§ 10.13 p.m.
§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)
I beg to move,That the Direct Grant Schools (Amendment) Regulations 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1788), dated 25th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th November, 1971, be withdrawn.One could say that the principle underlying the regulations against which we are praying tonight is the same as the principle to which we objected when money was saved by withdrawing school milk from primary schoolchildren, the money going in this instance to the direct-grant schools. It is the same group of people, in the main, who had the benefit of the first tax reduction by this Government who are the principal beneficiaries of the proposed increase in help to direct-grant schools.
The Government now, as they did when in opposition, have made clear their determination to protect the interests of the direct-grant schools, in contrast to the policy which we maintained when we were in office. These schools cater for the children of people already privileged in terms of income. It is these schools which refuse to co-operate in comprehensive reorganisation and which, therefore, feel threatened by the refusal of some Labour-controlled education authorities, a refusal which I am glad to see, to take up further places. These schools have been given a shot in the arm by the Government, and we have heard the Government's defence of what they have done. This help has taken the form of an increase in the capitation grant for each child in the schools from £32 to £62. This follows a cut from £52 to £32 made by the Labour Government when they 1114 were, rightly, unwilling to subsidise a highly selective independent education for predominantly middle-class children whose parents opted out from the fully maintained system of education.
The schools have been told by the Government that this extra money must be passed on to parents in reduced fees and not spent on expanding or changing school resources. In addition, there have been improvements in the scale of remission of fees so that, for example, parents with one child and with a net income of £2,800 a year will now need to contribute only £120 in fees instead of £196.
In so far as these additional subsidies will encourage more parents to opt for the highly selective education provided in these schools and help schools in areas where local authorities are no longer taking up places, they are a further deliberate Government move against further proposals to end selection in education. So much for the Secretary of State's avowed policy of laissez-faire in comprehensive education.
The Secretary of State defended her decision by claiming, among other things, that she would enable more children from less well-off homes to attend direct-grant schools. Not a shred of evidence was produced for that assertion. Even if it were true, privilege in education is not ended by being extended to a few more children. That merely enhances the privilege and builds on it. But it was not true, and the right hon. Lady has so far produced no evidence to show that parents in the lower-income groups will be able to send their children to direct-grant schools.
What is wrong with this principle is the assumption behind it. Throughout all the Government's actions in education, on the comprehensive principle and direct-grant schools, has been the assumption that that type of education is to be preferred, that it is better, and that if it can be shown that a few more children from the lower-income groups and working-class homes have managed to get what the Government would consider to be up the ladder and into these schools, they benefit. What is overlooked, apart from the money involved, is the assumption that the education values enshrined in direct-grant 1115 schools and public schools and elsewhere in an independent and semi-independent education are the better values. We totally reject the concept that it is a good thing for more and more children from lower-income groups to be encouraged into direct-grant schools, for example, so that in that way it will be shown that they have been successful.
The tragedy—and it is one of the features that the right hon. Lady has enhanced and enshrined in her education policies—is that the successful working-class child is the child who has learned middle-class values and middle-class tricks in education. This we totally and utterly reject. It does not follow, and there is no evidence to support the contention, that the so-called values applied by society in terms of education are necessarily the best values which we want to see extended to the majority of our children. We object to the principle as well as to the fact that other aspects of welfare such as school milk have been affected to give this help to the direct-grant schools. There have also been the tax concessions which I mentioned earlier. It will often be the taxpayer in the lower-income group whose money will be used.
Much has been said about the number of children from various backgrounds entering particular sectors of independent education. Much has been said about the better type of education, particularly from hon. Members opposite, which the direct-grant schools can offer. Again it is questionable. Be that as it may, it is said that it is of more value to give money to these schools than to give milk to working-class children or to spend the money on nursery education or secondary schools.
Only two out of 170 direct-grant schools offer co-education. They teach about 3 per cent. of the secondary school population. That is a small percentage, but it includes 10 per cent. of all sixth formers. The majority of these schools are selective and predominantly middleclass institutions. Three out of four pupils come from the homes of white-collar workers, three out of five have fathers in professional or managerial occupations. Only one out of 13 comes from a semi-skilled or unskilled worker's 1116 family. Hon. Members opposite may say that this is not the fault of the direct-grant school. My case is that when it is argued, as hon. and right hon. Members opposite have argued, that educational resources are limited, and it is necessary to make cuts in certain areas to give more to others, it is necessary to be careful and to ensure that we are giving the benefits in education to these most in need. This is not happening with the extra money being made available to the direct-grant schools. It is easy for educationists to point out that education is improving since more and more children are staying at school, entering university and achieving success in certain areas. But the argument, unfortunately, fails to deal with what is happening at the other end of the scale. What people who use that argument ought to recognise is that the more we invest in this area of education, unless it is more than compensated for in other areas of education, the more we widen the gaps between children who society has, in my view mistakenly, called successful and those who society has decided are unsuccessful.
The like backgrounds of children in the direct-grant schools relate very largely to the ability of middle-class parents in particular income groups to pay fees, and the bias in selection in the 11-plus examination and university entrance, and so on, directly influences the success of these children later in life. This is one of the things we criticise. About 60 per cent. of direct grant grammar school pupils stay on at school until they are 18. Sixty-two per cent. of boys and 50 per cent. of girls obtain two or more A levels. Seventy-five per cent. go on to some form of full time education. Roughly 38 per cent. go on to university.
§ Miss Lestor
In the context of the present education system, there is nothing wrong in young people being successful in this or that area. But the money being given to parents who do not need it could well be spent in giving aid and opportunity to children at the lower end of the scale in secondary schools who are denied the same opportunities because of the selective process, particularly in relation to universities.
§ Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)
Has the hon. Lady considered the situation in some of the direct grant schools in the rural areas which for generations have provided an education of excellence for children in the surrounding areas—
§ Sir G. Sinclair
I am governor of such a school and I know it is not rubbish. These schools are strongly supported by the families who have taken advantage of the opportunities they provide. They are not families of great wealth. In fact, their income levels go down to the lowest in the areas. These schools have provided a springboard for able children, and if that is bad I do not know what sort of England I want to exist.
§ Miss Lestor
I would not say that.
One could argue that the direct grant schools are remarkably successful in sending pupils to university. But the more we invest in privilege in education, and the more we build on privilege for those who already have it, the more we discriminate against those at the lower end of the scale. This is wrong. It is absolutely unfair, unwise and socially and economically wasteful to say, "We propose to give this group of people extra help in education. They already have privilege. They are already more likely to be successful by virtue of the selective system which predominates in relation to university entrance. But we will give them a helping hand at the expense of children in the primary schools and others and the majority of children in the secondary schools." That is what is wrong with those values. It is unfortunate that we do not have a great deal of time for debate. When the hon. Gentleman talks about excellence I doubt very much whether we agree on exactly what is excellence in education. The hon. Gentleman takes very much for granted some of the long-standing concepts of success and excellence in education.
§ Miss Lestor
I will not give way again. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance and he made his point. Now I am answering it.
So long as we have such a system in education, which, with its roots in selection at the age of 11, has a great deal to do with social and educational snobbery, and so long as local authorities use selection procedures and cream off what society has said are the brighter children, and send them to direct grant schools and other selective schools, no system of comprehensive education can be established. That is why I believe extra help is being given to those schools, and that is why in particular a great deal of concern has been expressed over the years about the way in which the comprehensive principle is being interfered with.
The Labour Government had plans to change the rôle of the direct grant schools by making them completely independent, as the other independent sectors of education are, and removing—[Interruption.]— I wish the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) would learn to keep quiet. He has been in the House a long time.
§ Miss Lestor
No. I am very good at lip-reading, and I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at this point.
We can, not and will not, with our views on comprehensive education, support any move to give extra help to the direct grant schools as they now exist. They should become part of the State system of education or make themselves fully independent.
§ Miss Lestor
I will not give way.
We must remind the country that the person who will be called upon to make this contribution to the direct grant schools is the taxpayer. He foots the bill. He also pays for the charitable status of the schools, which enables them, for example, to pay only half the rates that other organisations and householders pay. S.E.T. relief and general tax relief on income are examples of other concessions the direct grant schools 1119 receive, and now they are to receive extra help.
There are priorities in education, with large numbers of children not getting fair and equal opportunities. The Government are not, as we were, directing themselves to ironing out inequalities and enhancing the principle of social justice in education, but are directing themselves to frustrating the principle of comprehensive education, enshrining the principle of privilege and building privilege upon privilege. We reject that principle and that is why we oppose the regulations.
§ 10.35 p.m.
§ Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) paid a great tribute to direct grant schools in criticising their quality and the range of achievement their pupils have consistently attained, but she went on to say that she wished to destroy not only these schools but the values they stand for. This is not an ironing out of inequalities but a levelling down which surely would harm the nation considerably.
Whatever the hon. Lady may think of the virtues of destroying or denigrating educational and academic achievement, it is not a wise policy in the context of our joining the E.E.C., where British people of ability and academic achievement will be required in increasing numbers.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)
The question of academic achievement exercises my mind. The hon. Gentleman is saying that direct grant schools provide academic achievement, but surely, 60 or 70 years after the 1902 Act, academic achievement is not just in the direct grant schools—
§ Mr. Rees
If the hon. Gentleman will only listen. If there were no State grammar school in an area 50 or 60 years ago one could see the case for sending a child to a direct grant school, but what is the reason for a direct grant school in an area where there are plenty of excellent State grammar schools? I went to a State grammar school which was a very good school. I also believe in comprehensive education. What is the case for sending children to a direct grammar 1120 school to attain academic excellence when the facilities are available within the State system?
§ Mr. Hill
Surely to provide variety and to keep a sector which bridges the gap between the fully maintained and the independent sectors. I have never claimed, and would not dream of claiming, that direct grant schools are the sole centres of academic achievement; far from it. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough discounted the values of academic achievement, and that is a dangerous and unwise thing to do.
These regulations are essentially of a financial nature. I agree with the hon. Lady that they restore the reduction made by the Government which she supported in 1968 of £20 a year in the capitation fee. The restoration of that £20, with the extra £10, goes some way to meet the increase in costs which stem from before 1968. She is right to say that this money goes to the reduction of fees for parents. I should like to emphasise that the school themselves get nothing.
My right hon. Friend has kept an election pledge. We said that we would restore that cut. We have gone further by revising the income scales for the remission of fees. What ever the hon. Lady may say, this has opened up the prospect of a direct grant school education for their children to a whole new range of parental incomes.
The hon. Lady gave one level of net income. The one which I should like to quote is the fact that the net income limit below which no contribution has to be made by the parents has been moved up from £450 to £1,000 a year. A family with one child at a direct grant school, with an income of £20 a week, who would, under the old system, have paid £46 a year, will now pay nothing. A family with an income of £1,360 a year, or £27 a week, will now pay £24, as against £76 under the old system.
When the hon. Lady says that this applies only to rich middle class parents, perhaps she will reflect that there are at least 12 million incomes in this country below £1,360 a year and that the average earnings in 1970 for men in the 30–39 age group, in all occupations, was £29 a week. For manual workers it was over £27 a 1121 week. Even for unskilled manual workers it was £24 a week—well above these minimum scales.
Therefore, it is not so much middle-class incomes as middle-class values to which the hon. Lady objects. The middle classes, so called, with their values, tend to think well of education. Their homes tend to be educationally sympathetic. It is now being said that this is so of the new polytechnics. We must face this human tendency. Surely it is much more important to level upwards and not downwards and hope that more and more families will take this increased interest in education.
This is also a question of priorities, as well as of redeeming pledges. The hon. Lady has explained that she wishes to destroy direct grant schools; and her right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Science said this explicitly. He wants to destroy the direct grant school and independent schools as soon as he can. But, financially, on his own figures, as given last April in an article which is pretty notorious, that would cost £60 million a year on current account and £150 in capital account. That seems an extraordinary choice of priorities in our present national economic position.
The Department has paid nothing for the capital and building work of these schools, yet Appendix 7 of the Donnison Report shows that, in the 15 years from 1950 to 1965, the direct grant school raised £21 million by way of appeals, by borrowing and by drawing on their endowment funds, and used that money mainly for new classrooms, teaching facilities, science laboratories and the rest—all matters of improvement.
That sum passed the Labour Government's programme for the improvement of secondary schools several times. One must recognise the contribution which these schools have made, which would otherwise have fallen as a burden on the State. Whatever views the hon. Lady may hold on this subject, the L.E.A.'s as a whole have made full use of direct grant schools, as was made clear in a Written Answer on 5th November, 1971, from which one gathered that the L.E.A.'s were paying fees for over 50 per cent. of the children in over one-half of direct grant schools. The reasons are manifold; that these schools fulfill the needs not only of parents but of L.E.A.'s to provide 1122 different kinds of schooling, much of it denominational and some of it boarding.
As for boarding places, the remission scheme for tuition fees does not apply under the Regulations and I hope that this point will be examined with a view to seeing whether tuition fees for boarders might also have the advantages of being eligible for this scale of remission.
The direct grant schools offer a welcome variety and their sole justification should be on grounds of independence. In a society which is becoming steadily more homogeneous—but perhaps not as quickly as hon. Gentlemen opposite would like—it is important that, if it is to be a free society, it should avoid any monopoly trends. I dislike the idea of the State becoming the sole purveyor of education. Certainly it must be the biggest one, but an independent and direct grant sector, protecting the community as a whole from becoming dominated by changing fashions in education—
§ Miss Lestor
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in mid-flight, but in view of his argument about the importance of having an independent sector in education to avoid the monopoly of the State, may I ask him to explain why he supports a move to make these schools less independent? If he wants them to be independent, why not remove the grant completely?
§ Mr. Hill
Because the hon. Lady mistakes independence as merely being independent means. I am concerned to provide for people of independent minds as well whatever their incomes. That is the essential difference, and unless the State provides that variety in its education system, it bodes ill for the health of the community.
§ 10.48 p.m.
§ Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, North-West)
I am anxious to bring the discussion back to the subject immediately under debate. We are not discussing direct grant schools or the value of the independent sector. My hon. Friends are opposing the decision of the Government to allocate £2 million of public money to a purpose which, in the present state of education in Britain, is unwarranted expenditure.
This £2 million will not be spent on improving schools but on giving relief to 1123 privileged parents to send their privileged children to privileged schools. When the Secretary of State leads her supporters into the Lobby in support of the Government's decision in this matter, they will be voting to spend this money, despite all the other priorities that we have discussed time and again, to relieve these parents of the need to pay fees at direct grant schools.
§ Mr. Armstrong
The Tories are always commending secondary modern schools for other people's children.
We have independent judgment on the type of school that we have been talking about tonight. They are the most selective schools in the State, even more selective than independent schools. We are spending £2 million. That is a lot of money.
Today we have been debating unemployment. If the same proportion of children who receive free meals in our schools—by a means test in which their families are judged unable to provide an adequate meal—were given free milk at school, this £2 million would more than pay for it. So when the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends go into the Lobby tonight they will be saying that relieving the burden of fees for parents is more important than providing milk for children whose parents can prove by a means test that they are unable to provide that milk. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will bear that in mind when voting.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) talks about the need for an independent sector financed by public money. I should like him to tell me of any innovation in education—there has been a tremendous number recently—which originated in the direct grant schools. The hon. Gentleman is not showing much evidence of—
§ Sir G. Sinclair
One of the masters of a direct grant school helped to pioneer the new mathematics. I hate to have to correct the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow.
§ Mr. Armstrong
The State sector has certainly had an equal share in its development, and not in the direct grant sector because that sector is concerned 1124 more than anything else with the university rat race. That is why it is so popular among the middle classes.
I want to examine this expenditure of £2 million. We have heard about the number of parents of modest means. That is how the Minister described the parents she was helping. Let us look at the record. The right hon Lady has said that where the parents have a gross in—come of £2,500—that is not regarded as a modest income in the northern region, especially in my constituency—under the regulations the parents' contribution to the fees of the school would be reduced by no less than £70 a year for one child or £105 a year for two children.
I want to compare those figures with some figures I should like to give about children in the northern region. It has been admitted by all sides of the House—certainly those who have read Plowden will know this—that hundreds of thousands of children, because of home background and the difficulties and inadequacies of the school, many schools being in downtown areas, and so on, do not get even a semblance of equality of opportunity. They are handicapped before they ever reach school at the age of five. The hon. Gentleman talked about the middle class being interested in education—as though no one else was interested. Has he never heard of South Wales? I am amazed that my right hon. Friend did not intervene when the hon. Gentleman spoke about only the middle class being interested. As headmaster of a school in a mining community, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the parents there are vitally interested in their children's education. Make no mistake about that.
Let us look at the provisions made by local authorities operating maintenance grants. I know that the responsibility for this is with the local authorities. There are no mandatory provisions, but it may interest the Minister to know that in the northern region the maximum grant for a boy of 15 is £123 a year, yet unless we defeat these regulations parents with a gross income of £2,500 will be relieved of paying £70 for one child.
As I have said, the maximum grant for a boy of 15 staying at school after the statutory leaving age is £123. To qualify for that the net income—I shall come to gross income in a moment—of 1125 his parents must not exceed £375. The net income is arrived at by taking the gross income of both parents and deducting a maximum of £4.25 for rent, rates, mortgage payments, and so on, and £120 for each dependent child under 18. That means that a family of a man, his wife and two boys, one aged 12 and the other 15, must have a gross wage of no more than £836, or £16 a week to qualify for the grant. There we have the test of the one nation to which the Prime Minister referred when he came to office. We have to talk about these things when we are trying to establish equality of opportunity for youngsters.
Some time ago I asked the Minister a Question about direct-grant schools in the northern region. I received a Written Answer in which I was told that there were 6,230 pupils in direct-grant schools. Government money paid directly to those schools during 1970 amounted to £504,868, or an average of £81 per pupil. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about an independent sector. They talk about freedom in education. This is a system for privileged children from privileged homes at the expense of the public. And that £81 per child does not include money which goes to these schools for pupils are financed by local authorities in that area.
This privileged sector is encouraged in a narrow sphere of education. That is not my judgment. If hon. Gentlemen opposite read the Report of the Public School Commission they will find it there. Sir Alec Clegg has given evidence, which nobody can refute, that an able child does as well in a comprehensive or State grammar school as in a direct-grant school.
This handout to those who are already privileged makes nonsense of any talk about equality of educational opportunity. It is an insult to those engaged in the State system. The Minister came to the N.U.T. conference last year and spoke about the problems of the slow learner. She warned teachers that because of the economic situation, and because of the terrific expenditure on education, they had to look after the slow learner, but they could not expect any extra allocation of resources because funds were so tight. The same thing 1126 applies to nursery education. I do not need to plead the cause of the nursery schools.
We all know that dedicated teachers in the State sector—and a great deal of the innovation in education has come from the State sector—are struggling to give children in their care equality of opportunity. What incentive is there for them when they see this piece of legislation which is not going to help schools in any way?
If these regulations were withdrawn tonight it would not mean the end of the direct-grant school. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the expenditure of £2 million of our educational resources. I defy the Minister or anyone else, in the face of the present shortages and difficulties and all the handicaps we find in our schools, to justify giving that amount, not to this sector of education but to parents who are choosing privileged education for their children.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)
I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), but I do not think that his argument tonight is worthy of him. As the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made clear, this debate is not so much about the best way of spending £2 million as about the principle of the direct-grant school. She said quite specifically that this was what she had in mind; that her object was to see the direct grant schools turned either into independent schools or incorporated into the State school system.
I want to show why I think that there is still a very important rôle for the direct grant school at a time when the State system as a whole is clearly moving towards comprehensives. I am by no means unsympathetic to the comprehensive schools. I took part in a working party of a local authority just before I was elected to the House which recommended their introduction into a particular area, and I think that there is very much to be said for them. On the other hand, I am still worried about one or two aspects of the educational scene which are affecting comprehensive schools at the moment—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to the terms of the regulations. Passing references to the system are in order, but we are talking about the amounts that should be given in capitation, not the general principles.
§ Mr. Raison
I was about to say that within this present set-up there are good reasons for saying that it is important to preserve the direct grant schools and, in particular, to make sure that they are open to as wide a section of the community as possible. The whole purpose of reducing fees to the direct grant schools is to make sure that the children of the less well off will continue to be able to attend them. That, I understand, is what the regulations are about.
What are the reasons? First, there is the factor of variety in choice mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill). Secondly, perhaps more importantly, there is threatening the State sector as a whole, and inevitably the comprehensive schools in particular, a kind of anti-intellectualism which it is very important should not be allowed to swamp the secondary school system.
We have had glimpses certainly from the hon. Lady, and even more strongly from outside, of what this anti-intellectualism has in mind. It is based to a degree on a very strong form of egalitarianism. People are so concerned with the importance of absolute equality in the schools that they are prepared to throw academic standards out of the window.
§ Mr. Raison
I have absolutely no doubt about this tendency. There is in the anti-intellectualism movement a kind of misplaced egalitarianism. This is coupled with the point raised by the hon. Lady—the question of class barriers. It is argued that the traditional educational values which are embodied in the direct-grant schools are middle-class values. This may well be true, but I believe that it does no good to anyone to say that those traditional educational values should be chucked out of the window and replaced by something which is alleged to be in tune with working-class values.
1128 This view is very widely expressed, and had been hinted at by the hon. Lady this evening. There is a serious threat. It is a patronising and condescending approach. The traditional educational values have just as much to offer the working class as anyone else today, and the special function of the direct grant schools is to make sure that these traditional standards are available to all children. I am not for a minute denying that there are comprehensive schools where these values are as well upheld as they are anywhere else. The evidence that the comprehensive schools can achieve good academic standards is now strong. On the other hand, in some comprehensive schools there is a threat that values that seem to me to be anti-educational will provide the prevailing ethos. This is particularly true in some of the more difficult parts of the country.
It seems to me, therefore, that the special rôle of the direct grant schools is to act as a safety valve, to make sure that for the children in some of the tougher areas where there is a risk of educational standards being swamped there is this alternative. Unless the direct grant schools are enabled financially to take pupils rich and poor, it will not be possible for them to serve a very important role. For this reason, I support my right hon. Friend in her proposals.
§ 11.6 p.m.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) whose views on education should be listened to with care, even though I do not agree with all of them. I think he was at one time a member of the Central Advisory Council for England, with the power to give advice to the then Minister of Education, and I hope once again that that Council will be able to give advice to the right hon. Lady. She certainly needs plenty of it.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman in his statement that the direct grant schools provide a wider choice. This is only true to a limited extent. We have to ask the question—a wider choice for whom? The answer is that it is only those whom the direct grant schools allow to go into them.
The point that the hon. Gentleman made about academic standards I can accept up to a point, but the great difficulty is that many of these schools, if 1129 not all of them, rely on their academic or scholastic attainment not through developing the talent which comes to them but by selecting the talent which is already apparently there. This is one of the great distortions which we have had in our education system since 1902. It was the Balfour Act that produced the injection of public money into voluntary schools—a great step forward it seemed at the time. They produced the ladder of opportunity, to which so much reference has been made by the party opposite, and which even the right hon. Lady so successfully mounted. That has distorted the whole picture of English education, as I tried to show in a speech on 5th November.
I should like the right hon. Lady to confirm one or two points about these figures. The figure of £2 million has been bandied about on both sides of the House. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that this covers both the increased capitation and the fee remission? If so, can she tell me roughly the proportions? If the figure is more than £2 million—I know that it is difficult to estimate it because we do not know the parents' incomes and how they might change—could she say how much more than £2 million the expected increase of expenditure will be?
I wish to turn to the point made by my hon. Friend about the increase in expenditure. In an Answer to a Written Question on 11th November, 1971, the right hon. Lady told me that a person who is earning £2,500 a year with one child at a direct grant school will have a reduction in fees of £70; with two children £105; with three children £142. But a parent with three children at direct grant schools and with an income of £1,000 gets a reduction of only £68. So the bigger the income, the bigger the reduction. That is the burden of the regulations against which we are praying. It is quite unfair, because the right hon. Lady's objective, she says, is to widen the opportunity for those on modest incomes, so one would have expected the increase given to these parents to be inversely proportional to their income. In fact, it is the reverse, the more income a man has, the greater is his tax relief. That is the effect of these grants. It is completely in line with Tory philosophy, but it has nothing to do with education.
1130 The word "selection" has been bandied about. As I said, it has distorted our picture of education in this country. In a speech in our last debate on the subject, which I tried to make in non-party vein, I referred to a noble Lord who is a well known figure in the direct grant school world. I was chided by the right hon. Lady for referring to him, and I think that she did not grasp that the reason why that person is a controversial figure is not only the fact of his position on a certain Commission but the further fact that his educational experience has, in the view of most teachers in this country, been extremely limited, limited to schools with a different sort of philosophy and with pupils very different from those we find in the country as a whole.
I shall be brief, because the right hon. Lady has a great deal to justify tonight, and I do not want to restrict her time. But I must put to something which has happened in my constituency in relation to a direct grant school which gives a salutary example of the turn which events can take. In my speech on 5th November, I pointed out that there was a denominational Roman Catholic secondary school in my constituency which occupied buildings built by the Acton School Board in 1888, and, because of the right hon. Lady's arbitrary action in not allowing the education authority to improve the buildings, it had to sit tight. On the other hand, a few miles up the road, there is a direct grant school which is being showered with largesse. This direct grant school is run by the Haberdashers' Company, a great City charitable institution.
It has been the habit of the Tory Party and the ladies and gentlemen whom it represents to make sure that these schools are available where the demand arises. It so happens that in London now there is developing an outer ring of rather lusher suburbs where incomes are higher and conditions are rather better. I call it "outer salubria".
The Haberdashers' Company wishes to move that direct grant school in my constituency to the environs of Elstree. This has disappointed many of my constituents. I do not support their views on direct grant schools, and they know it, but I think that it can at least be said that, on the whole, the parents in and around Acton and Ealing are not so well 1131 off as those in the Elstree area of Hertfordshire. Yet the governors of the school wish to move it to an area where the parents are already living in better conditions and are already better off.
Some people have even been so unkind as to suggest that, once the school goes there, having "jacked up" its reputation as a result of this injection of public money, it may in the not too distant future wish to go independent. I gather from her answer to my Question today that the right hon. Lady does not intend to put any conditions on the move it wishes to make, and which she must approve if it is to go there.
These matters are partly hypothetical, but, if the school is given permission to move, and it does go to Elstree, the effect of its going from my area to an area already more privileged will be exactly the reverse of what the right hon. Lady wants to see in direct grant schools. I hope, therefore, that she will at least consider this, looking at the picture of direct grant schools as a whole. They are privileged schools. The teachers in them are privileged in the pupils they have, because they are selected either on a basis of scholastic attainment or on social background.
Let hon. Members opposite, even the one from a rural area, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill)—I take his point—ask one question of the headmasters of their direct grant schools, "How do you select your pupils?". They will receive some very interesting answers.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Angus Maude (Stratford-on-Avon)
I promise not to take more than five minutes, so I will go rapidly over the few points I want to make. It is important to try to get into perspective the specific problem with which we are dealing tonight, and then a great deal of the huffing and puffing from the Opposition will be shown as the nonsense that it is. We are dealing with the simple rectification of an injustice and a breach of faith which was carried out by the Labour Government in 1967–68. The capitation fee was not only not increased to keep pace with the increase in costs but was actually reduced, completely contrary to the understanding which the direct grant schools had always had of the future 1132 policy of the Department of Education and Science.
Hon. Members opposite have suggested that all this money is going in relief of parents' fees. This is not true. More than half the direct grant school places are taken by local authorities, and the increase in the capitation fee will relieve the ratepayers' contribution as well as the central contribution of the local authorities. More than half the pupils concerned are in free places paid for by local authorities.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) said, the relief through the new capitation fees is proportionately greater, the lower the income of the parents. It increases as the level of income increases, but the proportion of the relief at the lower, end of the income scale is greater than at the higher end. The figures show that this is true.
We are talking about a net cost to public funds of approximately 2 million. That is well under 0.1 per cent. of the entire education budget. Spread over the primary system, the nursery school system, the secondary school maintained system and so on, this sum would be a mere flea bite. This will put the direct grant schools in the position they would have occupied if they had not been let down by the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) when he was Minister of Education.
The fuss from the Opposition is not about £2 million but about a philosophical, ideological dislike of the direct grant system. When the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) said that these were highly selective schools he was right. They select the brightest working-class children and send them to universities. This is what the Opposition call privilege. It is the kind of privilege which a number of working-class children and their parents are delighted and proud to have had, because without it their education would not have been a patch on what it has been.
It is no good pretending that in Manchester, where the local authority is trying to contract out of sending children to free places in Manchester grammar schools, hon. Members will find a large number of delighted working-class children because they will not. The Opposition 1133 are showing envy and a kind of dog-in-the-manger attitude and trying to destroy for many working-class children an education they could not have hoped to reach by any other means. This is being done at minute cost. If I were an hon. Member opposite, trying to create the kind of fuss they have been creating, I would at least have the honesty to say that it was envy and not educational considerations which led me to make it.
§ 11.19 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
The debate has ranged widely from those who want to abolish direct grant schools to those who for the time being would leave them alone, but not give them any extra money, although that would result in a substantial increase in fees, to those on my side of the House who would positively encourage them because they have such an outstanding academic record and because they have served a wide section of the community and are undoubtedly in great demand by parents. The dilemma was illustrated very well by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) who admitted that there was a direct grant school in his constituency and that, although he disagreed with it, there was a demand for it to stay there. This means that many parents want their children to be able to go to direct grant schools and judging by the number of applications that come into my office, there is an increasing demand for direct grant schools in many areas.
At the moment there are 176 of these schools of which one third are Roman Catholic. Eighty-one are boys' schools, 93 girls' schools and two are mixed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) pointed out, a large number of places are reserved for local education authorities if they wish to take them up. But the essence of direct grant schools is that 25 per cent. of the places must be provided free to pupils who have been in maintained primary schools for a minimum of two years. On top of that proportion there is a reserve for local education authorities of another 25 per cent. if they wish to take them up. At the moment more than 50 per cent. of the places in direct grant schools are paid for by local authorities. In addition, the rest of the places are provided according to an income scale for other parents who 1134 send their children to these schools, and that is why it is so important to have a realistic income scale.
As the hon. Member for Acton pointed out, a substantial sum of money comes from the Department to remit fees to parents whose income warrants this remission. At the moment it is about £1 million and the extra will be £0.6 million, so that the total going to parents who pay less than the full fees at direct grant schools will be £1.6 million a year, and it is money very well spent.
A number of hon. Members have said that these schools are for those who are already privileged in terms of income. I have described the number of absolutely free places, admittedly upon the basis of selection, except in the case of two direct grant schools which are comprehensive, but the majority are on the basis of selection by ability. I will now describe the type of income groups which will benefit from the improved income scales.
Some hon. Members opposite have described them as privileged in terms of income. Let us see what that privilege consists of. A family with an income of £20 a week and with one child wishing to go to a direct grant school used to have to pay £46 a year. I hope that no one will say that a family with a total income of £20 a week is a highly privileged family. Under my income scale which has now been introduced that family will pay nothing.
§ Mrs. Thatcher
They will now be able to apply for the first time. These schools are very greatly in demand. If I could build them all over the country, or, rather, if the foundations would build them all over the country, for it is the foundations which provide the capital cost, not the State, we should have a great extra demand for these places and if there were free places there would be many applicants from families of that income level.
A family with an income of £30 a week used to have to pay £88 a year for a child at school; it is now £36 a year. The family with an income of £40 a week used to pay £136; it is now £72. These are not people with privileged incomes. They are ordinary people who 1135 are keen on their children having an excellent education and who wish to encourage these schools.
The capitation grant is the subject of the order. It used to be £52 and that was reduced by the Labour Government in 1968 in spite of many increases in costs, mainly increases in pay to teachers, but including others. They reduced the capitation grant from £52 to £32. We are restoring it to £52 plus the extra £10 to meet further increases in salary scales to teachers. The hon. Lady argues that this increase ought not to be made now. If her argument is correct all of the schools should be taken over totally and all of the places paid for completely. This was her argument. That is her policy. In that case we should be paying not £62 per child at the direct grant schools but a full £187 per child which is the average cost for a secondary school place, and not £84 towards the sixth form place in a direct grant school but a full £300 per child which is the average cost of a sixth form place.
If we were to follow her advice we would be spending even more upon what she has called the privileged sector of the community. In spite of the capitation grant being cut the schools did survive, which was a great tribute to the loyalty and determination of the parents. In so far as the local education authorities do not take up free places those free places have to be provided by the governors out of the fees paid by other parents. The alternatives as I see it would be to increase the pressure on costs, so that the fees would have to rise. Unless the income scales were changed very quickly the schools would soon consist of the neces-
§ sary 25 per cent. free places at one end of the scale and very high fees at the other, which would be out of the reach of most people.
§ It is not a situation which most of us would wish to see because it would deprive a number of people who have enjoyed at these schools the benefit of an excellent education suited to their talents. Or there could be a total takeover which would be more expensive. Or we could do what we have done—increase the capitation grant and improve the income scales to keep these schools within reach of many parents.
§ The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) asked me about costs. The actual increase in capital costs £3,100,000 to central funds but is reduced by the lower fees charged to the local education authorities of £1,800,000 leaving a net capitation cost of £1,300,000 net. Add to that the improved income scales, an increase of an extra £600,000 and the actual cost to public funds is £1.9 million. I rounded that up not down. The real difference between us is that we wish to encourage direct grant schools because of the excellence of their academic record and we wish to see them available to many children to whom they would not otherwise be available unless we took the step embodied in these Regulations.
§ To build may be the laborious task of years; to destroy can be the foolish act of a single day. I ask the House to allow these Regulations to continue in their present form.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 285.1141
|Division No. 41.]||AYES||[11.29 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Bidwell, Sydney||Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)|
|Albu, Austen||Bishop, E. S.||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara|
|Allen, Scholefield||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Booth, Albert||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Cohen, Stanley|
|Ashley, Jack||Bradley, Tom||Concannon, J. D.|
|Ashton, Joe||Broughton, Sir Alfred||Conlan, Bernard|
|Atkinson, Norman||Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Buchan, Norman||Cronin, John|
|Baxter, William||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony|
|Beaney, Alan||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cant, R. B.||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Pentland, Norman|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Prescott, John|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Judd, Frank||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Kaufman, Gerald||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Deakins, Eric||Kelley, Richard||Probert, Arthur|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Kerr, Russell||Rankin, John|
|Delargy, H. J.||Kinnock, Neil||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lambie, David||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Dempsey, James||Lamond, James||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Doig, Peter||Latham, Arthur||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lawson, George||Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&Ridnor)|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Leadbitter, Ted||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Leonard, Dick||Roper, John|
|Driberg, Tom||Lestor, Miss Joan||Rose, Paul B.|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Dunn, James A.||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lipton, Marcus||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lomas, Kenneth||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Loughlin, Charles||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Ellis, Tom||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|English, Michael||McBride, Neil||Sillars, James|
|Evans, Fred||McCann, John||Silverman, Julius|
|Ewing, Henry||McCartney, Hugh||Skinner, Dennis|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||McElhone, Frank||Small, William|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||McGuire, Michael||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mackie, John||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Foot, Michael||Mackintosh, John P.||Stallard, A. W.|
|Ford, Ben||Maclennan, Robert||Steel, David|
|Forrester, John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Strang, Gavin|
|Garrett, W. E.||Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||Marks, Kenneth||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)||Marquand, David||Swain, Thomas|
|Golding, John||Marsden, F.||Taverne, Dick|
|Gourlay, Harry||Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Mayhew, Christopher||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Meacher, Michael||Tinn, James|
|Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Tomney, Frank|
|Hamling, William||Mendelson, John||Torney, Tom|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Mikardo, Ian||Tuck, Raphael|
|Hardy, Peter||Millan, Bruce||Urwin, T. W.|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Milne, Edward||Varley, Eric G.|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Hattersley, Roy||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Wallace, George|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Watkins, David|
|Horam, John||Moyle, Roland||Weitzman, David|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Wellbeloved, James|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Murray, Ronald King||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Oakes, Gordon||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Ogden, Eric||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||O'Halloran, Michael||Whitlock, William|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||O'Malley, Brian||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Oram, Bert||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Hunter, Adam||Orbach, Maurice||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Orme, Stanley||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Janner, Greville||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Paget, R. T.||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Palmer, Arthur||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|John, Brynmor||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Woof, Robert|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Pavitt, Laurie||Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Harper|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Adley, Robert||Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Berry, Hn. Anthony|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Balniel, Lord||Biffen, John|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Batsford, Brian||Biggs-Davison, John|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton||Blaker, Peter|
|Astor, John||Bell, Ronald||Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Body, Richard|
|Awdry, Daniel||Benyon, W.||Boscawen, Robert|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Morrison, Charles|
|Bowden, Andrew||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mudd, David|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Murton, Oscar|
|Braine, Bernard||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Bray, Ronald||Haselhurst, Alan||Neave, Airey|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Hastings, Stephen||Nicholls, Sir Harmar|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Havers, Michael||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hawkins, Paul||Normanton, Tom|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Hay, John||Nott, John|
|Bryan, Paul||Hayhoe, Barney||Onslow, Cranley|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Hicks, Robert||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Buck, Antony||Higgins, Terence L.||Orr, Capt, L. P. S.|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hiley, Joseph||Osborn, John|
|Burden, F. A.||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)||Holland, Philip||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Holt, Miss Mary||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Hordern, Peter||Peel, John|
|Channon, Paul||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Percival, Ian|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Howell, David (Guildford)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hunt, John||Pounder, Rafton|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.|
|Clegg, Walter||James, David||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Cockeram, Eric||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Cooke, Robert||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Coombs, Derek||Jessel, Toby||Raison, Timothy|
|Cooper, A. E.||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Cordle, John||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Redmond, Robert|
|Cormack, Patrick||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Costain, A. P.||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Critchley, Julian||Kershaw, Anthony||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Crouch, David||Kilfedder, James||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Crowder, F. P.||Kimball, Marcus||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Curran, Charles||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kinsey, J. R.||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James||Kirk, Peter||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Dean, Paul||Kitson, Timothy||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Rost, Peter|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Knox, David||Royle, Anthony|
|Dixon, Piers||Lane, David||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Scott, Nicholas|
|Drayson, G. B.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Sharples, Richard|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Le Marchant, Spencer||Shaw, Michael (Sc b'gh & Whitby)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Eden, Sir John||Longden, Gilbert||Simeons, Charles|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Loveridge, John||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||MacArthur, Ian||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Eyre, Reginald||McCrindle, R. A.||Soref, Harold|
|Farr, John||McLaren, Martin||Speed, Keith|
|Fell, Anthony||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Spence, John|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||McMaster, Stanley||Sproat, Iain|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Stainton, Keith|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Fortescue, Tim||Madel, David||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Foster, Sir John||Magginis, John E.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Fowler, Norman||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Fox, Marcus||Marten, Neil||Sutcliffe, John|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Mather, Carol||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fry, Peter||Maude, Angus||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Gardner, Edward||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Tebbit, Norman|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Goodhart, Philip||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Miscampbell, Norman||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Gorst, John||Mitchell, Lt. Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Gower, Raymond||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Tilney, John|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Moate, Roger||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Green, Alan||Molyneaux, James||Trew, Peter|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Money, Ernie||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Grylls, Michael||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Gummer, Selwyn||Monro, Hector||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Gurden, Harold||Montgomery, Fergus||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||More, Jasper||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Waddington, David|
|Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Wiggin, Jerry||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Walters, Dennis||Wilkinson, John||Younger, Hn. George|
|Ward, Dame Irene||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Warren, Kenneth||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Weatherill, Bernard||Woodnutt, Mark||Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. Michael Jopling|
|Wells, John (Maidstone)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|