EDUCATION BILL

HC Deb 30 June 1976 vol 914 cc525-83

As amended, (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. James Johnson

May I begin again, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. Johnson

I was saying to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who believes in a laissez-faire society, that a comparison could be made by likening two schools to two shops, one of which is selling a lot of goods and the other of which is not—

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear the hon. Member. Could he start again?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman had reached a stage where one shop was selling and the other was not.

Mr. Johnson

May I, in parenthesis, say that there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear. As I was saying, there is one shop which is popular and has many customers, as a popular school has many pupils. The other shop has very few customers, as the unpopular school has few pupils. Is the hon. Gentleman to dragoon teachers from one school to the other? Does he intend to manipulate teachers in that fashion?

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Boyson

The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point. It follows from what I was saying about a school in a local authority which has been consistently under-subscribed over a period of five or 10 years, and has only 26 pupils there through choice, and 240 "conscripts". I think that in those circumstances a local authority should do something about the situation because generations of children are being ruined. This is their parents' view, and I would back up the parents on this point. There should not be lifetime tenure for heads of such schools.

The hon. Member quoted the case of two shops in the High Street. If one shop is not attracting custom, then it will close down, or probably before that it will have a new manager—

Mr. James Johnson

Am I right in thinking that the hon. Member's philosophy is that he would sell education like boots and shoes in the market place?

Dr. Boyson

I have to go slowly on these matters so that I do not have another unintentional misunderstanding. I have not at any stage mentioned payments for going to school. Schools exist for children, and parents have a right to say that they do not want their child to go to school A, because school B goes about things better and has a better curriculum. This is nothing whatever to do with boots in the market place. All I am saying is that there should not be any God-given right for a head to stay on in a school, despite the lack of confidence which has grown up around him. People in other professions would not have such a right. There was at one stage a Private Member's Bill introduced to give a five-year tenure for heads of schools. I believe that we may have to resort to such a measure eventually if we are to have good standards in schools. One should not give a lifetime tenure lasting 35 years to a 30-year-old. If this is brought to a head by a prospectus being issued, all I can say is "Good for the prospectus".

Mr. James Johnson rose—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has made so many interventions that they amount to more than the average speech.

Dr. Boyson

I shall try not to carry my generosity towards the hon. Member too far, Mr. Speaker.

The first effect of a prospectus is on the choice of a school by parents, and the second effect is that the school knows it is going to be looked at, and therefore it cannot have any dark corners into which a light does not shine. The local authorities will have to do something.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, would you explain to the House why you did not allow the hon. Member for Hull, North to make another point, because there was a most interesting discussion going on in the exchange of views. Surely this is what the Report stage is all about.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no Member for Hull, North, but the former Member for Hull, North has not intervened because he is quite happy to leave the interventions to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker

I note that point. I made an appeal to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and then left an invisible question mark. I thought that we were having a debate rather than a dialogue.

Dr. Boyson

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I will make one other illustration on the question of local authorities being responsive. Unless some pressure is put upon local authorities, as they get bigger and bigger they tend to become less and less responsive to people. Therefore, there must be some weapon of accountability. The illustration I would use is that of the building of tower blocks. These were built for the glory of the borough surveyors and the housing chairmen, whether they wore red or blue hats, and not for the glory of the people who had to live in them. If people had a choice they would not have taken tower blocks. I am not doubting the motives of the people who build them. What I doubt is their accountability to the people who put them there to make decisions of this kind. As I see it, the prospectus would be a form of accountability—

Mr. Kinnock

In the hon. Gentleman's zeal to shine lights in dark corners, does he include a desire to abolish a practice which is prevalent amongst some headmasters of not entering children of lower ability for examinations so that, at the end of the day, the examination records of their school look substantially better than they should? I am sure that that is a practice with which the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted.

Dr. Boyson

That is a very interesting intervention with which, I find to my delight, I agree. The results of a school should show the numbers who passed and not the percentage. Any school can have a 100 per cent. pass rate. There is an old story which illustrates classically what the hon. Gentleman said. One year, a school had one pupil who sat his O-levels for the first time, and he passed. The headmaster said on prize day "We can make a unique claim. We are probably the only school in the country with a 100 per cent. pass rate." The following year, four pupils sat their O-levels. Two passed and two failed. Everyone waited eagerly to hear what the headmaster would say. On prize day, he announced "This year again we can make another unique claim. We are probably one of the few schools in the country to have doubled its number of O-level passes in one year." That is why we should have an assessment on actual passes compared with the number of pupils in the school. A percentage pass rate means nothing.

Mr. Arnold Shaw

The hon. Gentleman has given an interesting account, possibly in a jocular vein, of what a headmaster might tell parents. However, he has not told us who is to write the prospectus. If it is to be written by the headmaster, might not the result be a spurious prospectus? He has just described how much information a parent might get from it. But surely, as an ex-headmaster himself, he knows that parents are quite aware of what is going on in any one school. They do not require a prospectus from the headmaster or from anyone else.

Dr. Boyson

I am grateful for that intervention. A great many important matters are coming out in this debate and, at the end of the day, I cannot imagine how the Government will be able to reject these amendments, because it is clear that they are giving rise to a great deal of concern among Government supporters.

The point put to me by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) is a very interesting one. He asks whether we are to allow headmasters to put out material which is wrong. I do not think so. This can be met quite simply. When a prospectus is drawn up by a headmaster, it can be checked by the chief education officer in terms of its accuracy with regard to attendance, O- and A-level passes, and so on. What is more, the HMI of the area can be a kind of external auditor to make sure that the prospectus is valid.

I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South shares my concern about education matters. However, the present system is such that probably the only time many parents visit their children's schools is on the occasion of their open evenings. Anyone can do a good open evening, just as anyone can whitewash the coal in readiness for an inspection. But it reveals nothing of what goes on in the school. I think that a parent should be able to walk round his child's school on a normal day in the company of a pupil rather than that of the head. Anyone can be taken round by the head, with the senior master peering round a corner to sec how far the procession has got. However, I think that a parent should be able to stop any boy or girl in the yard and say "Take me round the school." It is simpler, fairer and less onerous than having vast numbers of parents arriving unannounced. But it is much more civilised to have a prospectus which can be checked in the way that I indicated.

Mr. Ward

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that schools have periods of success and of less success. There are cycles in the lives of schools. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) is a good example of a headmaster who managed to achieve, at Highbury Grove, what we call an "up" phase, but he would be the first to admit that at other times in his career he was less successful than he was at Highbury Grove. How does he feel that a school with very big social problems, such as Robert Montefiore, would be helped, struggling at the beginning of an "up" phase, if it had to produce a prospectus containing the bad information? Would it not automatically make life much more difficult for the staff at that school?

Dr. Boyson

When I took over at the Robert Montefiore school—it was not my desire to talk about this but hon. Members want to know about it—there was no sixth form and no higher education. That was in 1961. In five years we were providing 2 per cent. of the intake of one university. If that is not an "up" phase I should like to know what is meant by that term. It was achieved by the staff of that school. If the hon. Member thinks that that was a "down" phase, I am not in the same league of optimism as he is.

In my opinion, full information saying what is being done at a school can do no harm. There is no reason why a school should not say that in the past there were difficulties, and then go on to say what is now being achieved, and that the authority is supporting it in its efforts. The school can call a meeting in order to explain what it is doing. I have always found that to provide full and frank information is better than withholding it. There is nothing worse than having to contend with disillusioned parents. The front page of a prospectus should show the present aims of the school, as compared with the past.

Mr. Cormack

Is it not astounding that hon. Members who are so keen on the manifesto should be opposed to a school producing a prospectus?

Dr. Boyson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting intervention. I am sure that hon. Members will think deeply about it.

Mr. Noble

Would the hon. Gentleman include the disabilities which would be suffered by a comprehensive school in a mixed system of grammar schools and comprehensive schools? Would he explain in the prospectus the problems created by creaming-off into the grammar school system?

Dr. Boyson

If a school had its top 20 per cent. removed, it would be very foolish if it did not communicate this fact to parents, because that would affect the results of the school. We made this perfectly clear at Robert Montefiore, so that the achievements would be judged against the intake.

I believe in having bright lights in dark corners, and the more information that is provided the better. Parents should be fully aware of the schools that their children are going into. I am convinced that the work of the school in the long run depends on the backing given to it by parents and children, apart from the calibre of the staff—a particularly important point.

Mr. Tom Litterick (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Would the hon. Gentleman judge the calibre of the staff by the number of certificates?

Dr. Boyson

If a person were doing Oxbridge open, it would be a good thing for him to have a degree in the particular subject. If a person were doing first-year English his ability to teach that subject, provided that he was a qualified teacher, would be the only consideration. But where specialised knowledge was needed at the top end of the scale, one would need a certificate. Certificates in themselves and without the ability to teach, however, are purposeless.

10.30 p.m.

The worth of a school, given the right staff and a reasonable build-up of pupils, will depend on the backing of the children and parents. People will give backing to a school only if they go into it voluntarily, knowing what the school is about at discipline and in terms of subjects, and knowing what the child is likely to achieve in the school. Then the school will enjoy not only parental backing, which is vital to any school, but the backing of pupils. Pupils resent being sent to schools that their parents do not want them to attend.

The introduction of a prospectus of this type, freely available to parents who will then know what they are going in for, would be good not only for the school—

Mr. William van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will take note that although my hon. Friend has apparently been addressing the House for about 40 minutes, the greater part of his speech has been occupied in dealing with the extensive interruptions from Labour Members who are now quite clearly being discouraged by the Government Whip on duty. When it comes to any consideration of representations to you about a procedural matter, will you bear in mind that my hon. Fried would have addressed the House in his normal succinct and brisk manner but for those frequent interventions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

I have been in the Chair for only about one minute. Mr. Speaker made certain recommendations to me before he left.

Dr. Boyson

My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has made a valid point. The prospectus we have in mind would improve schools and ensure that parents and pupils backed their schools. In an age when we hear much talk about open government, this proposal would be a certain step towards open choice in schools.

Mr. Gerry Fowler

The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) gave us one of his usual performances. He is often amusing, and he was again tonight. He is usually prolix, and he was again tonight. He is always didactic, and he shows his service as a headmaster in his manner. Sometimes he is extreme, and I was glad to see that he was tonight voicing his concern with truancy. In Committee he told us that there should be special schools for truants, special schools for thieves and special schools for arsonists. He seemed undisturbed in Committee by the effect this might have upon the application of the fire regulations. The hon. Gentleman is always conscious of his own rectitude and he always shows that mild trace of authoritarianism which one associates with some head teachers.

Again this evening we saw that, while much of what he was saying seemed superficially plausible, the whole drift of his argument was that local education authorities and head teachers should have a new duty imposed upon them by law

Mr. Bowden

The Minister referred to special schools in a rather contemptuous way. Has he seen reports in tonight's newspapers that the Inner London Education Authority plans to consider sending pupils who disrupt teaching to special schools in order to keep them away from other pupils? Is he against that?

Mr. Fowler

I knew I was making a terrible mistake in giving way. The intervention is utterly irrelevant to the the new clause under discussion. I was referring to the views of the hon. Member for Brent, North, and demonstrating that they are sometimes extreme and authoritarian. Anyway, I do not think that the ILEA proposes to have special schools for arsonists.

We have every sympathy with the general notion that parents should have available to them information about the schools which their children may attend. We do not consider that this objective is best attained by imposing a new statutory duty on local education authorities as if they did not know their own business.

During the passage of the Bill, we have had repeated arguments from hon. Members opposite that, because the Bill imposes a new duty on local education authorities, the Opposition should try to delay this measure by imposing 100 new duties on authorities. The new clause will not achieve the Opposition's objectives. The information that parents need will vary school by school and area by area. There is no way of formulating in law a list of requirements which must be published in a prospectus or in any of the other documents to which the hon. Member for Brent, North referred.

We very much hope that education authorities will be forthcoming with parents and will make available documentary material and the fullest and frankest replies to parents' questions. We hope that they will facilitate visits by parents to the schools that their children may attend. However, we do not believe that we can impose massive detailed regulations giving effect to the intentions of the new clause. We should not put a requirements on authorities in respect of the information which they should reveal and the form in which it should be made known. They must be responsible for the educational arrangements they make in their areas.

Throughout our debates, the Conservative Party has manifested itself as the centralist party and it has been for us to resist amendments and new clauses and thus preserve any freedom for local government in the educational system.

There are further difficulties.

Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Fowler

It is no good the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) behaving as if he is troubled by springs in an unfortunate part of his anatomy.

Mr. Cormack

Arrogant patronising twit.

Mr. Fowler

I see that some hon. Members opposite have dined rather well this evening.

There are difficulties, and the hon. Member for Brent, North recognised some of them. The hon. Member showed some of the tendencies of head teachers when he talked about the success rate of the Robert Montefiore School. When he referred to his achieving 2 per cent. of the intake of a particular university, I assume it was a new university with a low first-year intake.

Dr. Boyson

It is still 2 per cent.

Mr. Fowler

I take it that 2 per cent. amounts to about two in absolute figures.

The hon. Gentleman recognised some of the problems, but there are more serious problems than those to which he alluded. Some schools can boast a proud record of achievement, but not the achievement in which Conservative Members have manifested most interest during our lengthy debates on the Bill. Some schools can say that they have a proud record of success in Oxbridge examinations. Perhaps they would also say, if the prospectus were full and honest, that they happened to be situated in an affluent area, that most of the pupils were from affluent homes, that they had good buildings and equipment, a lengthy tradition and an excellent staff.

Other schools would be able to manifest a proper pride in their achievements—achievements not in terms of Oxbridge scholarships but in coping with old buildings in depressing surroundings, and keeping teaching staffs that had been difficult to recruit because of the surroundings and the physical disadvantages. They would be able to say that many of the school population suffer from multiple deprivation, many coming from broken homes and bad housing conditions, yet they had managed to do something with them. That is just as proud a record of achievement.

When the hon. Gentleman says that achievements should be recorded, I do not know how we can devise regulations which would subsume all achievements. It is easy to devise regulations to the effect that a school shall set down its record of passes in GCE O-levels and A-levels, or in Oxbridge examinations, but it is not so easy to frame regulations requiring that a school shall duly record its other achievements, many of which are often of greater social value.

The hon. Gentleman talked at some length about examination successes. A number of authorities publish examination results in one form or another. I do not object to that, but that is very much a matter for the LEAs' judgment. I see no reason for making a further inroad into local autonomy by prescribing the form in which local authorities should publish the examination results of their schools. In any event, it could lead to unhelpful comparisons between schools. Examination achievements present only a partial picture of a school. Pupil needs are not necessarily best met by courses leading to examinations and by those courses alone. The needs of some pupils are better met by courses that do not lead to examinations. Even those pupils whose needs are met by examination courses have a variety of other needs that cannot be so easily recorded. That type of comparison is much more likely to be misleading than helpful to parents.

In a period of transition in many local authority areas it is hard to know, even in terms of the academic achievement of a school, exactly what examination results mean if the pupils have attended more than one school or if the school has been reorganised while they have been there. The whole of a child's schooling must contribute to ultimate success or failure in examinations, in the same way as do social backgrounds and ambiences. The whole of his schooling must contribute, including primary education and, in certain areas, middle school education, as well as that of upper schools or secondary schools. To attribute any excessive weight to the examination results of a single school in a single year would be singularly unwise.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew

The Minister says that to attribute any excessive weight to one factor—namely, examination results—would be wrong. Why should he assume that the parents concerned will contribute a weight that is excessive? Why should they not be entitled to know what the results are and to make their own assessment?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Fowler

The point I am making is that when the hon. Member for Brent, North was speaking, he drew attention to certain specific pieces of information which he thought should be published by law. What I am arguing is simply that to require the publication of those pieces of information, and those pieces of information alone, is necessarily to mislead, because this would present a very partial picture.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

I do not understand the Minister's argument. It seems to me that he is indulging in a grave act of humbuggery. What he is saying is that he hopes that LEAs will provide this information, but he says that it is absolutely impossible to do it without misleading anyone. Why then does he hope that they will provide it?

Mr. Fowler

Because I hope that LEAs will provide not merely this information but a great deal of further information in a form in which it is useful to parents—not in the form of a prospectus drawn up according to the detailed requirements of regulations published as a result of an ill-considered addition to an Act of Parliament. It ill behoves the hon. and learned Gentleman—granted the part of the country from which he comes—to intervene in an English-Welsh debate.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to understand that there is anything amiss in a Scottish Member taking an interest in the education of British people.

Hon. Members

Withdraw!

Dr. Keith Hampson (Ripon)

In the light of what the Minister has just said, may I draw his attention to New Clause 34 and ask him why, therefore, he cannot accept that, as it does not require any detailed regulations to be imposed on LEAs? New Clause 34 simply imposes on LEAs the duty of supplying each year for public view information regarding the character of the several schools they maintain, as some of them do not do that. Will the Minister not accept at least that new clause, so that the LEAs do that?

Mr. Fowler

I know of none that does not supply information regarding the character of the several schools it maintains. LEAs may not supply the detailed information that the hon. Gentleman would doubtless like them to supply, but the new clause would not require them to do that, anyway. I see no reason for imposing a further duty on LEAs—the hon. Gentleman has a passion for doing this—since it would in no way change the existing situation.

I want to comment on attendance statistics. The publication of attendance statistics is a matter that falls very properly within the discretion of local authorities. It is for them to judge whether to publish those statistics. It will be obvious to the whole House that these figures, in particular, can be singularly misleading, even from term to term. If there is a 'flu outbreak or a German measles outbreak, what are we to make of these figures? I note that the hon. Member for Brent, North simply wants the publication of attendance statistics. He does not want any explanation of them This is a matter entirely within the discretion of local authorities. It is much better left to their judgment how they make that information available and in what form. I object very strongly to the notion that central Government should always dictate in detail to local government what it should do on matters which fall, if one is to have a local government system at all, properly and entirely within its own discretion.

In my view, therefore, legislation in no way would or could meet the requirements which the hon. Gentleman has postulated. I must ask the House to reject the new clauses.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton)

I rise to support the group of new clauses so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and to point out to the House, perhaps as a newish member, that I thought somewhere deep in the creases of the fluent flannel of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) there was a bit of understanding of what we on this side of the House were talking about. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would feel able to recommend to his hon. Friends that they should accept these new clauses. That is something to which I am sure other hon. Members will want to turn in due course.

It seems absolutely right that facts and figures of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend should be made available to those parents, and potential parents, who want them if we are genuinely concerned about the quality and content of education in our schools. That is a more important aspect of education than the structure, although structure is important too.

Secondly, I feel that public accountability in education, as in other things, must be more than a fashionable rallying cry. It should apply just as much to education as to any other sector of society. I believe that the suggestions made by my hon. Friend would contribute substantially to the goal of public accountability in education. It would assist parents and pupils to choose between schools. That freedom of choice can only be beneficial, and can only raise standards, as a consequence of throwing the spotlight upon the realities of education in one school or another. Furthermore, this should have a beneficial effect on the staff because it will be an encouragement to staff to keep up to the mark if they know that they have to publish openly the facts of the schools in which they work.

These prospecti need not be glossy or expensive productions and they could be made available free to all those who most want and need them.

In annual school reports, in particular, it is important that headmasters should be frank and open with parents. They should be open, not only about their school's achievements but also about their general educational aims, attitudes and ideologies. We have seen too much ideology creeping into education recently and it is right that parents should have a chance to make up their own minds, in advance, as to the sort of ideology their children might face if they were to go to a given school. I believe that all these moves would help to raise the less good schools towards the standards of the very best. If we are genuinely concerned about the education of our children, then that aspect—the raising of the standards of the less good schools and schools which need improvements—will be the most useful aspect of all.

I believe that greater transparency of this kind, in assessing different kinds and methods of education in different schools, would provide more facts and figures on which to base comparisons. It would keep teachers up to the mark. It would increase parental choice and could raise the standards of schools which need standards raised.

I recognise that there is always a risk in respect of disclosure of any information, as the Government have learned recently in some of their own doings. But if we are to enable people at least to make responsible decisions about a choice which will affect them, and their children, for a long time to come, then it is only fair to make available to them the widest possible range of information. I believe it is a risk which is well worth taking in the interests of greater parental choice. Certainly, it is better than the alternative.

The only practical alternative, at present, is to have alarmist and often ill-informed stories in the local newspapers about the state of this or that school. All too often such stories are not based on a full and frank disclosure of the facts and are much more damaging to the reputation of schools than the honest and supervised expression of the facts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North referred. What I want is a quiet sober exposure of the facts of a particular school so that parents can make a rational choice in regard to the future of their children.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick (Brecon and Radnor)

I do not intend to delay the debate, but the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) should receive answers to some of the points he raised. He talked of a prospectus as a form of consumer guide. The consumer guides that I have seen were written by an independent person, not the person directly involved. The prospectus that he is talking about would be an advertising feature, written by the headmaster and nothing like the kind of consumer guide that he has described.

Dr. Boyson

Not just the head.

Mr. Roderick

If it is not the head, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say who will write it. He did not answer the question put to him by one of my hon. Friends.

Dr. Boyson

I thought that I did, but I am glad of the opportunity to make it even clearer. The preparation will be made by the head and staff of the school, but it will be checked by the chief education officer or his representative to make sure that it is valid and credible, that the results and attendance records are available, and by the HMI of the area. So there would be two external auditors of the prospectus.

Mr. Roderick

That does not take us much further. I assume that it would be brought up to date, so there would be a new publication each year, as staff changed. Whatever was said about a particular department could change overnight with a change of staff, so the prospectus could be entirely misleading.

I wonder why there is no provision for information to be given about non-maintained schools.

Mr. Ronald Bell

They do it already.

Mr. Roderick

In their previous new clause about probation periods, hon. Members opposite were careful to include both maintained and non-maintained schools. This time, there is to be no compulsion on the latter. Did Tory Members choose schools such as Winchester and Eton for their children from the information supplied in a prospectus? For what reasons did they choose those schools?

Mr. Speed rose—

Mr. Roderick

No, I will not give way. I heard the hon. Member—

Mr. Speed

The hon. Member asked a question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Roderick.

Mr. Roderick rose—

Mr. Speed rose—

Mr. Roderick

I will not give way to the hon. Member. I heard his previous intervention and I know that it is not worth giving way to him.

Mr. Flannery

He is just a snoop, a car-counter.

Mr. Roderick

I would have given a little more credence to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, North if he had advocated a compulsory parent-teacher association at every school. That would be a vehicle for information, rather than a spurious prospectus designed as an advertising feature. Then parents could consult the staff directly.

I would advocate—I wish that the hon. Member had done so—parent-teacher associations, so that parents could visit the schools and obtain information. Then there could be proper discussion of all these matters.

The hon. Member wanted the publication of the reading ages of children at schools. He also talked about results in CSE and O- and A-levels. He suggested that examinations are what education is about. As he should know, education is about much more than examinations. New Clause 16 refers only to O level, A level and CSE. It does not mention the wider issues brought in by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

Even if the prospectus went much wider, the school would be judged only on the statistical data based on examination results and attendances.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Roderick

Some of the best qualities in the school are not measurable. The Opposition seem to think that statistics are all that matter.

Sir G. Sinclair

Many maintained schools already publish prospectuses. They do not find it difficult, and those prospectuses refer to the qualities of the school as well as the bare bones of statistics.

Mr. Roderick

That does not alter my argument. The prospectus is still an advertising magazine. It would advertise the school and be written by the staff of the school. It would not be an independent view.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

What is the Labour Party manifesto but advertising?

Mr. Roderick

It is an advertising manifesto so is the Conservative Party manifesto.

The Opposition pretend that the prospectuses would be meaningful and would enable true comparisons to be made between schools, but they would not. For that reason we should reject the proposal to publish examination results as it could be damaging to the schools.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew

When the Minister of State was addressing the House I could not help thinking that it was a good thing that he was not in charge of company legislation. Every argument he adduced in support of the Government's position on the new clauses could equally validly have been adduced to justify giving no information, for example, about a company's profits. There were so many admirable qualities which a company could display, he claimed, that to illustrate in its annual report or prospectus the profits it made or did not make would serve only to cause undue weight to be placed upon one distorting feature.

It is nonsense to say that parents are not capable of making a balanced assessment of the value of examination results, attendance records and any other information contained in a prospectus. It is difficult to discern the principle by which the Government are guided. They bring forward arguments on grounds of concern for local autonomy. The Minister says that it is not for us to dictate to local authorities whether they shall say what proportion of children go to school and what proportion choose to stay away. The Government claim that it is not for them to dictate to local authorities what information they shall give about examination successes and failures.

My constituency falls within the area of the Kent Education Authority, and Kent has gone comprehensive throughout the county except for Tunbridge Wells. I should like to claim the whole credit for this, but modesty forbids it. Kent believes that it knows best the needs of my constituency. Why does concern for local autonomy motivate the Minister in his argument on the new clauses, when it is swept aside on the question of meeting the declared needs and preferences of the parents in my constituency? That is what leads us to suspect the bona-fides of Ministers on the issue.

I acknowledge that genuine doubt exists among teachers and others concerned with education about the proposals in the new clauses. In my constituency there is a secondary modern school which has an unfair reputation for being a sink school. The headmaster, whom I greatly respect, and many of the excellent staff, genuinely believe that there should be no choice for parents —and I respect the logic of their view—because they often choose on the basis of rumour or snobbery, and the academic standard of the school becomes worse. The worse the reputation of a school, the more strenuous are the efforts of parents of brighter children not to have to send their children to it. And so the process continues. I respect that argument, but I disagree with it. One could never persuade a parent of a child forced to attend that school that he is not being made a tool of educational or social engineering.

In a free society the right method is to make the information about a school available, and if parents shy away from it, more money should be allocated to the school to enhance its standard and hence reputation. If information about attendance records or examination results is denied, what explanation is there except that relevant information is being concealed?

So often throughout the passage of the Bill I have thought that the attitude of Ministers has been an example of the old Socialist adage that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. But their attitude now is that the gentleman in the town hall is the only person entitled to know at all.

Mr. Kinnock

I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were going to do what my headmaster always did and forget my name.

The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) described an idea for turning schools into a type of educational unit trust where prospectuses are produced where, if everything is equal, a certain level of education exists, where a clear choice can be made and the allocation of resources can be decided on a perfect market basis. That would result in schools being run as a consequence of propaganda and some schools would attract the children of the fastest or most influential parents. That is the reality of the hon. Gentleman's proposals There has been no acknowledgement that the proposed system could effectively apply only in the first year of the school's life and to the first pupils to enter the school.

Let us examine the situation of a school conforming to the hon. Gentle- man's demands for pristine honesty—and of course we know that they will be honest. A school would have to describe in stark honesty that it was forced to resort to repetitive corporal punishment. It would say, "We were forced to have detention every night. Fourteen of our fifth-form girls were pregnant at the age of 15." [Interruption.] I realise that that will not be the kind of school that will concern the hon. Gentleman, except for salacious reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall not withdraw, because it is a serious matter when a school must publish the truth about itself, about its pupils and teachers, and hold itself out in competition with other schools, while for all but the first-year pupils and the staff the situation is unchangeable. They will not be able to get out of the school that advertises itself as being a bad school in a still photograph taken at one time in its whole life.

The criterion that the hon. Gentleman advocates could be satisfactorily and fairly applied only in a situation of perfection, of universal middle-class values. A particular school, with particular leadership and particular kinds of parents and teachers, could by its very novelty, and the fact that it was not in competition because of that novelty, get away with the prospectus system. But if the system were universalised the result would be a disaster, an invitation to dishonesty or self-denigration.

Mr. Freud rose—

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Kinnock

I had not finished. I was giving way to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

Mr. Freud

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if 15 girls were pregnant in a school the entire local community would think that all the girls were pregnant, and that it would be better to give a truthful assessment of what had happened? If there is something the matter with a school, there is no way in which it can be kept secret.

Mr. Kinnock

A direct statement from the headmaster, and full participation—

Mr. Freud

There would have to be.

Mr. Kinnock

—of parents and pupils in the running of the school could overcome that kind of problem. But it would be most unfortunate if the school were required by law regularly to advertise what were regarded as eccentric or unacceptable activities or failures, in a society with distorted norms and values anyway. The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in even suggesting it.

Dr. Hampson

After a study including inner-city areas, researchers at Southampton University reported: The majority of parents have little desire to interfere in the way schools are at present organised or controlled. On the other hand, there is firm evidence to suggest that many parents would welcome greater information and involvement in their child's education than is available to them at the moment. That is why many other countries insist on this sort of prospectus for their schools.

Mr. Kinnock

Many other countries have democratic educational systems, which is not a bad idea. Anybody who wants to formulate an educational policy on the basis of an opinion poll is a fool.

11.15 p.m.

Schools are forbidding places for anyone not involved in the profession. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) should know his constituents well enough to know that. Every teacher knows it. It is one of the great inhibitions against getting parents fully involved, which so many schools and teachers would like. They think that education is someone else's business even when it is their own child. The consequence of that is that when they are asked questions such as those the hon. Member for Ripon mentioned in his intervention, obviously many parents will give precisely the kind of answers the hon. Member outlined. These amendments take us no nearer getting rid of that unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Kinnock

No. I do not want to prohibit or exclude other hon. Members from speaking.

We already have prospectuses. We have prospectuses of the kind the hon. Member for Brent, North had in his school. I am sure that it was a satisfactory document—like mine. They had one in my school, but they called it the school magazine. It was very misleading. It was about as useful, as an education document, as Pravda, but, sadly, my school was not a co-operative school. It listed all the successes.

Of course, there was acknowledgment in the headmaster's letter and in the odd satirical poem about the shortcomings of the school, but the listings were of the successes, the continuing successes. The impression was given of easy success so that no one was listed who opposed the atavistic faults of the headmaster—an old enemy of mine, and he of me, God rest his soul, for he is dead now, but we were the heartiest of enemies while he was alive. The situation was that the failures did not exist. At the beginning of the school magazine, I recall, those who went to university had that university named alongside their names, and so with colleges of education, or training colleges as they were then called.

Mr. Freud

And borstals?

Mr. Kinnock

I will come to that. If they went in join the Forces, that was named alongside, and so it was if they went to work in banks. But if they got apprenticeships, they did not even appear. On the other hand, if they failed their A levels that was dignified by the phrase "at school" alongside their names, giving the impression that they were so valuable the school could not release them.

Our school obtained about 15 State scholarships a year and most of the Grammar Schools' Rugby XV but it was a continual egotistical exercise by the managing director, or gauleiter, as I called him, to add to the support of his scheme of things.

That is my fear of a prospectus. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) intervened to say "Those in jail". They never appeared. If it comes to speech day, whom do we get?

Mr. Cormack

You.

Mr. Kinnock

Infrequently. Over a 10-year period, we are asked, but in the intervening period we have those who have climbed Everest, shot rapids in Canada, sailed round the world, and becomes heads of BBC Light Entertainment, those who have designed angled flight decks, or done brain transplants All of them are immensely talented and useful people. But the most that can be said of them is that they constitute something of a minority in our society. The lessons that they have to pass on to the overwhelming majority of the pupils, listening with clean shirts and shiny shoes, scrubbed ears—if their hair is short enough for one to be able to see their ears—are pompous, condescending and utterly useless for practical purposes. They totally fail to inspire. If we were more honest we could equally well get that tiny minority of the products of the school who did not climb Everest, who actually went to gaol or whose main talent, as they have developed it, is in claiming supplementary benefit. No one would pretend that they should be introduced, but they have much more to teach the children about to leave school of the realities of life than have those gay adventurers who have swanned around the world or inspired their generation.

We have to think much more in those terms, not in terms of some smoothly turned-out stereotype. It does not have to be a glossy magazine. I am sure that in such a case the emphasis would not be on honesty because no one could afford that kind of honesty, that kind of self-abnegation. It would have to be propaganda by the established order in the school with the connivance, for obvious vested interest reasons, of the chief education officer. That would be an unavoidable situation. Otherwise it would be an exercise in demoralisation.

The purpose that I discern behind these amendments is not the ostensible one of trying to provide prospectuses for the guidance of pupils. It is a limited number of parents who can be guided by them. The remainder would be locked into a system with which they would be stuck, be it good, bad or indifferent. The purpose of the amendments is to try to re-introduce an element of social selection into the secondary school system. There is the idea that, if we cannot have competition and selection by examination at the pre-school entry stage, at 11-plus or even 13-plus, we substitute for it a competition between different kinds of schools, taking no account of social deprivation, social disadvantage or even parental ignorance, over which the school can have no control.

It is absolutely idle and stupid to suppose, when all the demand has flooded to one school in an area and it has become apparent in that particular market system that there is no demand for the lower standards of another school, and the consequence is an empty school with enormous waste of public resources, talent and morale, that Her Majesty's Inspectors or some other wise and wonderful being will come along and start to set things right.

To use the analogy used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) about the two shops, there would have to appear on the door of the benighted and deserted school a notice saying "Under new management." The school would have to say "We have got a brand-new, brash headmaster who intends to whip the kids into shape. He will restore capital punishment. He will reinstate Latin for 13year-olds. He will see that everyone's hair is cut, that no one wears duffle coats, that vests are not worn, that all girls wear brassieres." There would be the assertion of the system of values so much applauded by Conservative Members, the whole system of morality and conformity.

Opposition Members see schools as a human chicken coop where people learn and are disciplined rather than inspired and educated. What hon. Members have to learn is that there has been an enormous rebellion against that system. It is no longer tolerable. We are going through a period in which it will not be tolerated. I want to see a firm reiteration of the highest academic and cultural standards. I want to see the restoration of community standards in the schools.

But these criteria which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends try to superimpose are the exact antithesis of that. They are the criteria of the rat race. This is an attempt to reintroduce selectivity and competition, and to cover it with the glossy cover of a prospectus, because they have already lost the argument about doing it through examination.

Mr. Freud

This is becoming a very illogical debate, particularly when one is sitting on this side of the House among people who vote against the closure and then vote to go home at 10 o'clock. It is very difficult to understand. As the usual channels have broken down, if either side wants to use me as an intermediary, I would be happy to be that.

On balance my hon. Friends and I support this clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are in the same place as right hon. Members and hon. Members from both sides of the House. They are very sensibly eating and drinking until someone moves the closure.

On balance we believe that more information is more helpful than harmful, in spite of the splendid oration, or monologue, from the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The more truth which goes out, the more it dispels rumour—and all schools are in a community where rumour is rife. It is right that the maximum information should be given to anyone who is interested in it.

There are two dangers which should be looked at. First, it appears to presuppose that the evidence of examination results is the only indication of a school's performance. That is very wrong because many things a school manages to do are totally divorced from failure in examination results and truancy. The fact must be borne in mind that a great deal of happiness is instilled in children in decent schools—qualities such as confidence which cannot be gauged by examination.

Secondly, I am concerned that when a selective school and nonselective school are running side by side, the publication of examination results will be used to perpetuate political dogma, rather than to produce any real picture of what the education is like. So much harm has already been done by pointing to isolated figures without giving the length of educational establishment of the schools, and showing examination results in selective schools next to non-selective schools.

But granted that these two caveats are borne in mind, it is entirely proper and sensible that people should know the truancy record of a school, and its academic achievements. When it comes to a prospectus, obviously it is sensible for people to know as much as they want to know, and no legislation ever can force anyone to read a prospectus. By all means let schools have one, and let it be made available to parents. Many parents are passionately interested in what the school does, and what it hopes to do. I think that these new clauses should be supported.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton (Streatham)

We have had an extraordinary series of speeches from the Government Benches. Indeed, they have been so extraordinary that I almost believe that they agree with the arguments put forward by us.

The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) discovered at the end of his speech a deep plot in these new clauses. He suggested that we should in some way be perpetuating a form of choice if information were given about schools.

Choice is knowledge, and knowledge is meaningless without information. If the hon. Member is as interested, as I am sure he is, that parents should have as much choice as they should, they must have the knowledge on which to base that choice.

It is perfectly true that if all schools published some sort of prospectus or report, whatever form it took, the good schools would attract more parents than the bad, but is that a bad thing? One of the problems we have—I can speak with sonic knowledge and authority of inner London—relates precisely to those schools which have been bad for three, four, five or even 10 years, with nothing being done about it. This is one of the scandals of certain parts of South London. I shall not name schools, but if any hon. Member wishes to ask me about them afterwards I shall be delighted to name them to him privately.

If the publication of prospectuses forced the education authorities to do something about some of those schools, this would be a magnificent and most advantageous thing for the parents of this country. The headmasters could be changed, for a start. I could name the headmasters. The schools could he named as educational priority schools, so that they received a special weighting. But they could be given the injection of a new headmaster for a start.

The hon. Member for Bedwellty went on to criticise the parents for not paying enough attention to their schools. How can they be interested, if the hon. Member is not prepared to have them told about the schools? How can he on the one hand say that the parents are a lot of dunderheads who pay no attention to the schools, and on the other hand say that we do not think we should tell them about the schools because they will misunderstand the position? What nonsense is this?

Mr. Kinnock

The hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House like this about what I said. I regretted the fact that schools were forbidding to many parents. I emphasised that I wanted them to be more involved than the hon. Member seems to want. But I rejected the idea that by installing these criteria we would automatically get a higher rate of participation, discrimination or understanding by parents. That is the case the hon. Gentleman has to prove.

Mr. Shelton

I do not think we are talking about criteria but about information. I remind Members on the Government Benches of something which most of them seem to have forgotten entirely. Many schools already publish the sort of prospectus we are discussing. Hon. Members asked why private schools are not included in this. Private schools have to compete for their pupils and, by Heaven, they do. They publish prospectuses. I do not know of a single private school which does not publish some form of prospectus. Why is this? It is because these schools live on the money brought in by the students, and they know very well that the parents will not come forward unless they know about the school. Hon. Members on the Government Benches would deny other parents the information that is their right.

Mr. Bowden

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in Brighton, where we have had fairly large-scale reorganisation as a result of schools producing a significant amount of information about this, over 80 per cent. of the parents in the area are able now to get their first choice of school. I think that is remarkable. It is only because information has been supplied.

Mr. Shelton

My hon. Friend is right, of course. How can parents get their first choice with any accurate knowledge unless they know about the schools to which they are sending their children? How are they supposed to find out? They find out, first, by talking to friends, then, perhaps, by talking to the education authorities, and then perhaps by visiting the school. Unfortunately, not that many parents take the trouble to visit the school to which their children are to go. If they received a prospectus, at least they would know something about the school which might then lead them to visit it. It might appear less forbidding to them, and I agree that schools sometimes do appear forbidding.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said that a prospectus would be advertising, because it would be written by interested parties. In those terms, he condemned the proposal roundly. If in those terms I may condemn the manifesto of the Labour Party as advertising and, therefore, as meaningless and pointless, I shall be delighted to do so. But I do not suppose that I shall carry Government supporters with me. If they accept their manifesto as meaningful, might not the prospectus of a school be equally meaningful? Might not it include information about the school which was of value to parents?

Then we had a most remarkable speech from the Minister. I have a very high regard for the hon. Gentleman. He is a very perspicacious man. I can only assume that he wrote his own speech on this occasion.

The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a nonsense, and he asked how we could have a prospectus for a school and tell it what to put in it. But many schools have prospectuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) has them in Brighton. Some schools in the Inner London Education Authority have them. They have no difficulty. They do not burn the midnight oil trying to decide what to put in them. They put in them what the parents wish to know. That is the purpose of a prospectus. It is to advise parents.

Then the Minister put forward the argument that it would be a restriction on local authorities to impose this requirement on them. He referred to other new clauses, for example that dealing with the appeals board. What an abrogation of local authority power, in comparison to the trivia that the Secretary of State himself is proposing, to remove from local authorities the power to decide what kind of educational organisation to have. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is too much to make the local authority publish a prospectus and then attempt to persuade the House to support Clause 1 which says that a local authority may not decide the kind of organisation most suitable for its area? This is a trivial and unimportant argument.

The only way that I can sum up this remarkable series of speeches from the Government Benches is to say that, once again, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not trust people, they do not trust parents, and they do not trust headmasters. They think that headmasters would write a lot of mendacious falsehoods in their prospectuses. I do not believe it. They believe that parents, when they received such a prospectus, would be misled and come to false conclusions. I do not believe it.

I can only suppose that this is opposition for the sake of it. I very much regret it. This is an excellent proposal. It would help many parents. It would help many schools. It would help education. Unhappily, once again education is bedevilled, with one side of the House making a suggestion, and the other side saying "No", because, unfortunately, we have two sides. This must be an eminently sensible proposal, and I should very much like to see these clauses added to the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence

Any doubts that any objective observer might have had about the merit of these proposals will have been dispelled after listening to Labour Members tonight. They have put up the most spurious and ridiculous arguments, most of which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), and which finally turned upon an attempt to ridicule the possibility of producing a prospectus which would assist parents.

I am no great friend of comprehensive education where it steamrollers fine grammar schools out of existence. I have spoken before about the two Burton grammar schools which were destroyed and amalgamated into the Abbot Beyne comprehensive school. That school, however, has produced a prospectus for 1975—and I hope for 1976 and 1977—which is almost a model for this type of document, except that it does not contain attendance statistics and examination results. It is, however, a model for any prospectus which tells parents what a school has to offer. It is a complete answer to the arguments we have heard from Labour Members tonight who have sneered at the possibility of producing such a document. I shall certainly make it available in the Library to all who want to read it. I am sorely tempted to read it out from cover to cover because it contains so much which would enlighten hon. Members opposite. Instead I shall refer to one or two parts of it in an attempt to answer what I take to be serious points made by Labour Members.

The prospectus begins with a paragraph dealing with general points. It says From September the school will begin the transformation to a co-educational comprehensive school. This process will take a number of years and single sex classes will exist in some parts of the school for some time. That is to allay the fears of the parents. One of the greatest local complaints was that the single-sex schools, for which parents have had respect over the years, were being replaced. The co-educational comprehensive document continues: The school will offer a basic course in the first three years of a pupil's stay. The document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen find something to admire in those of us who have mastered the simple art of reading. But I am not sure that they ought to advertise the fact that they have not done so, and are envious.

The document goes on: This will involve experience of most subjects of the curriculum, although events have taught us that languages (apart from English) are much better suited to the more able boys and girls. It talks of courses which are available in the fourth year and adds changes will be made in tune with the desires and potentialities of the pupils after consultation with parents". That is another element in the prospectus which tells parents that they will be included in the process. The headmaster of this school, who I have no reason to suspect is sympathetic to the Conservative cause, has produced this sentence in the prospectus: It is hoped that the great majority of the pupils will be entered for some external examinations as this not only provides a measure of their success but also an extra incentive for them in their school work. At any rate this document shows that those who are most closely connected with producing a prospectus for a comprehensive school have a much more sensible approach to the matter than some Labour Members.

11.45 p.m.

There is a section on accommodation which explains how the three school buildings are being used for the teaching of pupils. Mention is made of the excellent playing fields. It also says: At present, we have no swimming pool". It does not mention only the facilities possessed by the school, but also those it is aiming to acquire. Parents reading this prospectus will think of this not as a school which has no swiming pool but as one with a headmaster and teachers who will work to get a swimming pool.

The prospectus refers to the organisation of the school and says that on entry pupils will be taught in mixed ability classes but will be regrouped for subjects such as mathematics and French so that those of similar ability may be taught together. Another section deals with second-year classes and another with remedial classes. Results of pupils' performances will be kept throughout their school lives. The prospectus covers curricula and explains how initially all children will learn French and that some will take a second modern language—either Spanish or German. The more able may learn Latin. Economics and geography may be studied as an additional subjects in the sixth form.

Hon. Members opposite believe that a prospectus would be useless for parents and would tell them nothing constructive. Hon. Members have attempted to laugh such prospectuses out of existence. It is important that they know the facts before they vote. It will be no good voting first and then going to see this prospectus in the Library.

On parental involvement, the prospectus says: Parents have a standing invitation to attend all open school functions. The Headmaster will be pleased to welcome them at other times even if they have no particular problem to discuss. That is a wide-open invitation to parental involvement. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said that this should be our main concern. What better invitation to involvement could there be than a prospectus which gives such a clear welcome to parents taking an interest in the school and the activities of the children?

The prospectus sets out the periods of the school day and includes sections on homework, attendance, physical education and rules. It says: Every pupil will be furnished with a full list of the school rules and the support of parents in helping to enforce the rules is important to the well being of all pupils. I give way to my constituent.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tamworth)

The hon. Gentleman is obviously very impressed with the prospectus of what seems to be an excellent comprehensive school. Is he planning to send his own child there?

Mr. Lawrence

I am impressed with the efforts of this headmaster to make up for many of the anticipated and probable failures of the comprehensive system and to improve the educational system so that as little as possible of quality will be lost from what existed in Burton previously.

If the Government go on for much longer, there will be few schools to which I shall be able to send my child and they will all be comprehensive schools. It will be no good sending my child to a comprehensive school in Burton for by then I shall not be able to afford the fares.

The most important part comes under the heading of "Rules". The rules that are expected to be observed by the children are set out so that the parents may see them. The prospectus states: A few rules which directly affect parents are set out below. Pupils are not permitted to smoke in school or to bring tobacco, matches or cigarette lighters on to the premises. No jewellery, apart from wrist watches should be worn in school. This includes earrings, but girls with pierced ear lobes may wear … sleepers … Valuables must not be brought to school and money carried should be limited to the amount required for the immediate needs of the day. Nothing of value must be left in overcoat and raincoat pockets, or in bags and satchels. All clothing should be clearly marked with the name of the owner. It speaks about cycling. It states that no knives should be brought to school. The rule is that there shall be no trading in school. It states: For minor offences pupils may be detained in school for up to 15 minutes after the end of the school day. It refers to school meals. I shall forbear from commenting on whether the meals produced at the school are an improvement upon the meals produced within this building—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It would be convenient if the Chair could hear what was going on.

Mr. Lawrence

I shall endeavour to speak a little louder, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The prospectus of this comprehensive school refers to the school fund. It states: The school operates a private fund which is audited annually by a firm of chartered accountants. This provides for the wider aspects of school life which are not the direct responsibility of the LEA—for example, club and social activities, hire of films, running of the school's two minibuses, match expenses, theatre and concert visits. The best way to ensure a regular income to meet these charges is to ask each family"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could make a precis of some of the rest of the prospectus.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend is dealing with a matter that is entirely relevant to the subject under discussion. We are listening spellbound with fascination to the catalogue that he is reading with such aplomb.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair was just as interested as everyone else. That is why I made the suggestion.

Mr. Cryer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to entertain themselves in this disgusting way by stopping an important measure, which will help thousands of children and parents, by a deliberate and organised filibuster? Surely this is an important breach of parliamentary rules and par- liamentary etiquette which undermines an important element of our free democracy.

Mr. Flannery

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Let us deal with one point of order at a time. The Chair is not aware of anything that has been a filibuster in this speech.

Mr. Flannery

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that all those who are deeply interested in the Bill will take note of the tactics that the Opposition employ and the contempt with which they have treated this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

What is taken notice of and what is not is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence

I have no need to make a precis, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have come more or less to the end of the prospectus.

Mr. Cormack

Shame!

Mr. Lawrence

The whole of this argument has arisen from the fact that the Government Benches are suggesting that a prospectus is impossible, or that it would do nothing useful or constructive and would be of no earthly value to parents. That is why everything that I have said so far was to try to prove to Labour Members from a comprehensive school prospectus, before they vote, that it is perfectly possible, if only they will permit themselves, to have an open mind on the matter.

Several hon. Members rose—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has resumed his seat or is still addressing the House.

Mr. Lawrence

I thought that everyone was rising to their feet in approbation and naturally I sat down in a measure of modesty. But I shall now be brief because I appreciate that a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, and I do not suppose that they will wish to prolong these proceedings further than 2.30 p.m. tomorrow.

I conclude on this note because it is absolutely vital to the whole point of these proposals. There can be no earthly reason why the Government should oppose these recommendations which call for publicity of facts and statistics and of the approach that the headmaster of a school proposes to adopt towards the education of the children, unless they have something to hide. If they are ashamed of what they think the comprehensive system may be able to accomplish, that explains it. But if they are sincere in their constant affirmations about the superiority of the system, what on earth can be the objection to publishing statistics, facts and achievements in a prospectus of this kind?

I end with a quotation from Bentham which has reference to another matter—the right to silence—but which is very important and bears repetition in connection with the Government's attitude on this matter. Regarding the right to silence, Bentham said, If all criminals of every class had assembled and framed a system after their own wishes, is not this rule —that is, the right of an accused person to remain silent— the very first that they would have established for their security? Innocence never takes advantage of it —innocence never takes advantage of the right to be silent— innocence claims the right of speaking, as guilt invokes the privilege of silence. If the apparently guilty men on the Labour Benches are not really guilty, they can have no sensible objection to publishing prospectuses containing something like the sort of information suggested. Only if they have neither faith nor confidence in the system which they have introduced to steamroller out of existence our first-class schools can they possibly oppose the new clauses.

Mr. Cormack

We have just had a magnificent display of forensic skill from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am sure that when he read that prospectus there could not be any hon. Member in the Chamber—

Mr. Freud

With a dry eye.

Mr. Cormack

As the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that there could not be any hon. Member in the Chamber who could listen and not be impressed by that splendid attempt by that comprehensive school headmaster in Burton-upon-Trent to tell parents what he was seeking to do in his school and to show them, and the ratepayers, where their money was going and what was being provided.

12 midnight

Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite opposing this extremely sensible and enlightened measure? I thought that the Minister's speech was an example of patronising arrogance such as I have not heard in this Chamber for many a long day. The Minister smarts because he is not yet a right hon. Gentleman. He told us so. He appreciates distinction. He appreciates the badge of rank and the call of office. He is glad that he went to Northampton Grammar School, and went to Lincoln College, Oxford, where his name was read out in school assembly. Was he not glad of that school which gave him a start in life which enabled him to be here tonight? Of course he was.

Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have cause for gratitude to those who have put forward the schemes of excellence and quality in education. It is because hon. Gentlemen opposite are so often enemies of excellence and quality, and the apostles of mediocrity, that they fear choice.

Why should we have a society in which one cannot choose a school but it is perfectly right and proper to choose a motor car, whether one wants a Rover, as does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), or a Volvo, or whatever; he can look at the prospectus, read about the motor car and make his choice. I am sure there cannot be a single hon. Gentleman who is not excited at the prospectus that BLMC has put out today.

Mr. Fairbairn

Can my hon. Friend suggest on what basis so many members of the Cabinet and Back Benchers in the Labour Party selected the private schools to which they would send their children if it were not on the basis of a prospectus and why should not everyone have the chance?

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

What has to do with motor cars?

Mr. Cormack

The hon. Gentleman, who looks as if he has just come back from safari, has not taken part in our deliberations this evening. [An hon. Member: "From the kitchen."] The hon. Gentleman asks what is the relevance of the motor car. What I am seeking to give the House, and we have time in which we can develop these arguments, is an analogy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will all have been delighted by the prospectus issued by British Leyland in respect of the Rover. If they approve of that, why will they draw the line at a local authority, educating the children of their own constituents, putting forward a prospectus for each school saying what it has done, what it proposes to do, what its achievements are and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton so splendidly reminded us, what some of the gaps and deficiencies are?

I have one child at a local authority school in London and another one following in September. Yesterday we had a parents' meeting. The headmaster told us what was in the school, what he hoped to do and how he liked to enlist the support of parents. He gave us a list of the school's activities and the school magazine. He was involving us. We were delighted. As parents and ratepayers not only were we delighted but we felt intitled to that sort of information. [HON. MEMBERS: "No Closure?"] My hon. Friends seem to be getting excited but they must remember that the Closure cannot be moved while I am on my feet. If my hon. Friends will listen with rapt attention perhaps we might be able to develop these arguments at some considerable length because it would be quite appalling—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman threatening the procedures of the House by suggesting that he is deliberately going to stay on his feet in order to prevent the Closure from being moved? Is that not an offence against the procedures of the House?

Mr. Cormack

Unlike the hon. Member, I have a good deal to say on this subject, which is of great importance. I believe that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) is a statistician. He could have a field-day assisting the autho- rities in Cannock to produce prospectuses for the schools in his constituency.

The Minister says that we are seeking to impose obligations on local authorities and to interfere in their affairs. How can any Minister have the brass nerve to say such a thing when he is proposing a Bill which at a stroke will remove all choice, all freedom, all distinction, from every local authority in the land? If we believe that this measure should be debated extensively and in minute detail, we are the ones who are standing up for local democracy and the freedom of local authorities.

The Government are the guilty men, who suggest that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. The Minister of State's speech reminded me of a pedantic schoolmaster who used to begin assembly every morning with the words, "Be still and know that I am God." It was with that sort of attitude that the Minister addressed us. He could not conceive that anyone was entitled to an opinion different from his own. He hectored and lectured and told us that we were seeking to interfere, when he is driving a steamroller over the local authorities. He is seeking to impose a uniform system which many of us believe can result only in mediocrity.

Do enlightened and adventurous people, dedicated to diversity and choice—like the headmaster of that school in Burton to which my hon. Friend referred—receive accolades from the Minister? Are they congratulated? No, their efforts are scorned. The Minister should be intervening at this point to say that he is so impressed by that prospectus that he has been converted and he would like to see every school in the land run along the same lines.

Why should a school be afraid and ashamed of putting forward its wares? The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) suggested that if schools had to issue prospectuses, those schools with a bad academic or sporting record, those whose pupils were not allowed to develop a proper code of ethics and manners, would suffer. It is a very good thing that they should suffer. Why should some of our most deprived children be forced to spend some of their most formative years in establishments of that nature? Anything which can heighten the tone and quality of life in this country should be supported by every hon. Member.

We are not talking about elitist schools, about the public school system. We are talking about the State school system—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may caterwaul and interrupt me as much as they like: they will not put me off.

Mr. Litterick

Carry on.

Mr. Cormack

I shall indeed. Adopting the tactics of a conductor, the hon. Member urges me on. I will willingly oblige.

We seek to speak up for quality and excellence. It is regrettable that hon. Members, whether or not they have been to the bar, whether they are standing behind the Bar or in front of it, should come here seeking to interrupt a serious debate about serious issues.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

Would my hon. Friend care to consider an aspect that has not been raised? The Labour Party is a party of optimum disclosure. On the Industry (Amendment) Bill it went all the way to ensure that information about a company's affairs was disclosed to trade unions. Parents do not have a strong trade union, so the Labour Party is not interested in parents. Would my hon. Friend care to expand on that?

Mr. Cormack

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He puts forward an argument that should be developed and explored. The Labour Party boasts of participation, it says that there should be industrial democracy and partnership and it talks about disclosure of information, as my hon. Friend so aptly and graphically reminds us. It is also the party that insisted in the Employment Protection Act upon certain rights and duties being placed upon employers. Why are our children not entitled to the same consideration that the Labour Party gives to the trade union movement?

Mr. Fairbairn

As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) in Committee on the Industry (Amendment) Bill argued in favour of more information for trade unionists, but tonight he argued that information should not be given to parents because it might mislead the poor things.

Mr. Cormack

He can have made that remark only because he was fearful of the consequences that enlightenment would bring. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) was himself a schoolmaster. I looked him up in Dod's Parliamentary Companion while he was speaking. He held a fairly senior position at several eminent schools, and he did a great disservice to his profession by his speech.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) was also a schoolmaster. He has a first-class honours degree and is proud of it—he puts it in Dod's Parliamentary Companion. The hon. Gentleman therefore approves of quality and excellence and must be proud of some of the fine schools in Hull. Why should not every parent in his constituency have the right to know what is being done in those schools? Why should not those parents and ratepayers be taken fully into account?

Mr. James Johnson

There is nothing to prevent any school or headmaster from getting out a prospectus. We were told that the Burton school issued an excellent prospectus. That can be done now. It does not require legislation. Any headmasters with the nous can do it, but I do not want to inflict on them legislation of this nature.

Mr. Cormack

If a uniform system is being imposed by the Government—that is the regrettable consequence of the Bill if it ever becomes an Act—if diversity, richness and choice are to be taken out of our educational system, it is desperately important that the one remaining non-uniform type of school should be put on its mettle and be obliged to show parents what it offers and seeks to do. I can see nothing to object to in a statutory requirement that schools should produce the sort of document from which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton read so eloquently and movingly.

Mr. Heffer

Did the hon. Gentleman's school issue a prospectus?

Mr. Cormack

Yes, indeed.

Mr. Heffer

May I assume that one of the items mentioned in the prospectus was the production of people who make boring, long-winded speeches?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Cormack

We never had the perspicacity to invite the hon. Member for Walton to come to a speech day but he has put an idea in my mind and perhaps we can see what a long-winded and boring speech is. If he reflects on the progress of the Industrial Relations Bill, he cannot complain when he gets a bit of his own medicine, particularly since his party is trying to introduce such legislation with the support of less than one-third—29 per cent.—of the electorate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The argument does not appear to relate to the new clauses which we are debating.

Mr. Cormack

I was about to perorate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was interrupted and led astray by the hon. Member for Walton, which is also unfortunately what the people of the country are suffering from. They are being led astray by a Government who put their own pernicious doctrine above quality and by a Government who would sacrifice excellence on the altar of mediocrity. I shall do all that I can to put that right.

Dr. Hampson

I apologise to my hon. Friends for intervening at this stage but we have been told that the Government are to attempt to curtail free debate by moving the Closure on this important discussion. It is a tribute to the importance of the new clauses that 10 of my hon. Friends are still trying to speak. It ill becomes Government hon. Members to roll into the House, criticise us and then roll out again.

I am surprised at the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has been in the Chamber. He knows that it is his hon. Friends who have repeatedly interrupted both their own spokesmen and Conservative hon. Members with interventions and points of order to the point where hon. Members on this side received the sympathy of the Chair.

I declare an interest in that I spent three years working for a PhD which mainly consisted of looking at school prospectuses. The hundreds of thousands of words which I read and the 140,000 that I wrote taught me much about schools but the prospectus referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was one of the best. It gives the lie to the Government spokesman who specifically concentrated on one or two of the new clauses and proposed spurious technical reasons why the Government could not accept them. The clauses span a wide range. They suggest specific requirements for headmasters but I urge the Minister to look at New Clause 34 which simply provides for the dissemination of information by schools in a local authority area. How can the Government object to that?

Tonight and in Committee Labour hon. Members paid lip service to the consideration of parental rights. They too referred to how that is enshrined in Section 76 of the 1944 Act, and yet they have the nerve to come to the House and ask hon. Members to reject every single one of the new clauses. It is important to put on the statute book an obligation for local authorities to ensure that all the information is available. It is not a passion of ours to impose obligations on local education authorities. Who is imposing obligations on local authorities, other than this Government in the Bill? Who is taking away from them so much freedom of initiative? As the Minister of State was prepared to admit in unguarded moments in Committee, the whole balance of the 1944 Act is being changed by the Bill.

We are not trying to impose obligations on local education authorities for the sake of it. But certain things are important. It is the parents' right to know what is happening to their children. Who more than parents deserve to know what is happening in the schools in their area? Even Labour Members are prepared to admit that schools vary. They are always saying it. They say "We are not trying to impose a uniform system." I hope that they do not want monopoly. We have some primary schools with progressive teaching methods and some which are strict and traditional, with an emphasis on the basic skills and the old-fashioned way of learning. Parents want to know and need to know.

Even Government spokesmen are now concerned about the falling quality of those leaving our schools. There is concern about mathematics teaching and about backwardness in reading, about which employers are now talking. Parents are concerned about that, and so are university vice-chancellors, who are now establishing remedial classes for mathematics, science and foreign languages degrees.

It is clear from the Under-Secretary's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) that she is not keen on seeing an emphasis in schools on established religion or loyalty to the Sovereign. It is proper that she has those views, though I think that they are out of place, but parents should know whether head teachers and teachers feel as she does. They have a fundamental right to know.

Mr. Flannery

Do I understand that in the prospectus that the hon. Gentleman wants by law he would state the personal views of members of staff? Does he agree that that has a well-known description—snooping? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That outcry from Conservative Members is welcome, because it shows that they agree that it is a kind of snooping. Is that the sort of prospectus the hon. Gentleman is advocating?

Dr. Hampson

One despairs of certain Labour Members. We have seen time and again in the debate how naive they are or how willing to misunderstand what we are saying. I could show the hon. Gentleman hundreds of prospectuses in which teachers and heads are willing to explain their approach and what values they hold dear. I do not think that the headmaster of William Tyndale School was very embarrassed about the way in which he ran his school or about his values. No doubt he would be proud to publish them.

Mr. Flannery

Then why does the hon. Gentleman need a law?

Dr. Hampson

Because, as the hon. Gentleman should know, not every school makes such information available and not every local education authority requires it. Even if schools think they make it available, parents do not.

That brings me to the total misunderstanding by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) of what we suggest. I read him an extract from serious research by two lecturers at Southampton University, entitled "Parents and Teachers". They looked at priority areas in inner city areas. The hon. Gentleman poured scorn on what he called a public opinion poll, but it was a serious analysis of home and school links. Not only did they find this great desire by parents to have more information, but they found that many schools thought that they were giving it. Parents, however, thought they could not get information on what or how their children were taught.

This is part of what we see as a package new deal for parents in the British educational system. Last time we were on Report stage I had the honour of being at the Dispatch Box to launch this set of new clauses to tell parents where they had a right to choose, to tell them each year about their right to information on those schools and about their right to appeal from determinations by a local education authority.

We see this clause as a catalyst. There has to be an obligation on a local education authority, and on schools to do this, because parents have inhibitions not to take part in the affairs of schools. Somewhere along the line there has to be the political will to do something about communication, to put into practice the theory so that the onus is on the local authority to make sure that it makes available reports on the schools' progress, and with that, makes the terms, the values and goals of the school available to parents and children, to people in the community generally and to parents of potential pupils.

We hope that that will be a catalyst for interest in the school, and, once having got parents involved, that through the PTAs there is a means and a motive force for the general improvement of the school, because then no longer are parents under inhibition about being involved in what the school does. The proof of that is that it happens.

This is one of the few countries where this does not apply. If one goes through State after State in the United States, and in Canada, one finds that it is obligatory on the schools that parents are told these things. On the form they are given they can make comments about the school. If they want to make a change, it is considered. This is practicable. There is no excuse for the Minister of State rejecting the proposal. The Government pay lip service time and time again when in this area there should be common ground on all sides that something could be done.

Mr. Fairbairn

Before he sits down, will my hon. Friend deal with the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), namely that discipline no longer matters, that Latin is a thing of the past and should not be taught, that the great train robbers and people who cheated on national assistance should be invited to speech days and that nothing should be taught in schools?

Dr. Hampson

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. May I refer back to the charge I was levying of complacency on the part of Ministers? Since there should be common ground between us and there is no technical problem about this, and as the Minister of State has said, "We hope very much that local education authorities will supply such information, that there will be full and frank giving of information to parents, as requested", why do they not do something, about it? When will a start be made? Which other way does the Minister see? As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) rightly said, some information is better than non-information by rumour and innuendo, which will spread anyway. It would be better to have proper and more information.

The charges against us have come from Labour hon. Members who, on the Industry Bill and other Bills, continually call for the exposing of this, that, and the other, and for the elimination of secrecy of business and other information. They are always calling for open government. Of course there should be open government. Parents want more information.

We have also to bear in mind the comments of the Taylor Report on governing boards. Parents increasingly feel remote from the large-scale local government set-up we now have. We see exactly the same thing happening in this country as we saw happening in the United States, where there was a revolt against centralised control of teachers and professional educators. There was a desire to decentralise the American school system and to give parents a more direct involvement. Wherever we look this sort of development is taking place. Yet in this country, the party that believes in open government is digging in.

12.30 a.m.

Since we have a situation in which there will be little extra by way of resources—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has not been with us for this debate. That is the trouble with Labour Members. They do not come into debates, or if they do they are not worth listening to. [Interruption.] I recall the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) saying in a debate in this House that he thought that it was the right of every parent and every child to be taught the basic essentials of reading, writing and arithmetic. I thought he was interesting in what he had to say tonight. I hope that he will accept that we are in good faith in trying to improve the system and to give some meaning to the rights of parents.

Mr. Heffer

I was not attacking the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, when he was deploying arguments. I was objecting to the fact that he should refer to my hon. Friends who come into the Chamber and leave it again, saying that when they came in they were not worth listening to. That was sheer arrogance.

Dr. Hampson

Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I have different standards and values. It seems to me that when an hon. Member comes into the Chamber, stretches across a bench and keeps muttering loud and rude remarks with no point, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton should address his remarks to that hon. Member rather than to me.

The Bullock Report said that we ought to recognise that, by the nature of education, educational methods and the pattern of organisation are in a continuous state of evolution. We know that there are likely to be further cuts in public expenditure following the White Paper and we do not yet know what the butchers of Elizabeth House will be doing in the next round of cuts.

If there are to be fewer resources and the capital programme is to be halved across the whole of the educational sector, by 1980 schools will be different and there will be different specialties. We shall not be able to establish the perfect comprehensive school. They will all have different characteristics. It is of particular importance, in that context, that parents should know what is happening in the schools.

I want to give an example of what is happening, about which many people are ignorant. The Minister of State and I both approve of a development which is almost alien to our system and is, therefore, something which parents do not understand. In Richmond they have just launched a tertiary college, combining a sixth-form college provision with a further education provision. Only, Richmond is a bit different because there is a technical college provision. The local parents are not particularly aware of what is involved.

It is absolutely vital that when such developments take place the school has a prospectus to tell parents what particular courses there are, what facilities are available, and the tone and nature of the school. Ironically the people who are most concerned about any possible decrease in standards resulting from this venture are the Labour councillors in Richmond, led by the husband of an hon. Member of this House. The Secretary of State has had to cajole the Labour minority of Richmond into accepting this exciting development.

In this sort of situation, a prospectus is absolutely fundamental. If the Minister of State rejects this clause he will be keeping parents in the dark. That can do

nothing but harm to the system. It is trampling on the parental rights which are enshrined in the 1944 Act and compounding the anxiety which already exists.

Mr. Gerry Fowler

I shall not detain the House long, as I know how keen hon Members opposite are to settle this matter.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) accurately stated the Government's position. He was right when he said that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were keen to see the fullest information possible made available to parents. I very much hope that local authorities and schools will make that information available. The issue is whether that should be achieved by legislation. The hon. Member argued that legislation is necessary to put political will behind it. Our position is that this is a totally inapposite subject for legislation. It amounts to taking to sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Some of the new clauses specify in detail the information to be provided, which means that information will take precedence over any other. Then we have New Clause 34, which is so vacuous that no local authority could fail to meet its provisions as part of its present practice.

Mr. Walter Harrison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now, put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 242, Noes, 236.

Division No. 211.]	AYES	[12.40 a.m.
Allaun, Frank	Buchan, Norman	Davidson, Arthur
Anderson, Donald	Buchanan, Richard	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Archer, Peter	Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Armstrong, Ernest	Campbell, Ian	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Ashley, Jack	Canavan, Dennis	Deakins, Eric
Atkinson, Norman	Cant, R. B.	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Carmichael, Neil	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dempsey, James
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Cartwright, John	Doig, Peter
Bates, Alf	Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Dormand, J. D.
Bean, R. E.	Clemitson, Ivor	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Duffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cohen, Stanley	Dunn, James A.
Bidwell, Sydney	Coleman, Donald	Dunnett, Jack
Bishop, E. S.	Concannon, J. D.	Eadie, Alex
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Edge, Geoff
Boardman, H.	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Crawshaw, Richard	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Ennals, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cryer, Bob	Evans, loan (Abardare)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rose, Paul B.
Flannery, Martin	Litterick, Tom	Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lomas, Kenneth	Rowlands, Ted
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Loyden, Eddie	Sandelson, Neville
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Luard, Evan	Sedgemore, Brian
Ford, Ben	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Selby, Harry
Forrester, John	McCartney, Hugh	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	McElhone, Frank	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Freeson, Reginald	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
George, Bruce	Mackintosh, John P.	Sllkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Gilbert, Dr John	Maclennan, Robert	Silverman, Julius
Ginsburg, David	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Skinner, Dennis
Golding, John	McNamara, Kevin	Small, William
Gould, Bryan	Madden, Max	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gourlay, Harry	Magee, Bryan	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Graham, Ted	Mahon, Simon	Snape, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Spearing, Nigel
Grant, John (Islington C)	Marks, Kenneth	Stallard, A. W.
Grocott, Bruce	Marquand, David	Stoddart, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Stott, Roger
Hardy, Peter	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Strang, Gavin
Harper, Joseph	Maynard, Miss Joan	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Meacher, Michael	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Mendelson, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hatton, Frank	Millan, Bruce	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Heffer, Eric S.	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hooley, Frank	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Horam, John	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Tinn, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis	Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)	Tomlinson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Moyle, Roland	Torney, Tom
Huckfield, Les	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Tuck, Raphael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Urwin, T. W.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Newens, Stanley	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Noble, Mike	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hunter, Adam	Oakes, Gordon	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	O'Halloran, Michael	Ward, Michael
Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)	Orbach, Maurice	Watkins, David
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Watkinson, John
Janner, Greville	Ovenden, John	Weetch, Ken
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Palmer, Arthur	Weitzman, David
		Wellbeloved, James
Jenkine, Hugh (putney)	Parry, Robert	White, James (Pollok)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Pavitt, Laurie	Whitehead, Phillip
John, Brynmor	Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Whitlock, William
John, Barry (East Flint)	Pendry, Tom	Wigley, Dafydd
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Phipps, Dr Colin	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Judd, Frank	Price, William (Rugby)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Kerr, Russell	Radice, Giles	Williams, Sir Thomas
Kaufman, Gerald	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Kiroy-Silk, Robert	Richardson, Miss Jo	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Kinnock, Neil	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Woodall, Alec
Lamble, David	Robinson, Geoffrey	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lamborn, Harry	Roderick, Caerwyn
Lamond, James	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Mr. Thomas Cox and
Lee, John	Rooker, J. W.	Mr. Frank R. White.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Roper, John
NOES
Adley, Robert	Braine, Sir Bernard	Corrie, John
Aitken, Jonathan	Brittan, Leon	Costain, A. P.
Alison, Michael	Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Critchley, Julian
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bryan, Sir Paul	Crouch, David
Arnold, Tom	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Buck, Antony	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Baker, Kenneth	Budgen, Nick	Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Banks, Robert	Bulmer, Esmond	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Beith, A. J.	Burden, F. A.	Drayson, Burnaby
Bell, Ronald	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Carlisle, Mark	Durant, Tony
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Benyon, W.	Channon, Paul	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Churchill, W. S.	Elliott, Sir William
Bitten, John	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Eyre, Reginald
Biggs-Davison, John	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Blaker, Peter	Clegg, Walter	Fairgrieve, Russell
Body, Richard	Cockcroft, John	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bottomley, Peter	Cope, John	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Cordle, John H.	Forman, Nigel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Cormack, Patrick	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Fox, Marcus	Lawson, Nigel	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Freud, Clement	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fry, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Lloyd, Ian	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Loveridge, John	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Luce, Richard	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Goodhart, Philip	McCrindle, Robert	Royle, Sir Anthony
Goodhew, Victor	Macfarlane, Nell	Sainsbury, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair	MacGregor, John	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gorst, John	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Scott, Nicholas
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Madel, David	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gray, Hamish	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Shepherd, Colin
Griffiths, Eldon	Marten, Nell	Shersby, Michael
Grist, Ian	Mates, Michael	Sims, Roger
Gryils, Michael	Mather, Carol	Sinclair, Sir George
Hall, Sir John	Maude, Angus	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Speed, Keith
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Spence, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mayhew, Patrick	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Hannam,John	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sproat, Iain
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Stainton, Keith
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Mills, Peter	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hastings, Stephen	Miscampbell, Norman	Stanley, John
Havers, Sir Michael	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hayhoe, Barney	Moate, Roger	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
		Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Heseltine, Michael	Monro, Hector	Stokes John
Hicks, Robert	Montgomery, Fergus	Strading Thomas, J.
Higgins, Terence L.	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Tapsell, Peter
Holland, Philip	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Taylor R (Croydon NW)
Hooson, Emlyn	Morgan, Geraint	Taylor, Teddy (Catheart)
Hordern, Peter	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Tebbit Norman
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Temple-Morris Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Neave, Airey	Thomas Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Nelson, Anthony	Townsend, Cyril D.
Hunt, John	Neubert, Michael	Trotter Neville
Hurd, Douglas	Newton, Tony	Trotter, Neville
James, David	Oppenheim, Mrs Salty	Tugendhat, Christopher
		van Straubenzee W. R.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Page, John (Harrow West)	Vaughan Dr Gerard
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Viggers, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Paisley, Rev Ian	Wakeham John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Parkinson, Cecil	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Jopling, Michael	Pattie, Geoffrey	Wall, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Percival, Ian	Warren, Kenneth
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Weatherill, Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wells, John
Kimball, Marcus	Prior, Rt Hon James	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Wiggin, Jerry
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Raison, Timothy	Winterton, Nicholas
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rathbone, Tim	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Knight, Mrs Jill	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Knox, David	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Younger, Hon George
Lamont, Norman	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Lane, David	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rifkind, Malcolm	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Lawrence, Ivan	Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey	Mr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 241.

Division No. 212.]	AYES	[12.52 a.m.
Adley, Robert	Body, Richard	Channon, Paul
Aitken, Jonathan	Boscawen, Hon Robert	Churchill, W. S.
Alison, Michael	Bottomley, Peter	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Clark, William (Croydon S)
Arnold, Tom	Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Clegg, Walter
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Braine, Sir Bernard	Cockcroft, John
Baker, Kenneth	Brittan, Leon	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Banks, Robert	Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Cope, John
Beith, A. J.	Bryan, Sir Paul	Cordle, John H.
Bell, Ronald	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Cormack, Patrick
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Buck, Antony	Corrie, John
Bennett, Or Reginald (Fareham)	Budgen, Nick	Costain, A. P.
Benyon, W.	Bulmer, Esmond	Critchley, Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony	Burden, F. A.	Crouch, David
Bitten, John	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Biggs-Davison, John	Carlisle, Mark	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Blaker, Peter	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Drayson, Burnaby	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rifkind, Malcolm
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Knight, Mrs Jill	Rippon, Rt, Hon Geoffrey
Durant, Tony	Knox, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lamont, Norman	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lane, David	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Elliott, Sir William	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eyre, Reginald	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lawrence, Ivan	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fairgrieve, Russell	Lawson, Nigel	Royle, Sir Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sainsbury, Tim
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lloyd, Ian	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fookes, Miss Janet	Loveridge, John	Scott, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel	Luce, Richard	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	McCrindle, Robert	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fox, Marcus	McCusker, H.	Shepherd, Colin
Freud, Clement	Macfarlane, Nell	Shersby, Michael
Fry, Peter	MacGregor, John	Silvester, Fred
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Sims, Roger
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Sinclair, Sir George
Glyn, Dr Alan	Madel, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Goodhart, Philip	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Goodhew, Victor	Marten, Neil	Speed, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair	Mates, Michael	Spence, John
Gorst, John	Mather, Carol	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Maude, Angus	Sproat, Iain
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Stainton, Keith
Gray, Hamish	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stanbrook, Ivor
Griffiths, Eldon	Mayhew, Patrick	Stanley, John
Grist, Ian	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Grylls, Michael	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hall, Sir John	Mills, Peter	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Miscampbell, Norman	Stokes, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hempson, Dr Keith	Moate, Roger	Tapsell, Peter
Hannam,John	Monro, Hector	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Montgomery, Fergus	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Tebbit, Norman
Hastings, Stephen	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Havers, Sir Michael	Morgan, Geraint	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hayhoe, Barney	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Heseltine, Michael	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Hicks, Robert	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Trotter, Neville
Higgins, Terence L.	Neave, Airey	Tugendhat, Christopher
Holland, Philip	Nelson, Anthony	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hooson, Emlyn	Neubert, Michael	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hordern, Peter	Newton, Tony	Viggers, Peter
		Wakeham, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Page, John (Harrow west)	Wall, Patrick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Warren, Kenneth
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Paisley, Rev Ian	Weatherill, Bernard
Hunt, John	Parkinson, Cecil	Wells, John
Hurd, Douglas	Pattle, Geoffrey	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
James, David	Perclval, Ian	Wiggin Jerry
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Winterton, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Prior, Rt Hon James	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Younger, Hon George
Jopling, Michael	Raison, Timothy
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Rathbone, Tim	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Kershaw, Anthony	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Kimball, Marcus	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Mr. Jim Lester.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Anderson, Donald	Bray, Dr Jeremy	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Archer, Peter	Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Crawshaw, Richard
Armstrong, Ernest	Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Crowther Stan (Rotherham)
Ashley, Jack	Buchan, Norman	Cryer, Bob
Atkinson, Norman	Buchanan, Richard	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Bagler, Gordon A. T.	Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Campbell, Ian	Davidson, Arthur
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Canavan, Dennis	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Bates, Alf	Cant, R. B.	Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Bean, R. E.	Carmichael, Neil	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Deakins, Eric
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cartwright, John	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bidwell, Sydney	Clemitson, Ivor	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Bishop, E. S.	Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Dempsey, James
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cohen, Stanley	Doig, Peter
Boardman, H.	Coleman, Donald	Dormand, J. D.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Concannon, J. D.	Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Duffy, A. E. P.	Kinnock, Neil	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Dunn, James A.	Lambie, David	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dunnett, Jack	Lamborn, Harry	Rooker, J. W.
Eadie, Alex	Lamond, James	Roper, John
Edge, Geoff	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Rose, Paul B.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lee, John	Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Rowlands, Ted
Ennals, David	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sandelson, Neville
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Litterick, Tom	Sedgemore, Brian
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Lornas, Kenneth	Selby, Harry
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Loyden, Eddie	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Luard, Evan	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Flannery, Martin	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McCartney, Hugh	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McElhone, Frank	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Ford, Ben	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Silverman, Julius
Forrester, John	Mackenzie, Gregor	Skinner, Dennis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Mackintosh, John P.	Small, William
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Maclennan, Robert	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Freeson, Reginald	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Snape, Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McNamara, Kevin	Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Madden, Max	Stallard, A. W.
George, Bruce	Magee, Bryan	Stoddart, David
Gilbert, Dr John	Mahon, Simon	Stott, Roger
Ginsburg, David	Mallalleu, J. P. W.	Strang, Gavin
Golding, John	Marks, Kenneth	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Gould, Bryan	Marquand, David	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Gourlay, Harry	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce	Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mendelson, John	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Hardy, Peter	Mikardo, Ian	Tinn, James
Harper, Joseph	Millan, Bruce	Tomlinson, John
Harrison Walter (Wakefield)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Torney, Tom
Hart Rt Hon Judith	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Tuck, Raphael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Urwin, T. W.
Hatton, Frank	Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
		Walker Harold (Doncaster)
Heffer, Eric S.	Moyle, Roland	Walker Terry (Kingswood)
Hooley, Frank	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Ward, Michael
Horam, John	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Watkins, David
Howell, Rt Hon Denis	Newens, Stanley	Watkinson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Noble, Mike	Weetch, Ken
Huckfield, Les	Oakes, Gordon	Weitzman, David
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	O'Halloran, Michael	Wellbeloved James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Orbach, Maurice	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	White, James (Pollok)
Hunter, Adam	Ovenden, John	Whitehead, Phillip
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Palmer, Arthur	Whitlock, William
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Parry, Robert	Wigley, Dafydd
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Pavitt, Laurie	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Janner, Greville	Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Pendry, Tom	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Phipps, Dr Colin	Williams, Sir Thomas
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
John, Brynmor	Price, William (Rugby)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Radice, Giles	Woodall, Alec
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Richardson, Miss Jo
Judd, Frank	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kaufman, Gerald	Robinson, Geoffrey	Mrr Thomas Cox and
Kerr, Russell	Roderick, Caerwyn	Mr. Ted Graham.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Mulley

I beg to move. That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. The Chair rejoices together with Opposition Members.

Mr. Mulley

It is a matter of great satisfaction that there is so much interest in the Bill, but I am sorry to say that progress tonight has not been good. We hope later today to make much more rapid progress and to consider how best to get the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The Opposition quite understand what has motivated the Secretary of State to move the motion. As far as the Opposition are concerned, we would be quite happy to go on tonight. Thanks to the selections of Mr. Speaker, we have 26 major debates which we calculate would take us through quite comfortably to the weekend.

But this is a Government responsibility. The Government have taken this decision. As I say—just in case the BBC gets it wrong again—we are very content to go on. However, if this is the Government's wish, perhaps the House would be wise

to accept the decision from the Secretary of State.

Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 73.

Division No. 213.]	AYES	[1.12 a.m.
Allaun, Frank	Forrester, John	Mahon, Simon
Anderson, Donald	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Marks, Kenneth
Archer, Peter	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Marquand, David
Armstrong, Ernest	Freeson, Reginald	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ashley, Jack	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Atkinson, Norman	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	George, Bruce	Meacher, Michael
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Gilbert, Dr John	Mendelson, John
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Golding, John	Mikardo, Ian
Bates, Alt	Gould, Bryan	Millan, Bruce
Bean, R. E.	Gourlay, Harry	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bidwell, Sydney	Grocott, Bruce	Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Bishop, E. S.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Moyle, Roland
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hardy, Peter	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Boardman, H.	Harper, Joseph	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Newens, Stanley
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Noble, Mike
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Oakes, Gordon
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Hatton, Frank	O'Halloran, Michael
Buchan, Norman	Heffer, Eric S.	Orbach, Maurice
Buchanan, Richard	Hooley, Frank	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Hooson, Emlyn	Ovenden, John
Campbell, Ian	Horam, John	Palmer, Arthur
Canavan, Dennis	Howell, Rt Hon Denis	Parry, Robert
Cant, R. B.	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Pavitt, Laurie
Carmichael, Neil	Huckfield, Les	Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Pendry, Tom
Cartwright, John	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Phipps, Dr Colin
Clemitson, Ivor	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Hunter, Adam	Price, William (Rugby)
Cohen, Stanley	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Radice, Giles
Coleman, Donald	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Concannon, J. D.	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Richardson, Miss Jo
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Janner, Grevilte	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Robinson, Geoffrey
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Roderick, Caerwyn
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	John, Brynmor	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Cryer, Bob	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Rooker, J. W.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Roper, John
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rose, Paul B.
Davidson, Arthur	Judd, Frank	Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Kaufman, Gerald	Rowlands, Ted
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Kerr, Russell	Sandelson, Neville
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Sedgemore, Brian
Deakins, Eric	Kinnock, Neil	Selby, Harry
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Lamble, David	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Lamborn, Harry	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Dempsey, James	Lamond, James	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Doig, Peter	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Dormand, J. D.	Leadbitter, Ted	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silverman, Julius
Dunn, James A.	Litterick, Tom	Skinner, Dennis
Dunnett, Jack	Loyden, Eddie	Small, William
Eadie, Alex	Luard, Evan	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Edge, Geoff	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Snape, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	McCartney, Hugh	Spearing, Nigel
Ennals, David	McElhone, Frank	Stallard, A. W.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Stoddart, David
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Stott, Roger
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Mackenzie, Gregor	Strang, Gavin
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mackintosh, John P.	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Flannery, Martin	Maclennan, Robert	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McNamara, Kevin	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Madden, Max	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Ford, Ben	Magee, Bryan	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Watkinson, John	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Tinn, James	Weetch, Ken	Williams, Sir Thomas
Tomlinson, John	Weitzman, David	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Torney, Tom	Wellbeloved, James	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tuck, Raphael	White, Frank R. (Bury)	Woodall, Alec
Urwin, T. W.	White, James (Pollok)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Whitehead, Phillip
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Whitlock, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)	Wigley, Dafydd	Mr. John Ellis and
Ward, Michael	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)	Mr. Ted Graham.
Watkins, David	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
NOES
Adley, Robert	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Aitken, Jonathan	Hicks, Robert	Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Arnold, Tom	Holland, Philip	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Bottomley, Peter	James, David	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Budgen, Nick	Knight, Mrs Jill	Shepherd, Colin
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Lane, David	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Clegg, Walter	Lawrence, Ivan	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Cope, John	Lawson, Nigel	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Cordle, John H.	Loveridge, John	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Costain, A. P.	Luce, Richard	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Critchley, Julian	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Trotter, Neville
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Drayson, Burnaby	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Durant, Tony	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Wall, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald	Montgomery, Fergus	Wells, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Morgan, Geraint	Wiggin, Jerry
Forman, Nigel	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Winterton, Nicholas
Fry, Peter	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Younger, Hon George
Glyn, Dr Alan	Nelson, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip	Newton, Tony	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Mr. Clement Freud and
Griffiths, Eldon	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. A. J. Beith.
Grist, Ian	Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.