. We should have a clear undertaking from the Government that they expect local authorities to make statements on all children, when appropriate, that they expect statements to be made promptly, and that, where there is clear evidence from the statements that a special form of education is needed—in a special school or in a mainstream school with special back-up — the resources are provided so that the statement can be fulfilled. I hope that the Government can provide information on that matter. I believe that statements are not being made in the best possible way in many authorities.

I also hope that the Government will take the opportunity to tell us whether they feel that there are sufficient educational psychologists in training or within the service who can contribute to the statements. There is evidence of a shortage of the professionals needed to make statements, and that is one reason why there is such an uneven provision.

Will the Minister give us a clear statement about the education of the deaf and the training of teachers? I know that the Minister has been strongly lobbied on that issue, but there is still confusion about the Government's intentions. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us more information about that.

I am sure that the Minister will remember, from the proceedings on the Education Act 1980, that I have a specific interest in the problems of dyslexia. I am pleased that the British Dyslexia Association has received a great deal of publicity during this month. However, there is still insufficient knowledge about the problems of dyslexia, and in many local authorities there is an unwillingness to provide resources to ensure that youngsters with reading difficulties and, in some instances, acute spelling difficulties, receive the assistance necessary to take full advantage of mainstream education.

I would like the Minister to comment on many other aspects of special education. It is sad that we have to look for a device such as this Bill to provide a brief debate on special education in schools and that we cannot have more parliamentary time to discuss these matters.

We must, however, consider the issue of post-16 provision. I support the Liberal party's new clause on this subject. It is important that we make proper provision for post-16 education for children with special handicaps. I have visited many colleges of further education and witnessed some very imaginative schemes offering further education for these children. The schemes look impressive. However, for all those impressive further education schemes there are youngsters who are denied access to a college or to courses in their localities. Provision for 16 to 19-year-olds should be universally available to handicapped youngsters. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear statement about provision in that area.

New clause 9 relates to the appeals procedure. We argued about such a provision at great length in the proceedings on the Education Act 1981. We said that parents who were dissatisfied with the school recommended by a local authority for a child upon whom a statement had been made should have the same rights of appeal as the parents of a child who had not had a statement made upon him. We failed to persuade the Government then. I hope that they will give this point further thought now.

The appeals procedure on the choice of schools has worked reasonably well. It is totally illogical — if the Government want children with special needs to be integrated into mainstream education—that parents of handicapped children should be denied an appeals procedure. I hope that the Government will consider that point sympathetically and say that there is no reason why the parents of a child for whom a statement as been made should not have the same rights to exercise an appeal as the parents of a child who has not received a statement.

If the appeals panels have sufficient skill and judgment to decide whether a school is full, they have sufficient judgment to decide whether the local authority's proposal for a child is valid or whether the parents' proposal about the school is valid. It is an insult to the parents, to the handicapped child and to the appeals panels for the Government to insist that an appeal cannot be made.

I hope that the Minister will give us a clear account of the way in which the Government see the Education Act 1981 developing. I hope that he will tell us what the Government are doing to find resources and then tell us that the Government will insist that there is universal provision for 16 to 19-year-old children with special needs and accede to the request for an appeals procedure.

Mr. Freud

I support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). New clauses 8 and 9 repeat the principles of the Handicapped Young Persons Bill which I moved in May last year in an attempt to improve the law in relation to young people with special educational needs.

New clauses 8 and 9 represent two changes to the last great Education Act— that of 1981—which is likely to be the only important Education Act of this decade. The first change concerns young people aged 16 to 19 in the special needs category, who currently receive the roughest deal, although Warnock indentified this group as a priority area and stated that provision for these young people was "in general manifestly inadequate" and that if nothing was done all earlier efforts "may come to nothing".

The problem is that the provisions of the 1981 Act, specifically those concerning the central protection offered to the child by the statement, apply only so long as the child or young person is receiving education at school. Young people in further education thus lack a vital protection. Even though Ministers have said that the 1944 Act imposes a legal duty on local education authorities in respect of these young people, the loophole remains. Recent examples of the problems concern young people who have faced charges for courses at institutions of further education. Integration should give all in this age group the same legal status, but at the moment it is certainly not clear that that is so.

The problem is not merely theoretical. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students informs me that there are cases outstanding in which the statement process has gone awry for the young people concerned, usually but not solely where out-county placements, and therefore financial judgments, are involved. For example, two young people in Bedfordshire who are deaf are currently at an out-county residential institution without knowing the results of their statements and thus without knowing whether finance will be provided by the local education authority.

The second change concerns an aspect to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred — the appeals procedure for parents who are dissatisfied with the statement that they receive from the local education authority about their child. Under the 1981 Act, parents can appeal to an appeals tribunal. The tribunal can listen, cluck with sympathy and agree with the parents, but it cannot take any action. It can merely confirm the statement or send it back, but if the tribunal refuses to uphold the statement the local education authority does not have to change it. Although the parents can now go to the Secretary of State, the Minister will know that very few do so and it is my contention that they face what amounts to legal discrimination, especially as we all know how long the Department takes to reach a decision and how hard it is to persuade it to overrule a local education authority especially when financial considerations are involved.

New clause 9 would give parents in this situation the same rights as are provided by the 1980 Act for parents dissatisfied about the choice of school. I hope that the Minister will answer this question. What is the sense in the tribunal sending back the statement and the education authority merely repeating something that the parents do not want to hear and which makes them manifestly unhappy? What is the sense in employing the expertise of a tribunal if it can make no positive or constructive contribution to the proceedings? What is the point of the whole exercise? Why will not the Minister accept these new clauses which seek to end discrimination against children with special needs?

During the passage of the 1981 legislation the Government's stock answer was that there would be financial implications, but that has never seemed an adequate reason for denying equal treatment before the law or for weighting things so much against those with special needs. Lady Warnock has said that integration without finance is inoperable and all members of the Committee in 1981 were saddened by the Government's refusal to fund the 1981 Act. The Government must think again and I hope that they will do so sympathetically in relation to these new clauses.

Mr. Dunn

I am delighted to respond to this short debate initiated by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). Before making my general comments, I should remind the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East that Lady Warnock and the report which bears her name made the point that it would take time to implement some of the findings.

7.45 pm

The background to this aspect of the Bill is as follows. The Government have funded three major research projects relating to aspects of progress made by local education authorities in implementing the 1981 Act. Like both hon. Members who have spoken, I served on the Committee dealing with that legislation so perhaps, like Siamese triplets, we are doomed to spend our time together. As the House knows, all three projects were to last three years, after which a report would be prepared and presented to a major seminar at London university later this year to publicise the findings. The Government intend to review both the guidance to local education authorities and the legislation itself in the light of those findings to see whether amendments are necessary. Such a review is clearly a major undertaking and is bound to take a little time, but in view of the work in hand I hope that hon. Members will agree that there is no need to lay upon the Secretary of State a statutory duty to carry out a review that is already well advanced.

I appreciate the aim of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East in new clause 8 to widen the scope of the 1981 Act to cover not only children under the age of 19 who are registered pupils in schools but also those with special educational needs who, at the age of 16, transfer to courses at colleges of further education. I remind the Opposition, however, that the provisions of the 1981 Act are framed in terms of schools, so to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective would require far more amendments to that Act than are proposed in the new clause. For example, the definition of special educational needs in section I would have to be amended, the duties placed on local education authorities and school governors in section 2 would have to be widened and consequential amendments would be required to sections 3 and 4 as well as to the special education need regulations of 1983.

Mr. Freud

rose—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Dunn

I am overwhelmed by the interest shown. I give way to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.

Mr. Freud

Has the Minister tried putting that argument to a handicapped child with special educational needs?

Mr. Dunn

I acknowledge receipt of that message and give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

If the only problem is the drafting, there is a simple solution. The Minister can simply accept the new clause and put the wording right when it goes hack to the House of Lords. As he has had the entire recess to consider the new clauses, he had only to ask his own draftsmen to put it right and to draft the necessary consequential amendments. It is a bit thick to suggest at this stage that the only reason for refusing the new clauses is that the wording is not right. The Minister knows that if the Government want to do something they can perfectly well do it, so come on now.

Mr. Dunn

I am invited to "come on", an invitation which I note with some interest, but I remind the House that an hour or so ago the Government were admonished for introducing a new clause on which there had not been time to consult. It is not fair for the Opposition now to invite us to take their new clauses at face value. There must be some consistency. The argument should not alter just because we have moved to another group of amendments.

I acknowledge the genuine and personal concern that both hon. Members have shown in the needs of those with learning difficulties or handicaps of one kind or another and I undertake to examine and review what has been said. In particular, I shall write to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the problems of the deaf and the training of their teachers. I do not believe, however, that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle to achieve the objectives listed by the Opposition, although I appreciate their right to list them even though we have cantered around this course several times before. I undertake to examine the points made and to write, but I cannot give any undertaking that will lead to any further changes in the Bill.

The hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East and for Denton and Reddish referred to the role of the local appeal committee and asked why there were differences of emphasis as well as technical differences.. In some respects, while the role of the local appeal committee in relation to admission to mainstream schools and to the provision necessary for children with special educational needs may seem similar, in practice they may be very different. When hearing appeals under the 1980 Act, the committee will normally be faced with the relatively straightforward matter of the choice of school and related issues. The assumption is that unless a selective system is in operation, ordinary schools are suitable for all children in the appropriate age group.

That is not the case in a dispute over special educational provisions. Decisions on location will be influenced not only by the availability of suitable staff and equipment but by the availability of special services which are not purely educational, in other words medical, nursing and social services, any of which may be determining factors in deciding the appropriate placement. It is therefore likely that disputes between local education authorities and parents may involve the appeal committee examining a wide range of specialist advice, particularly in drawn-out and complex cases. I believe that we have reached the right balance but I do understand, and up to a point, sympathise with, the concerns expressed by other hon. Members.

I have referred to the review of the provisions of the Education Act 1981. The Government are committed to the provisions of the 1981 Act although we are aware of some issues which need to be considered. I hope that Opposition Members will be prepared to agree that it would be helpful at this stage not to prejudge the outcome of our considerations. I can readily assure the House that a review of the provisions of that Act is already planned and, in the light of my assurance, perhaps the Opposition will withdraw their new clause and await my reply to the points they have raised.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister's reply is a little disappointing. I appreciate his idea of writing to individual hon. Members about the points that they have raised. I hope that he will add to his list my question about the number of educational psychologists. Is their number sufficient, and are there sufficient in training so that statements can be made promptly?

One reason for debating this issue in the House is to make information available to a much wider public than would have access to the correspondence. The Government should look carefully at their review. I welcome the fact that the Government have funded research into three local authorities—

Mr. Dunn

Five authorities.

Mr. Bennett

Even if it is five authorities, the fact that research is being done into local authorities immediately distorts the situation within those local authorities. The fact that someone outside is taking an interest in a particular problem encourages those in the local authority.

I had hoped that the Government could have backed up their in-depth review of those five authorities with a general survey of how well statements are prepared in the country as a whole. I had hoped also that the Minister would illustrate some of the problems which are becoming evident so that there might be a wider debate within the country.

I am disappointed with the Minister's response to new clauses 8 and 9. He does not seem to appreciate that substantial problems face people aged over 16. It was a lame excuse to say that he had not had the time, or that we had not tabled the amendments in the correct form. These amendments were tabled before the summer recess in the names of Members of the Liberal party which would have given the Minister ample time to discuss the matter with us had he been seriously concerned about the issue. The Government seem happy to discuss various measures in the Bill with their hon. Friends. It would have been a great service to those of us involved with special education if the Government had spent a little time discussing post-16 provision.

Mr. Dunn

Believing as I do in the access of all Members of the House to Ministers, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that at no time did he make a request to see me on this point. If he did so, I have no recollection of it.

Mr. Bennett

I certainly did not ask to see the Minister. The amendment was tabled not in my name but in the names of Members of the Liberal party. It was, however, a matter on which in Committee we pressed the Government to make concessions. At that stage, we received no sympathy from the Government. We tried to persuade them to accept one or two minor things to assist the speed at which this legislation could pass through the House. The Minister could therefore have met us on this issue if he had been sympathetic.

The same applies to appeals. It is unsatisfactory for parents to feel that, even if they win an appeal, they still may not have a guarantee that their child will go to the right school. Instead, there may be a long bureacractic process involving the Secretary of State with the possibility that the child will be awarded a place at a particular school when it is no longer appropriate. Children with special educational needs need that special provision at the appropriate moment. If assistance is given when it is most needed, integration into mainstream schools may well be speeded up.

The Government's answers have been most unsatisfactory. Since the 1981 Act was passed, we have had no sign that the Government will provide the resources to turn the recommendations of the Warnock report into a reality. We shall therefore divide the House on the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 296.

Division No. 283]	[8.00pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Alton, David	Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Anderson, Donald	Barnett, Guy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Barron, Kevin
Ashdown, Paddy	Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ashton, Joe	Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart	Leadbitter, Ted
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Leighton, Ronald
Bidwell, Sydney	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Blair, Anthony	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Boyes, Roland	Livsey, Richard
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Loyden, Edward
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	McCartney, Hugh
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	McGuire, Michael
Bruce, Malcolm	McKelvey, William
Buchan, Norman	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	McNamara, Kevin
Campbell, Ian	McTaggart, Robert
Campbell-Savours, Dale	McWilliam, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Madden, Max
Cartwright, John	Marek, Dr John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Clay, Robert	Martin, Michael
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Conlan, Bernard	Maxton, John
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Craigen, J. M.	Meacher, Michael
Crowther, Stan	Meadowcroft, Michael
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Michie, William
Cunningham, Dr John	Mikardo, Ian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Deakins, Eric	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Dewar, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dixon, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dobson, Frank	Nellist, David
Dormand, Jack	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Douglas, Dick	O'Brien, William
Dubs, Alfred	O'Neill, Martin
Duffy, A. E. P.	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Eadie, Alex	Park, George
Eastham, Ken	Patchett, Terry
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Pavitt, Laurie
Ewing, Harry	Pike, Peter
Fatchett, Derek	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Faulds, Andrew	Radice, Giles
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Randall, Stuart
Fisher, Mark	Raynsford, Nick
Flannery, Martin	Redmond, Martin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Richardson, Ms Jo
Forrester, John	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Foster, Derek	Robertson, George
Foulkes, George	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Rooker, J. W.
Freud, Clement	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Garrett, W. E.	Rowlands, Ted
George, Bruce	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Godman, Dr Norman	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Gourlay, Harry	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Skinner, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Snape, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Soley, Clive
Heffer, Eric S.	Spearing, Nigel
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Home Robertson, John	Strang, Gavin
Howells, Geraint	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hoyle, Douglas	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)	Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Tinn, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)	Torney, Tom
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Janner, Hon Greville	Wareing, Robert
John, Brynmor	Welsh, Michael
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	White, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Wigley, Dafydd
Kennedy, Charles	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Winnick, David
Lambie, David	Woodall, Alec
Lamond, James	Wrigglesworth, Ian

Young, David (Bolton SE)	Mr Ron Davies, and
	Mr. Allen McKay
Tellers for the Ayes:
NOES
Adley, Robert	Eyre, Sir Reginald
Aitken, Jonathan	Fallon, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Farr, Sir John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Favell, Anthony
Amess, David	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Fletcher, Alexander
Arnold, Tom	Forman, Nigel
Ashby, David	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Aspinwall, Jack	Forth, Eric
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Franks, Cecil
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Fry, Peter
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Gale, Roger
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Galley, Roy
Baldry, Tony	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Batiste, Spencer	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bendall, Vivian	Gow, Ian
Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic	Gower, Sir Raymond
Benyon, William	Grant, Sir Anthony
Best, Keith	Greenway, Harry
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gregory, Conal
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Blackburn, John	Grist, Ian
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Ground, Patrick
Body, Sir Richard	Grylls, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hannam, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Harris, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Harvey, Robert
Bright, Graham	Haselhurst, Alan
Brinton, Tim	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon	Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hawksley, Warren
Browne, John	Hayes, J.
Bruinvels, Peter	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Hayward, Robert
Budgen, Nick	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Bulmer, Esmond	Henderson, Barry
Burt, Alistair	Hickmet, Richard
Butterfill, John	Hicks, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hill, James
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)	Hind, Kenneth
Cash, William	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Chapman, Sydney	Holt, Richard
Chope, Christopher	Hordern, Sir Peter
Churchill, W. S.	Howard, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Cockeram, Eric	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Colvin, Michael	Irving, Charles
Cope, John	Jackson, Robert
Cormack, Patrick	Jessel, Toby
Couchman, James	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Critchley, Julian	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Crouch, David	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Dicks, Terry	Key, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen	King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Knowles, Michael
Dunn, Robert	Knox, David
Durant, Tony	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lang, Ian
Eggar, Tim	Latham, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter	Lawler, Geoffrey
Evennett, David	Lawrence, Ivan

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Lee, John (Pendle)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lightbown, David	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Lilley, Peter	Rost, Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Rowe, Andrew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lord, Michael	Ryder, Richard
McCrindle, Robert	Sackville, Hon Thomas
McCurley, Mrs Anna	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Macfarlane, Neil	Sayeed, Jonathan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Maclean, David John	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Silvester, Fred
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Sims, Roger
McQuarrie, Albert	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Madel, David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Major, John	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey	Speed, Keith
Malone, Gerald	Speller, Tony
Maples, John	Spencer, Derek
Marland, Paul	Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mates, Michael	Squire, Robin
Mather, Carol	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stern, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Merchant, Piers	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Sumberg, David
Miscampbell, Norman	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Moate, Roger	Temple-Morris, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Moore, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Moynihan, Hon C.	Thornton, Malcolm
Mudd, David	Thurnham, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Nelson, Anthony	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
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	Waddington, David
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Osborn, Sir John	Walden, George
Ottaway, Richard	Waller, Gary
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)	Walters, Dennis
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Watson, John
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Watts, John
Pawsey, James	Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Pollock, Alexander	Whitney, Raymond
Porter, Barry	Wiggin, Jerry
Portillo, Michael	Wilkinson, John
Powell, William (Corby)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Powley, John	Wolfson, Mark
Price, Sir David	Woodcock, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey	Yeo, Tim
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Raffan, Keith
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Tellers for the Noes:
Renton, Tim	Mr. Robert Boscawen &
Rhodes James, Robert	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Question accordingly negatived.