HC Deb 19 March 1984 vol 56 cc857-69

Lords amendment

Insert the following new clause— No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability.

Read a Second time.

11.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment has been debated in this House and in another place. On Report in this House it was rejected by 86 votes. The new clause would prohibit the use of grants in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability". The noble lord, Lord Stewart, made clear the intention behind the amendment when he moved it in the other place. He said of the selective system of secondary education: I believe it would be profoundly wrong to try to reverse the trend towards comprehensive secondary education. We felt therefore that it is right to put an amendment into this Bill to make sure that none of the education support grants goes to schools which are based on that principle".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 1984; Vol. 449, c. 94.] We have already made it clear in this House and in the other place that we are not proposing that education support grants be used to enable local education authorities to set up new grammar schools. That would be a misuse of the powers conveyed by the Bill. The amendment is simply a device to further the objective of Opposition Members to eliminate all forms of selective secondary education.

The amendment seeks to reopen in a thoroughly inappropriate way an issue settled by Parliament in the Education Acts 1979 and 1980. The first restored to local education authorities the freedom to decide the form and pattern of secondary education best suited to the circumstances of their area and the preferences of parents. The second regulated that freedom through the statutory processes laid down in sections 12 to 16. It is wrong in principle to introduce the further back-door constraint implied by the amendment. The procedures under the 1980 Act require the question of selection, where it arises, to be settled on all the merits of the particular case. The amendment is intended to prejudge those merits in every case.

The amendment is also irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill. In bringing the Bill forward, we were concerned to provide a limited means by which to encourage local education authorities to redeploy their expenditure in response to objectives of particular national importance. Those objectives are essentially concerned with the continuing improvement of the quality and range of the educational opportunities offered to school pupils and college students. The conditions that the Bill sets on the giving of grants should be designed to achieve those objectives. Whether a school is selective or comprehensive is therefore immaterial.

Mr. Speaker has drawn attention to the fact that Commons' privileges are involved. It is, of course, open to the House to waive its privilege. In this case, I believe that it should not do so. For the reasons I have given, the amendment is pernicious and should be defeated. This same amendment was soundly defeated on Report in this House. I ask my hon. Friends to join me tonight in rejecting by a substantial majority the amendment made in the other place.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, we in the Opposition believe that the Lords amendment is both reasonable and sensible. It would ensure that education support grants were not used to finance educational experiments in selective schools or to encourage a return to selection. It is true that the Secretary of State has said that the second course is not envisaged, but it would be entirely legal for the Secretary of State to take the second course, so we have to rely on his word and the word of his Ministers. Frankly, that is not good enough for the Opposition.

The fact is that the selective grammar school is an educational dinosaur—an almost extinct species. In 1965, there were over 1,000 grammar schools, but in January 1983 there were only 175. Curiously enough, despite the rhetoric, the number of grammar schools has declined by over one quarter since 1979.

The Secretary of State has made much of the point that it is for the local education authorities to choose the form and pattern of secondary education that is best suited to local circumstances and to the parents' preference. That argument was used by the junior Minister on Report and by Lord Swinton in another place. My comment about the argument is that parents have made it plain and are today making it plain that they have a preference for comprehensive education. It was pressure from parents that persuaded local education authorities in the late 1960s and 1970s to abolish selection at 11. Parents rightly saw that the 11-plus was unjust because it measured social class as well as intelligence and favoured some areas against others. It was inefficient because there was a 10 per cent. margin of error. It was wasteful because, as successive reports showed, the system failed to make the best of human potential, and it was divisive because it separated families and communities. Above all, it was a failure system in which the vast majority went to the failure schools—the secondary moderns.

11.30 pm

So it is hardly surprising that there was a strong parental movement against selection. It was so strong that by 1976, when the Labour Government introduced their legislation, over 70 per cent. of pupils in the maintained sector were already in comprehensives. Tory and Labour councils alike, compelled by parents, had introduced the change themselves.

Today, whether hon. Members like it or not, the comprehensive school is the type to which over 90 per cent. of our children go. I know that Baroness Cox, Mr. Marks, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State himself would wish it otherwise. I know that the Under-Secretary hopes to win his spurs as a true follower of the Prime Minister by making weekend and occasional weekday speeches urging local education authorities to return to selection. But I wish that he and the Secretary of State would understand that it just will not wash with parents.

If hon. Members doubt me, I draw their attention to Richmond and Solihull. There, local education authorities, encouraged by hawk-like sounds from Elizabeth House or perhaps from Smith Square, dreamed up strange little schemes to set up new grammar schools. What happened? There was a massive parental revolt. In Solihull I saw for myself the strength of feeling. Parents, middle class as well as working class, Tory as well as Labour, have been convinced by the experience of comprehensive education. They also do not want to risk the possibility of their children failing the 11-plus and being condemned to a seconday modern. So in the end Solihull was forced to drop its plans.

I warn the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State to desist from their meddling. They will get a bloody nose wherever they try to intervene. In any case, the attempt to turn the clock back sits oddly with the new approach sketched out by the Secretary of State at Sheffield. The truth is that the comprehensive revolution is here to stay. Good has come of it. As the Secretary of State said at Sheffield, standards have risen. There is a basis of quality and past success, to quote the Secretary of State. The best approach for Conservatives, as the Secretary of State hints in his more enlightened moods, is to accept the inevitable and make the best of it.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)

The hon. Gentleman slipped quickly off Richmond. I do not recall him or the Labour party objecting when Richmond first decided to establish the sixth form college system and then to bring that into a tertiary college system. Now, because there is a local volition to look at other options, he suddenly seems willing to condemn that sort of local choice.

Mr. Radice

I am not condemning it particularly here tonight. It is the parents who have condemned it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the local authority dropped its plans.

The grammar school is a relic of the past, and the best way the House can recognise that tonight is by ensuring that the special funds are not available for its use.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West)

Will not the passing of this Bill improve the curriculum through the maintained sector? I do not see that what the hon. Gentleman has said is relevant. We are trying to improve the whole curriculum.

Mr. Radice

It would be a great help in improving the curriculum throughout the system if the Secretary of State would encourage the completion of the comprehensive revolution. That would ensure that the children in grammar and secondary modern schools got a full curriculum.

As this is probably the last chance that we shall have to comment on the Bill, I want to make a final point about education support grants. Throughout the Bill's passage we have made it clear that, though we do not object to specific grants in principle, the idea of taking away existing local authority money to finance them represents an attack on local democracy.

Our original suspicions of the Government's intentions over the education support grant have been amply confirmed by the extraordinary decision to take much of vocational training away from further education without consultation and without any attempt at encouraging involvement or accountability. It is sadly true that more and more the Administration reveal themselves as an interfering, centralising, authoritarian Government, incapable of forging any real kind of lasting educational partnership. For that general reason, as well as the specific one about selection, we shall vote against the motion tonight.

11.35 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

It may be helpful to remember the original purposes of the Bill. There were three basic reasons for its introduction, First, it sought to improve standards. Secondly, it endeavoured to respond to the new demands being made upon the education service. Thirdly, there was the idea of introducing pilot schemes and using them as a test bed for the new ideas that were evolving.

I cannot see why we should seek to exclude from those aims the schools that depend upon selection for their entry. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it would be entirely wrong to do so. The inference of the amendment is that the grants could not and would not improve the quality of education within grammar schools. Clearly, the inference is that the children who attend grammar and selective entry schools are receiving the best of education and that there is no way in which that education could be improved. But I believe it would be a good idea for all young people to be exposed to new ideas and schemes, which is the purpose of the grants.

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

My hon. Friends and I are opposed not so much to pilot schemes as to funding pilot schemes with money taken from the local education authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Secretary of State has got it more right than the local education authorities?

Mr. Pawsey

I shall give a straight answer to a straight question. Yes, I believe that my right hon. Friend has got it right in this instance. I cannot see any reason why funding should not be available for this purpose. It would be used for the benefit of the same children, and the sum involved is very small when compared with the totality of spending on education. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman is jibbing at this point. I cannot see why we should stop grants to selective schools, thus discriminating against them.

Grammar schools are part of the education service and provide a vital part of that service. In my constituency, we have grammar schools. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to grammar schools as "educational dinosaurs". Those within my constituency could by no stretch of the imagination be described as prehistoric relics. They have a valuable function. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his description.

If the amendment were carried, it would be prejudicial. It should be noted that it would exclude all the Inner London Education Authority schools, because ILEA is involved in banding. Such a major exclusion from the system would be quite wrong.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Does the hon. Gentleman favour retaining ILEA so that it may continue with the present policy?

Mr. Pawsey

I was merely seeking to carry the Opposition case to a logical conclusion.

This may not be the time or place to argue the general point about grammar schools, but it is the time and place to argue against this amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is always a good turn. He intoned like an incantation the expression "I cannot see" seven times. Of course, he is telling the truth—he cannot see and he cannot understand. The fact is that this is a squalid little Bill. It deals with a tiny amount of money, but it tries to make education authorities compete with one another based on criteria laid down by the Secretary of State. He can refuse them that money if he wants to do so. If the applicant is a private school, he will give it a good hearing. There is no doubt about that, because the Conservative party returns to its vomit continually.

The Government want to reintroduce the 11-plus by the back door because they believe deeply in it. The vast majority of Tory, as well as Labour, parents quite rightly hate the 11-plus and disagree with the Tory party.

I thank the Secretary of State for his brief speech. I shall also try to be brief. He said that it was a pernicious amendment, but I believe it to be a good amendment to a pernicious little Bill. I hesitate to praise the House of Lords, but all honour to it for giving us this amendment. Of course, we support it.

The 11-plus examination was dreadful. A great cloud was lifted from over the primary schools when it was abolished. The parents who vote Tory also felt that. The assisted places scheme is taking away taxpayers' money—as the Tory party calls it—for private education. In addition, having purloined money for private education, the right hon. Gentleman wants to rake a bit more. The House of Lords is against him.

No matter what the right hon. Gentleman says, there is a shortage of teachers in Sheffield. Remedial teachers are in short supply, so reading standards are in danger, peripatetic teachers are few, so music in schools is in danger of disappearing, specialists cannot easily be replaced in the primary schools and part-timers are on their way out on a grand scale. Books and equipment——

Mr. Pawsey

rose——

Mr. Flannery

No, I cannot give way. I would like to as the hon. Gentleman is a nice man, but I must not.

Books and equipment are in danger. School meals are virtually on their way out. On top of all that, the Government want to give public money to private education. I do not know how they have the brazen cheek to do it, but they have.

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has said, it is strange for Opposition Members to find that the cavalry coming over the hill is from the other place, with Lord Stewart leading the charge. In the debate in another place, Lord Stewart said that none of education support grant should go to selective schools. The Opposition wholly support that view and, therefore, the amendment.

An important principle is involved—that those who pay taxes should benefit from them. Thoroughly to the discredit of the Government, the Bill forcibly takes money from local education authorities without giving them any say and, at the behest of the Secretary of State, gives it away. If that money is being given to private schools at the expense of local authorities that are squeezed for resources, through rate-capping and other methods, that is a disgrace and surely not what the Secretary of State intends. Whatever his opinions, Labour Members accept that the Secretary of State is sincere in wishing to improve the quality of education for all. If he is removing money from local education authorities, surely he cannot mean to distribute that money not to other local education authorities but to the private sector. That cannot be his intention, but it will be an effect of the Bill if this amendment is not carried.

11.45 pm

The Secretary of State said that the amendment prejudged the merits of the Bill. It certainly does, because the grants should not further advantage selective or private education. The amendment talks about admission based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability," which includes private, independent education. Even the Secretary of State.would agree that independent schools already receive much Government support—Labour Members believe that it is far too much—through the assisted places scheme.

In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) on 14 February, the Secretary of State said that 147 independent schools were getting either 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their incomes from him. The figures are that 47 schools were getting 20 per cent., 50 schools were getting 30 per cent., and 44 schools were getting 40 per cent. of their total incomes from the Secretary of State. It begs the question when is a maintained school not a maintained school? If 40 per cent. of a school's income is supplied through the assisted places scheme, that school must be in the public sector. A private company 40 per cent. of whose turnover came from one source would be in the control of that sector.

It cannot be the Secretary of State's intention that the Bill should have this effect. This is not just ideology; it is plain common sense and practice. If, as Labour Members accept, the Bill's misguided aim is to try to improve the range of curriculum experiment, there should be no need for the Secretary of State to give money to the independent sector to do that. The independent sector, with its favourable staffing ratios and financial support, can, if it wishes, conduct experiments. It must be said that the record of private sector primary schools in experiments in education is poor. After Plowden, almost all the interesting, valuable and constructive experiments in primary education have been in the state sector, and I am sure that Conservative Members who know something about that would at least concede that the primary state sector has been imaginative in developing new ideas. That has not been true of the independent or private sector.

The democratic principle of distributing this levy among those contributing to the experiments—the local education authorities—the sheer common sense of distributing it where the need is greatest, and the good practice of education, must convince the Secretary of State that he cannot mean this money to go to the private sector. However, if the amendment is not carried, the Bill will allow the money to go to the private sector——

Dr. Hampson

The hon. Gentleman goes on about the private sector, but the amendment does not even mention that. It relates to selection and does not state that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hand over money to the private sector.

Mr. Fisher

Had the hon. Gentleman been listening earlier, he would have understood that the private sector is selective. Entry into the private sector is by examination or sets of tests of ability, and he would be hard put to find many private schools that do not apply those criteria. Therefore, it would be perfectly fair for the Secretary of State, unless this amendment is passed, to distribute funds that he has collected from local education authorities to private schools, just as he distributes funds to private schools through the assisted places scheme. I am glad that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) shakes his head and says that that is not the Bill's intention. If it is not, I hope that Conservative Members will carry this amendment to ensure that that will not happen. Unless the amendment is carried, there is a danger that the Secretary of State will so distribute those funds, taxed from local education authorities, giving them to the private sector. The Opposition do not wish that to happen, and we are encouraged to see that Conservative Members apparently do not wish it either. I trust that they will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Freud

This is a jolly little scenario. On the one hand we have the Conservative party, which in its manifesto said that A strong second chamber is necessary not only to revise legislation but also to guarantee our constitution and liberties", voting against the democratic decision reached in the House of Lords, and on the other we have the Labour party, whose ambition is to get rid of the House of Lords, moving, in effect, That this House doth agree with the Lords". I remind those members of the official Opposition hellbent on getting rid of the Lords that John Stuart Mill wrote that the same reasons that induced the Romans to have two consuls make it desirable that there should be two chambers, so that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of undisputed power. We are talking about an element of undisputed power in that the Secretary of State described as pernicious a very decent Lords amendment, democratically carried by a substantial majority of nine—which is what one might call, "More than enough". It is disgraceful to call it a pernicious amendment, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it was an over-statement. We Liberals expected him to come to the House as an honest broker in the cause of education. As I said during the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), we are not against private schemes. We are simply against unfair distribution of education finance.

The reappearance as a Lords amendment of new clause 1 as it was when the House debated it last December, entailing a Government defeat, marries two issues which continue to concern the public as well as their lordships. The first is the blighted question of the relationship between central and local government, severely damaged across the board in all departments by the rigorous adherence to public expenditure restraints. We have always maintained that education policy gave way to fiscal policy.

The second issue is the unsubtle attempt by the Government—in this instance the Department of Education and Science—to gain greater control over various areas of education through a tighter and more direct distribution of funds to local education authorities. The LEAs are fighting back, notwithstanding the blow recently delivered by the White Paper "Training for Jobs" and its proposals to increase MSC funding at their expense.

Perhaps, like many others, the other place was surprised to read the Under-Secretary of State's answer to my question, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred. I remind the House that my question asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the private sector are expected to have over 50 per cent. of their pupils on the assisted places scheme." The answer came None."—[Official Report, 7 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 550.] If the DES were an honest broker, one would have reason to have faith in that reply. Let us give thought to the question that if over 50 per cent. is none, what will the future percentage be, because, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, if we are talking about the private sector, which is selective, that sector must have more customers who are paying than are unpaying.

Therefore, I asked whether the Minister would list the schools in the private sector which by 1988 he estimated would have over 20 per cent., over 30 per cent. and over 40 per cent. The answer I received was that there were 147 schools; and, on further probing, I discovered that in 1987 and 1988, some schools will have 59 per cent. of assisted places scheme places compared with 41 per cent. private.

I defy the Secretary of State to go on calling it the private sector of education. This is a return to the direct grant system by the back door. [Interruption.] Every system of education has some merit, and one would be wrong to deny that, but our contention is that if a system is to have merit, let it be seen by the general public to have merit. What we have seen in Richmond and Solihull, and what we are about to see in Redbridge, is clearly public revulsion, not over a return to grammar schools—which certainly had a part to play—but over a return to secondary modern schools and the condemnation, at an inexperienced age, of some people.

No new money is being earmarked for the education support grants, and once again it is open to the Government to milk the maintained sector of education further to support the selective and private sector. When will such care and attention be given to the needs of the vast majority of our children and their schools? We believe that the amendment should stand, some of us because we have faith in their lordships and some because we have no faith in the Department of Education and Science.

We on this Bench are united in believing that the amendment by Lord Stewart was fair and that it reflected the views of people with the good of the community and of education at heart. That is why I hope that, even at this late stage, some Conservative Members, whose Prime Minister was a Secretary of State for Education and Science—mainly remembered for taking away free school milk and for regretting that she was too late to stop the Open University—will support us in greater numbers than is normally the case when Opposition Members go into the Lobby.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State repeated the promise that he gave hon. Members when we originally dealt with this matter in the form of a new clause that the Government had no intention of using money from this scheme to reintroduce any form of selection.

However, we must be wary of promises by Ministers, for Ministers come and go, and the media are speculating about the future of the Secretary of State. Perhaps he will enlighten us about that. Even if he remains in post, however, we are bound to wonder whether there will be a Department of Education and Science left soon, as it seems so keen to hand over more and more of its duties to the MSC and the Department of Employment. For that reason, we want the promise written into the legislation. Too often the House has accepted promises from Ministers, later to discover that the Minister has gone and his promise has been ignored.

We are told that the scheme is designed to encourage pilot schemes. If we are not careful, we shall be talking about pirate schemes because the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will use money from comprehensive, nursery and primary schools for grammar schools. There will be no new resources under this measure—only the existing money—for education, and money is to be taken away from existing sources for new experimental areas.

12 midnight

One of the biggest criticisms of grammar schools is that they still get an unfair and disproportionate amount of resources, so we can in no way justify reducing the resources that are going into comprehensive, the nursery and the primary school in order to give more to the grammar school. Therefore, there are strong arguments for supporting their lordships.

The Government want, on the whole, a good eduction system. If they want a good education system, it is important that we have equality of provision throughout the system and that we do not have independent schools that have a privilege of resource and therefore confer a privilege; that we do not have schools that suddenly have a masssive input of resources from the technical and vocational education initiative; that we do not have schools which will be given a sudden input of resources because of this measure; that we do not have grammar schools with disproportionate areas of resources. That only builds up resentment from parents that their children are denied the best opportunities.

We want a uniformity of provision and of excellence, yet the Government are trying to produce privilege here, there and elsewhere, and, as a consequence, certain schools are under-privileged and under-provided with resources. That will increasingly build up parental discontent with the system. We want excellence all round and not the extension of privilege. Without the amendment, the Bill will allow the Government to confer further privileges on grammar schools. I hope that the Government will agree with the House of Lords in this matter.

Sir Keith Joseph

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said when I opened the debate.

The amendment, in a thoroughly inappropriate way, seems to reopen an issue that was settled by Parliament in the Education Acts 1979 and 1980. The amendment is also irrelevant to the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide a limited means of encouraging local education authorities to redeploy their expenditure in response to objectives of particular national importance.

I have already made it clear that providing education support grants to enable new grammar shcools to be established is not one of the purposes for which we intend the grants to be used. Our aim is to use education grants to encourage continuing improvements in the quality of the education system. Were the amendment to become law, not only would it erode the freedom which Parliament restored to local education authorities in 1979, it would deny to pupils in selective schools benefits arising from the use of educational support grants.

For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided Ayes 239, Noes 161.

Division No. 194] [12.05 am
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan Durant, Tony
Amess, David Dykes, Hugh
Ancram, Michael Eggar, Tim
Arnold, Tom Evennett, David
Ashby, David Eyre, Sir Reginald
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Favell, Anthony
Baldry, Anthony Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Batiste, Spencer Forman, Nigel
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bellingham, Henry Forth, Eric
Benyon, William Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Berry, Sir Anthony Fox, Marcus
Best, Keith Franks, Cecil
Bevan, David Gilroy Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Freeman, Roger
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Fry, Peter
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Gale, Roger
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Galley, Roy
Boscawen, Hon Robert Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Glyn, Dr Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bright, Graham Goodlad, Alastair
Brinton, Tim Gorst, John
Brooke, Hon Peter Gower, Sir Raymond
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Grant, Sir Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony Greenway, Harry
Budgen, Nick Gregory, Conal
Bulmer, Esmond Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Burt, Alistair Grist, Ian
Butcher, John Ground, Patrick
Butler, Hon Adam Gummer, John Selwyn
Butterfill, John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hampson, Dr Keith
Carttiss, Michael Hanley, Jeremy
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hargreaves, Kenneth
Chapman, Sydney Harris, David
Chope, Christopher Harvey, Robert
Churchill, W. S. Haselhurst, Alan
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hawksley, Warren
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hayes, J.
Cockeram, Eric Hayward, Robert
Conway, Derek Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Coombs, Simon Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cope, John Heddle, John
Couchman, James Henderson, Barry
Crouch, David Hickmet, Richard
Dicks, Terry Hicks, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Hind, Kenneth
Dover, Den Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Holt, Richard Sayeed, Jonathan
Hooson, Tom Scott, Nicholas
Hordern, Peter Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Howard, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Shersby, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral) Silvester, Fred
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Sims, Roger
Hunter, Andrew Skeet, T. H. H.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Jackson, Robert Soames, Hon Nicholas
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Speed, Keith
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Spencer, Derek
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Stanbrook, Ivor
Key, Robert Stanley, John
King, Roger (B'ham N field) Steen, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom Stern, Michael
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Knowles, Michael Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Knox, David Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lang, Ian Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Latham, Michael Sumberg, David
Lawrence, Ivan Tapsell, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Taylor, John (Solihull)
Lester, Jim Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Lightbown, David Temple-Morris, Peter
Lilley, Peter Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Lyell, Nicholas Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
McCrindle, Robert Thome, Neil (llford S)
McCurley, Mrs Anna Thornton, Malcolm
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Thurnham, Peter
Maclean, David John. Townend, John (Bridlington)
Madel, David Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mather, Carol Tracey, Richard
Maude, Hon Francis Twinn, Dr Ian
Mellor, David van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Meyer, Sir Anthony Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Viggers, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus Waddington, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Waldegrave, Hon William
Mudd, David Walden, George
Neubert, Michael Waller, Gary
Newton, Tony Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Nicholls, Patrick Warren, Kenneth
Norris, Steven Watson, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Parris, Matthew Wells, John (Maidstone)
Patten, John (Oxford) Wheeler, John
Pawsey, James Whitfield, John
Pink, R. Bonner Winterton, Mrs Ann
Pollock, Alexander Winterton, Nicholas
Porter, Barry Wolfson, Mark
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Wood, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert Woodcock, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Yeo, Tim
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Roe, Mrs Marion
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Tellers for the Ayes:
Ryder, Richard Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. John Major.
Sackville, Hon Thomas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Barron, Kevin
Alton, David Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Anderson, Donald Beggs, Roy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bell, Stuart
Ashdown, Paddy Benn, Tony
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)
Ashton, Joe Bermingham, Gerald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Blair, Anthony
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Boyes, Roland
Barnett, Guy Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'f mline E) Loyden, Edward
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) McCartney, Hugh
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) McCrea, Rev William
Bruce, Malcolm McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Caborn, Richard McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) McKelvey, William
Campbell-Savours, Dale Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) McWilliam, John
Cartwright, John Madden, Max
Clay, Robert Marek, Dr John
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Cohen, Harry Martin, Michael
Coleman, Donald Maxton, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Maynard, Miss Joan
Corbett, Robin Meacher, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy Meadowcroft, Michael
Cowans, Harry Michie, William
Craigen, J. M. Mikardo, Ian
Crowther, Stan Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Cunliffe, Lawrence Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Deakins, Eric Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dewar, Donald Nellist, David
Dormand, Jack Nicholson, J.
Dubs, Alfred Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Duffy, A. E. P. O'Brien, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. O'Neill, Martin
Eadie, Alex Park, George
Eastham, Ken Patchett, Terry
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Pendry, Tom
Fatchett, Derek Penhaligon, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Pike, Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fisher, Mark Prescott, John
Flannery, Martin Radice, Giles
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Richardson, Ms Jo
Foster, Derek Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Rogers, Allan
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Rooker, J. W.
Freud, Clement Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
George, Bruce Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Rowlands, Ted
Godman, Dr Norman Sheerman, Barry
Gould, Bryan Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet Skinner, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Heffer, Eric S. Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Soley, Clive
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Spearing, Nigel
Home Robertson, John Steel, Rt Hon David
Howells, Geraint Stott, Roger
Hoyle, Douglas Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) Straw, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Tinn, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Wallace, James
Janner, Hon Greville Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Wareing, Robert
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Welsh, Michael
Kennedy, Charles Wigley, Dafydd
Kirkwood, Archibald Williams, Rt Hon A.
Leadbitter, Ted Winnick, David
Leighton, Ronald Young, David (Bolton SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Tellers for the Noes:
Litherland, Robert Mr. Frank Haynes and
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Mr. Don Dixon.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Andrew F.Bennett, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph and Mr. Giles Radice; Three to be the quorum.—[Sir Keith Joseph.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.