§
'The Secretary of State shall, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980—
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15— School closures and reorganizations
`It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State or any local education authority making a proposal which falls to him for decision under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 to make available to any statutory objector:—New clause 22—Procedure on closures (No. 3)—
- (a) the response of the local education authority to the written objections of the statutory objector.
- (b) all documents and minutes presented by the local education authority to the Secretary of State in support of the proposal.
- (c) copies of any questions asked by the Secretary of State relevant to his consideration of the proposal and the reply of the local education authority.'.
'When the Secretary of State, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, overturns a recommendation of a local education authority, that local education authority shall have the right to appeal against his decision, provided that notice of such an appeal is given in writing within 28 days.'.New clause 34—Procedures on closures—'When the Secretary of State, in considering proposals required to be submitted for his approval under section 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, overturns a recommendation of a local education authority, the Secretary of State's decision shall stand for a period of at least five years.'.
§ Mr. FreudThe new clause is the latest in a long series of attempts during the passage of the Bill to clarify and improve the procedure of school reorganisation. I was fortunate in having the new clause selected by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would be foolish if I did not press it to a vote.
Although we recognise that there is an attempt at a new regime in Elizabeth house following the exposure of the 14 months' average delay in decisions, two main problems remain and the new clause attempts to meet both of them. The first problem is that of further information, both on the local education authority's case for reorganisation and on the Secretary of State's reasons for it. That must be fair to objectors and local communities. Applying the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 is the moderate and sensible way to achieve this openness. We discussed this issue at considerable length in Committee, but the new clause also preserves confidentiality between Ministers and officials, so that that can no longer be an excuse.
The new clause places a time limit of six months on the Secretary of State's decisions or, where that would be 1022 difficult, an obligation to state what is going on and why there is a delay. Again, we have discussed that matter at length. It is extraordinarily unhelpful to the well-being of a school to have educational decisions hanging over it. It is our ambition to speed up the process and to make it clear to all those who are involved.
In the context of the pressure to remove surplus places and the intense local feelings aroused by reorganisation proposals, decisions made in good time and in the open will, almost inevitably, be better decisions than those which are covered up and which spend a long time in the melting pot.
I know that the Minister will be pleased to hear that, in the next few months I shall visit him with two groups of constituents whose schools are being reorganised. I maintain that openness in one case will help in all cases. When criteria become known and procedures are better understood, it will be helpful generally to education. Decisions made under these new arrangements will also even up the legal status of objectors and proposers by giving the parents the right to know on what basis the decision has been made. At present, the Secretary of State need give no account of his activities while having the power drastically to affect the life of local communities. We need to reassess the balance betweeen efficiency in reorganisation and the rights of the individual. This new modest clause will improve both those matters.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI join the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) in supporting the new clause. The Opposition have also tabled other new clauses. When one is faced with the question whether a school should close or not, considerable passions are usually aroused. The Secretary of State has a duty to reach a decision quickly, to do it fairly, and to be seen to do it fairly.
The problem now is that no one knows whether the Secretary of State has reached a decision fairly or whether someone had a quiet word with him and he took rather more notice of a little bit of political nobbling than of the case presented by the local education authority. It does not matter how much the Minister protests, or how much hon. Members protest on his behalf that he would not be subject to any political lobbying behind the scenes and that he would make a fair decision. Unless all the information relating to the decision is made public, he will never convince those who are dissatisfied with the final decision. It will often be difficult to please such people, but it is important that we make it clear to them that justice is done. The only way to do that is for all the information that the Minister used to make his decision to be made public and for the decision and the reasons for it to be conveyed by the Minister.
As the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East suggested, once the information is made public, it will help case law to be developed and people will know the criteria that the Minister is taking into account, those that weigh with him and those that do not. On the whole, it will discourage people from putting forward arguments which are unlikely to carry weight. Therefore, it should reduce the burden of papers that the Minister must consider. It will also help local authorities when drawing up plans to understand what is in the Minister's mind when reaching decisions. They will take that into account and tend not 1023 to put forward proposals which would be unacceptable to the Minister. This sensible group of amendments will ensure that justice is seen to be done.
They will, on the whole, speed up the process. It is unfortunate that the Government have seen fit to reject them so far. However, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister may have second thoughts.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)My support for the new clause is based on recent constituency experience.
I was delighted to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who spoke for the official Opposition, because it would appear that this new clause is to be considered on its merits rather than on the source from which it emanates. Therefore, we may on this occasion persuade the official Opposition to vote for an alliance amendment. That would be historic. The fact is that often the Opposition speak in support of our amendments but do not bother to troop into the Lobbies.
In my constituency, two types of reorganisation are pending. One is the reorganisation of Roman Catholic education, about which I brought a deputation of parents to meet the Minister and he kindly received us. That was many months ago, but we have still had no decision or news. I am not complaining about that, because I suspect that in this case no news is good news. None the less the parents of Catholic children in Rochdale would like to know whether the Government mean what they say. The Government have said constantly, and again at the recent Conservative party conference, that parental rights are what matter and that they want to take into account the wishes arid views of parents.
In the case of the Catholic reorganisation in Rochdale, 97 per cent. of the parents have signed petitions which I and the parents delivered to the Minister. Those petitions opposed the Catholic diocesan proposals for the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale. It is extremely interesting, because the Bishop of Salford, to his utter disgrace, refuses to tell the parents of the children in his Catholic schools what his proposals are and what his reaction is to their objections.
The Minister kindly arranged for the parents to see the local authority's objections, and we are grateful to him for that, but the parents of Catholic children in Rochdale have no idea what the bishop's reaction to their views has been. The bishop constantly refuses to disclose that. It is an absolute scandal, and the bishop should be ashamed of himself. I hope that Catholics will remember that I voted for the ten-minute Bill earlier today, but that is beside the point. The behaviour of the Bishop of Salford on the reorganisation of Catholic education in Rochdale has been an absolute and utter disgrace.
I hope that if this new clause is accepted, it will result in the Minister disclosing not only his reasons for arriving at a decision, but the advice and information given to him by bodies which are directly responsible — such as diocesan education authorities through the bishops —and why, in this case, I hope, he has rejected their advice and decided to support 97 per cent. of the parents.
§ Mr. FreudDoes my hon. Friend agree that delaying a decision has a very damaging effect on a school? Faced with uncertainty, many parents would rather send their children to another school or to a private sector school. 1024 The longer the delay, the more damage that is done to a school. Ultimately, the reorganisation is carried out despite the merits of the argument.
§ Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend is correct.
Perhaps I can say with some modesty that I have been a member of the Rochdale education committee for 23 years, and its chairman for eight years. Indeed, I piloted the last reorganisation scheme through Rochdale town council. I know how important it is for parents to he kept posted of what is happening. Constant delays affect riot only parents, but staff morale. People are not sure what is going to happen, when it is going to happen, or whether their jobs are safe, and so on. Such delays are detrimental to the education of children.
My local authority is about to submit its proposals to the Minister. The Labour local authority in Rochdale ganged up with the Tories, forming an unholy coalition on education. The proposals put forward are scandalous and a disgrace. During the weekend I saw copies of a private document that was circulated to Labour councillors by chief officers. The document is marked "Private and confidential", but it says that if reorganisation goes ahead the education service in Rochdale will be harmed. Today, I took great pleasure in sending the Minister a copy of the private advice given to the Labour group by the professional staff in Rochdale.
Rochdale local authority intends to spend between £50,000 and £100,000 on trying to persuade parents to accept their proposals to carve up the education system. It has appointed public relations consultants to spend public money on selling the scheme to the public and parents of Rochdale. But no professional advice is available to the scheme's opponents other than that given voluntarily. They have no opportunity to state their case, and so on. Consequently, there will be a long, drawn-out battle. The Minister is bound to reject the scheme. Apart from anything else, it provides 1,800 places more than is required by the number of children in Rochdale. The scheme openly says that.
The Minister cannot accept the scheme, yet £100,000 of ratepayers' money will be spent on selling it. Moreover, the chairman of the education committee in Rochdale has been given two days' paid leave a week by Rossendale education authority in order to carry out his duties. That is happening although we are always being told that there is not enough money for education or for children's books. Apparently, however, teachers can be given two days' paid leave a week to sit in an office making sure that a chief education officer, who earns nearly £30,000 a year, is doing his job. I do not know where the devil we are going.
The Government should seriously consider the new clause. It gives parents and the public an opportunity to know the reasons for a Minister's decision. That will at least help another authority to have some idea of what is acceptable to him. Exceptionally, the Minister will not be able to make a decision in six months. But he can at least give reasons for the delay. I strongly support the new clause.
§ Mr. HoltFew hon. Members can have been unaware, in the past 48 hours, of a little baby in the north-east of England called Nicola Bell. She was born very prematurely, but not as prematurely as another baby who is still alive in the north-east.
I have begun on that rather off-beat note because, when the law on social service benefits was framed, it was not 1025 thought possible for such a premature baby to live. In the 1950s, the medical and legal professions were wrong, and as a result that mother is now deprived of benefits. Laws last for a long time, but things do change. Consequently, we must be careful when framing our education law.
I tabled an amendment, because only three years ago a school in my constituency was submited for closure to the then Secretary of State. The law is not restrictive, so a vindictive local authority can resubmit its application for closure every year. That has a detrimental effect on the school and the area.
Huntcliff school in Saltburn was earmarked for closure in 1982 by the local education authority. In 1983, the Secretary of State said that the school did not meet the criteria for closure, because it was a school of excellence providing everything for the youth of that town. But less than three years later that school had been resubmitted for closure although there has been no variation in the ground rules. I have every confidence that the new Secretary of State will reject the local education authority's proposals because there is no justification for them. But unless the Government table an amendment similar to mine, that local education authority can submit that school for closure year after year until the parents and those fighting to keep the school open capitulate.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettIf the Minister had had to give his reasons in full in the first place, that local authority might not have been tempted to resubmit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the Lobby to ensure that people have the necessary information.
§ Mr. HoltI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen. I said that, as the school met the criteria of excellence, and as nothing has changed, I have every confidence that it will stay open. The former Secretary of State made that clear when the proposals were rejected. But for how long will my constituents have to be subjected to this form of Chinese water torture, that goes drip, drip, drip, year after year? My amendment would at least mean that there would be a five-year period when parents need not worry about closure.
I do not think that five years is an unreasonable period and once a determination has been given it should be valid for that period. I recognise that when one specifies a period one can always argue the case for a shorter or longer period. My argument for five years is based on the fact that it is approximately the length of time that children would stay in that school. Once parents have decided on a school for their children they should be free of the worry that the school will be closed half way through their children's academic career.
8.30 pm
If a school is closed and the children are dispersed to other schools, those other schools are also unsure what will happen. There is a need for the Minister to make a decision and to make it stick for at least five years. Unless that is done we are subjected, year after year, as in Saltburn, to an education authority which can, justifiably, put the same school forward for closure year after year. By doing so the authority avoids any argument about closing other schools—perhaps those which ought to be closed or put under review. If the Minister accepts my amendment, attention would be focused on the other 1026 schools which, at the moment, are not under the microscope because the LEA, in its wisdom, decides not to put them there.
The north-east of England is already ravaged. Parents are worried enough as to what employment their children will have at the end of their academic careers. To subject them and their children to the worry of school closure is wrong. I am confident that the 1983 decision on Huntcliff school will be reaffirmed when the case comes to the Secretary of State this year. But thereafter, I would like the Minister to state that legislation will be introduced so that a five-year moratorium will elapse before schools are subject to further consideration.
§ Sir Raymond Gower (Vale of Glamorgan)When there is a proposal to close a school, whatever educational advantages may accrue—we all recognise that there may be great educational advantages—a high proportion of such proposals tend to be unpopular with parents.
Other reasons may prompt the closure of a school—accessibility to homes in rural areas, the decay of villages and so on — but parents feel strongly about these matters. If the Bill is not amended in some way, will the Minister explain to what extent the need to satisfy and explain the decisions to parents and thus lessen their apprehensions and anxieties will be adequately covered?
§ Mr. DunnThe debate tonight is an echo of the debate that we had in Standing Committee and I do not object to that. I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) and I shall return to that shortly.
I must point out to Members on both sides that I spend a great deal of time receiving Members who bring deputations to me about certain proposals affecting schools in their constituencies. In common with the officials at the Department of Education and Science, I am conscious of the time that some proposals take to be concluded, as measured from the date of their publication to the time of the decision. In many local authorities the debate has gone on longer than that because all local authorities, if not most — one or two perhaps are different—are facing falling rolls in their schools. We must be concerned with the range of curriculum on offer, the staffing of schools and the cost of maintaining schools which are a third or half empty.
No one likes to close a school and parents do not like it if their school is closed. However, the local authority has a duty, both in terms of the expenditure that it is responsible for and its commitment to fulfil its own policies and the policies of the Government. The procedures that were adopted in the Education Act 1980 were a substantial improvement on the appeal procedures which obtained before. I cannot comment on those previous procedures because I was not party to the enactment of earlier legislation or to any of the practices which existed prior to 1980.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made a passionate speech but, as he knows, I cannot comment in public about any proposals which are before the Secretary of State. To do so would be injudicious, as Gilbert and Sullivan would be wont to say. I am sure that the points the hon. Gentleman raised are not just for my hearing. I dare say his comments will receive a wide readership in south-east Lancashire—or the area formerly known as south-east Lancashire before local government reorganisation.
1027 Parents have a chance to state their objections to the proposals clearly and categorically both in writing and verbally. The deputations which I meet state their objections to certain proposals affecting a school or range of schools which are represented by hon. Members. Deputations take advantage of the time with me to make clear their concern about the provision of education in their community. These deputations are aware of the criteria which are worked to and the policy statements of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This information is obtained from the guidelines which are issued by the Department, the interchange of views and advice given by officials to local education authorities and the guidance, advice and criteria which are published in a variety of circulars based upon our views. Such information is complemented by Ministers' speeches.
The position is not satisfactory and Members of Parliament have a role to play. On a number of occasions when a decision is apparently uncontroversial—I am not speaking about any particular decision—a Member of Parliament may be persuaded of the need for a deputation to go to Elizabeth house. Consequently, the decision on the proposal may well be delayed for three months if the points raised by the deputation are clearly at odds with the information that we have to hand.
I am under advice from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud)—I will not say Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym): he is quite a different fish. One may telescope the time scale and provide a let-out by explaining why we were delaying over a decision. There are occasions when deputations make valid points which need to be checked with the diocesan authority or the local education authority.
If we were provided with a let-out route and could state that we had taken our time because of compelling reasons — information that we did not have before had to be checked or information received was inaccurate—what would be the mechanism by which our statements were proved? Would I he required to appear at the Bar of the House and to give reasons why I am late or the Secretary of State is late? Would I be required to turn up from time to time to apologise to Members of Parliament and say, "I am so sorry, Mr. Speaker, that we were delayed".
I hope the House will accept from me, because I am one of the nicest people I know, that we do spend as much time as we could to bring decisions to an early conclusion. From time to time, compelling reasons — sometimes, perhaps, a late intervention by hon. Members—cause a decision to be somewhat delayed. In case he feels guilty, I am not saying that the hon. Member for Rochdale did so. He was, in fact, a model Member, leading a model deputation—which is not to comment on the merits or demerits of the case.
Before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a scrutiny of the procedures followed by the Department would be undertaken by Mr. Mitchell, whose report is expected shortly. Changes in procedures may well be adopted in the light of that report.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettDoes the Minister intend the report to be published?
§ Mr. DunnI will take that up with the Secretary of State. Junior Ministers have limited powers of action, but I shall ensure that the hon. Member's intervention is 1028 drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that the hon. Member will table a question fairly soon to ensure that I provide an answer.
The Government have some sympathy with the motives of those who have spoken, but I cannot accede to their requests now. We are awaiting a report from an eminent and respected public figure and will take account of his recommendations.
I understand the motive to which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) referred. It would be injudicious for local authorities to keep making the same proposals. I cannot comment further on that. I cannot, however, accept that it would be wise to fetter local authorities' freedom to present proposals. Proposals under sections 12 to 15 may fail to gain approval for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from the educational to the purely procedural. The problem which prompts the original proposal, which is usually a decline in pupil numbers, will remain in many cases. It would damage the efficiency of the education service and be contrary to the Government's policy of removing surplus places to prevent authorities which consider it necessary from presenting alternative proposals. Political control of an authority might change. That happens from time to time. It is regrettable when my party loses control. Proposals made by an outgoing administration might be withdrawn by the incoming one. That may cause delay, confusion and a strain for parents.
§ Sir Raymond GowerDoes my hon. Friend anticipate anything in Mr. Mitchell's report requiring legislation to be implemented?
§ Mr. DunnThat depends on what Mr. Mitchell has to say. No avenue can be ruled out, but I do not want to pursue that, enticing as it may be.
I attach a great deal of importance to parental involvement. That is why we take special account of the process of consultation. There must be an opportunity for the views of individuals, institutions, political parties, elected members of authorities and those of neighbouring authorities to have sight of proposals which affect a school.
Most of the deputations that I see are composed of parents, parent governors, governors and councillors, who may themselves have children at a school. It will be difficult to streamline the procedure by which views are made known by having mass interventions by various organisations at any stage. We rely heavily on the cooperation of hon. Members when they bring deputations to see Ministers.
§ Mr. HoltIs my hon. Friend saying that the Government's case for not acceding to my proposal is that there is likely to be a change of political control? That is the only reason that he has put forward so far. An incoming administration could withdraw proposals, so the Government have not answered my case.
§ Mr. DunnWith respect to my hon. Friend, I gave one or two other reasons why proposals might fail. One is that they are procedurally wrong. Law and regulation lay down what must happen when proposals for reorganisation are made known. An authority might make a mistake in its interpretation of those regulations. A proposal might he technically unsound. There might be problems about consultation. Information might be incorrect. There is a 1029 variety of reasons why proposals might be rejected. The rejection letter from the Department states quite clearly why proposals are unsound.
§ Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)Political control of government may change. A future Labour Government may have a very different approach to the same problem.
§ Mr. DunnI dare say that the hon. Member is right. There are great differences between the parties in terms of attitudes towards schools, sixth forms and tertiary colleges.
I cannot accept the new clause and hope that it will not be pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. FreudIn the time-honoured words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I am very disappointed by the Minister's reply.
New Clause 10 is modest. We ask the Minister for no more than that he should give in writing reasons for his decision. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) argued in Committee, secrecy leads to rumour, and rumour leads to the break up of the well being of community. All that we want to know when there is a school closure or reorganisation is whether the reasons are financial, educational, political, to do with disenchantment of the teaching force or due to lack of safety of the building. The Minister must know that if such information is not given, the matter is talked about, the rumours stick and the people concerned are damaged. I cannot understand why the Minister is denying such an opportunity.
§ Mr. Steve Norris (Oxford, East)I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the main casualty are the Government whose decisions, being shrouded in secrecy, are open to the worst possible interpretation although they might be on sound educational ground?
§ Mr. FreudI entirely agree. The new clause merely asks the Government to get a move on. They have agreed that 14 months, which was the norm for a decision, is too long.
§ Mr. DunnI think that the hon. Member will find that the average is six months. The norm is not 14 months.
§ Mr. FreudI listened to the Minister. It was published that the Government were dissatisfied with the previous length of time and were trying to reduce it to six months. We were simply trying to enshrine six months in legislation. We were making available to the Minister the perfectly valid course of announcing after six months why a decision has not come to light. The community would be content to be told after six months that investigations were taking place, but would take another two or three months. However, just as people want to know the reasons for a closure, they will want to know when the reasons will be published.
I have no hesitation in pressing the new clause to a Division. I hope that Conservative Members who have listened to the debate will vote for our sensible and modest proposal.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 291.
1032| Division No. 284] | [8.50 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abse, Leo | Howells, Geraint |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Hoyle, Douglas |
| Alton, David | Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham) |
| Anderson, Donald | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Hughes, Roy (Newport East) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Ashton, Joe | Janner, Hon Greville |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | John, Brynmor |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Barnett, Guy | Kennedy, Charles |
| Beith, A. J. | Lambie, David |
| Bell, Stuart | Lamond, James |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Leighton, Ronald |
| Blair, Anthony | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Boyes, Roland | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Livsey, Richard |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Loyden, Edward |
| Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Bruce, Malcolm | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Buchan, Norman | McKelvey, William |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Campbell, Ian | McNamara, Kevin |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McTaggart, Robert |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McWilliam, John |
| Cartwright, John | Madden, Max |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Marek, Dr John |
| Clay, Robert | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Martin, Michael |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Conlan, Bernard | Maxton, John |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Craigen, J. M. | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Crowther, Stan | Michie, William |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Mikardo, Ian |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili) | 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 |
| Dixon, Donald | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Dobson, Frank | O'Brien, William |
| Dormand, Jack | O'Neill, Martin |
| Douglas, Dick | Park, George |
| Dubs, Alfred | Patchett, Terry |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Eadie, Alex | Pendry, Tom |
| Eastham, Ken | Pike, Peter |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Ewing, Harry | Prescott, John |
| Fatchett, Derek | Radice, Giles |
| Faulds, Andrew | Randall, Stuart |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Raynsford, Nick |
| Fisher, Mark | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Flannery, Martin | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Robertson, George |
| Forrester, John | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Foulkes, George | Rogers, Allan |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Rooker, J. W. |
| Freud, Clement | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Garrett, W. E. | Rowlands, Ted |
| George, Bruce | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Snape, Peter |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Soley, Clive |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Spearing, Nigel |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Strang, Gavin |
| Home Robertson, John | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Thorne, Stan (Preston) | Winnick, David |
| Tinn, James | Woodall, Alec |
| Torney, Tom | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Wardell, Gareth (Gower) | |
| Wareing, Robert | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Welsh, Michael | Mr, Cyril Smith and |
| White, James | Mrs. Elizabeth Shields. |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Durant, Tony |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Alexander, Richard | Eggar, Tim |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Evennett, David |
| Amess, David | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
| Ancram, Michael | Fallon, Michael |
| Arnold, Tom | Farr, Sir John |
| Ashby, David | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Fletcher, Alexander |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Forman, Nigel |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Forth, Eric |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Franks, Cecil |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Fraser, Peter (Angus East) |
| Baldry, Tony | Fry, Peter |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Gale, Roger |
| Batiste, Spencer | Galley, Roy |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Benyon, William | Gow, Ian |
| Best, Keith | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Greenway, Harry |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Gregory, Conal |
| Blackburn, John | Griffiths, Sir Eldon |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Grist, Ian |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Ground, Patrick |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Grylls, Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Harris, David |
| Bright, Graham | Harvey, Robert |
| Brinton, Tim | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW) |
| Browne, John | Hawksley, Warren |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hayes, J. |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney |
| Budgen, Nick | Hayward, Robert |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Burt, Alistair | Henderson, Barry |
| Butterfill, John | Hickmet, Richard |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hicks, Robert |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) | Hill, James |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hind, Kenneth |
| Cash, William | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Chope, Christopher | Howard, Michael |
| Churchill, W. S. | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Irving, Charles |
| Cockeram, Eric | Jackson, Robert |
| Colvin, Michael | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Cope, John | Jessel, Toby |
| Cormack, Patrick | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Couchman, James | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Critchley, Julian | Jones, Robert (Herts W) |
| Crouch, David | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Key, Robert |
| Dicks, Terry | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Knowles, Michael |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward | Knox, David |
| Dunn, Robert | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Lang, Ian | Rhodes James. Robert |
| Latham, Michael | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Rost, Peter |
| Lightbown, David | Rowe, Andrew |
| Lilley, Peter | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Ryder, Richard |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Lord, Michael | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. |
| McCrindle, Robert | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Scott, Nicholas |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Maclean, David John | Shersby, Michael |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Silvester, Fred |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Sims, Roger |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Madel, David | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Major, John | Speed, Keith |
| Malins, Humfrey | Speller, Tony |
| Malone, Gerald | Spencer, Derek |
| Maples, John | Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) |
| Marland, Paul | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Squire, Robin |
| Mates, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mather, Carol | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stern, Michael |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Merchant, Piers | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N) |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Sumberg, David |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Moate, Roger | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Moore, Rt Hon John | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton S) | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Mudd, David | Thurnham, Peter |
| Neale, Gerrard | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Neubert, Michael | Tracey, Richard |
| Newton, Tony | Trippier, David |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Trotter, Neville |
| Norris, Steven | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Onslow, Cranley | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Waddington, David |
| Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Walden, George |
| Osborn, Sir John | Waller, Gary |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Watson, John |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Watts, John |
| Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn) | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| Pawsey, James | Whitney, Raymond |
| Pollock, Alexander | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Porter, Barry | Wilkinson, John |
| Portillo, Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Powley, John | Woodcock, Michael |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Yeo, Tim |
| Price, Sir David | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Raffan, Keith | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
| Renton Tim |
§ Question accordingly negatived.