HC Deb 19 July 1988 vol 137 cc1014-27

Lords amendment: No. 343, in page 137, line 21, leave out "and".

8 pm

Mr. Dunn

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

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will he convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 344, in page 137, line 27, at end insert "; and (c) give particulars of the management structure (within the meaning of section (Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period) of this Act) which the council proposes to adopt for the purposes of the exercise of those functions.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, after 'of, insert:—

`(i) the council's estimate of the capital and revenue expenditure for the year beginning on the abolition date which the council considers it would need to incur for the discharge of its education functions, in accordance with the provisions of its development plan, having regard to guidance which shall be given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) above as to the basis and amount of the revenue support grant, community charge and other principal sources of income, which he considers appropriate for that council in respect of its education functions for that year; and


Lords amendments Nos. 345 to 358.

Lords amendment No. 359, after clause 146, insert the following new Clause—Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period—

".—(1) References in this section to the management structure of an inner London council for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions are references to any aspect of the council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of those functions which the Secretary of State determines ought to be subject to approval under this section with a view to securing the proper performance by the council of those functions during the initial period.

In this section "the initial period" means the period of five years beginning with the abolition date.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to a council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of its LEA functions includes in particular its staffing arrangements and the determination of the duties to be performed by its employees concerned in the exercise of those functions.

(3) It shall be the duty of each inner London council to adopt and to maintain during the initial period a management structure for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions which is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under this section.

(4) Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

(5) Subsection (4) above applies to the appointment of a person—

  1. (a) to be the chief education officer of the council; or
  2. (b) to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council for the time being approved under this section.

(6) In subsection (5)(b) above "designated" means designated for the purposes of subsection (4) above by a direction given by the Secretary of State.

(7) For the purposes of the consultation required by subsection (4) above a council proposing to make an appointment to which that subsection applies shall send to the Secretary of State particulars showing the name, previous experience and qualifications of the persons from whom the council proposes to make a selection.

(8) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that any person whose name is submitted to him under subsection (7) above is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question, he may give a direction prohibiting that person's appointment."

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 22, at end insert: , and the Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers under this section unless he has first consulted the council in question in respect thereof.'.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, at end add 'except that in making such a direction no account shall be taken of the political views or activities, past or current, of any individual concerned.'.

Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end add— '(9) Any person aggrieved by a direction made under subsection (8) above may appeal to the High Court, and that Court shall quash the direction unless satisfied that the person to whom the direction relates is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question.'.

Lords amendments Nos. 360 to 364.

Lords amendment No. 365, after clause 158, insert the following new Clause—Preparatory expenditure of inner London councils

".—(l) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which authorises a local authority to incur expenditure which it considers is in the interests of its area or inhabitants of its area), an inner London council may incur expenditure in making preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of its LEA functions.

(2) Where before the passing of this Act any such council has incurred such expenditure, that expenditure shall be treated after the passing of this Act as authorised by subsection (1) above.

(3) The Secretary of State may pay grants to an inner London council in respect of such expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the council in any financial year ending before the abolition date.

(4) The Secretary of State may make any payment in respect of such a grant subject to compliance by the council concerned with such conditions as he may determine."

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 12, after 'council', insert 'including appropriate funding of voluntary organisations for education purposes'.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 13, at end insert 'and shall satisfy himself that the grants paid to each such council shall be sufficient to ensure no diminution in the level of the education service in that area.'.

Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 13, at end insert 'and shall consider the desirability of using his powers under this section and the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969 to fund voluntary organisations concerned with education in each local area for a transitional period.'.

Amendment (e) to the Lords amendment, at end add— '(5) The Secretary of State may pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it before the abolition date for assisting inner London councils in making their preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of the LEA functions.'.

Lords amendments Nos. 366 to 386.

Lords amendment No. 387, in clause 166, page 154, line 16, leave out subsection (5)

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add—

'and insert—

(5) In complying with its duties under this section, the ILEA may attach reasonable requirements to protect the confidentiality of information (including the inspection or making of any copies of documents) provided to any other party.'.

Lords amendment No. 388.

Mr. Dunn

It is appropriate that we should be dealing with this group of amendments relating to ILEA and the London boroughs that will become education authorities after 1 April. I am particularly pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the new Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), to whom I extend my best wishes for a long and successful service to the House and his constituents. I am glad that I am the first Minister to be able to say as much from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend's presence here is particularly warming to me because he is an exhibition of the success of our policies in a part of London where a by-election was recently held.

This is a sizeable group of amendments, but most are technical. Lords amendments Nos. 345 to 357 respond to points made principally by Lord Morton of Shuna in the other place about the desirability of ensuring on the face of the Bill that all ILEA schools will be designated to a successor authority. Similarly, Lords amendments Nos. 386 and 387, which modify the requirement on ILEA in respect of the provision of information, respond to points made by the Opposition in the other place.

I should like to say a little more about the amendments—on three subjects of particular importance—to which the Opposition have chosen to propose further amendments. The first, dealing with the boroughs' management structures and the approval of senior posts, is embodied in Lords amendments Nos. 343, 344 and above all 359. Each borough will he required to include within its development plan a statement of its proposed management structure. The guidance to be issued after Royal Assent will give a clear statement of what we shall be looking for.

For a limited period of five years from 1 April 1990, these organisational arrangements will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. Linked to that provision is one that requires appointments to the post of chief education officer to be made following consultation with the Secretary of State. The arrangements will be operated in the same way as the similar provision that used to apply in the case of all local education authorities. A shortlist will have to be submitted to the Department, with brief biographical details of the candidates. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to designate posts within the management structure for approval in the same way.

The Government do not take the provisions lightly, but we believe that they will be widely welcomed by those who have expressed concern about whether all the boroughs will be effective local education authorities. Their operation should not prove any more onerous than was the case with the similar requirement under the Education Act 1944 for the approval of the chief education officer, but they will provide a reassurance that the boroughs will start their lives as local education authorities with appropriate management arrangements and with a team of properly qualified staff in the education department.

Lords amendment No. 361 will enable the London residuary body to provide services currently provided by ILEA on a London-wide basis. It will also enable the LRB to act as a contractor providing specific services on repayment at the request of an inner London council. We have made it clear from the outset that we expect inner London boroughs to take on responsibility for the full range of education services from 1 April 1990, but we have always accepted that there may be areas, either where ILEA has run an organisation on a London-wide basis or in certain support services, where the boroughs will have not finalised their arrangements by 1990. The LRB can help in such circumstances to ensure continuity of provision and a smooth transfer of responsibilities. So far the only service that has been clearly identified for this purpose is Greater London Supplies—hence the specific provision in subsection (3)(b) of the amendment—but discussion with ILEA and the boroughs may reveal a need for similar arrangements to be made in other cases.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Will the Department consider similar London-wide provision for sport in schools, which profits enormously from such provision? The same is true of adult education, and also of special education.

Mr. Dunn

I do not believe that that can apply in the same way as it does in this instance.

Lords amendment No. 365 puts beyond doubt the power of inner London councils to incur expenditure in preparing for the transfer of education functions. It also enables the Secretary of State to pay grant to the councils on expenditure that they incur for that purpose, and to specify the conditions that will apply.

The Government announced in March their intention to make available to councils specific grant of up to £3 million in 1988–89 and £10 million in 1989–90, payable at a rate of 100 per cent. The grant will be towards all legitimate preparatory expenditure—for example, the employment of educational advisers and other senior administrative staff, perhaps on a dual-appointment basis with ILEA—and of course the establishment of information systems and publicity. The guidance to be issued after Royal Assent will set out in full the arrangements for applying for and payment of grant.

The amendments improve the Bill's provisions for managing the transfer of educational responsibilities in inner London, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Fatchett

We are dealing with a, measure that will adversely affect the educational opportunities of more than a quarter of a million children, on which there was no original consultation by the Government and which was changed while the Bill was in Committee. Yet the Government allow only half an hour for us to debate that important change.

Let me start by making two important points. First, we have been told by Conservative Members during the debate that there is no case for a unitary strategic authority for inner London. That argument has never been made conclusively. We can come to only one simple conclusion—that the case for a strategic authority for providing education in London is now as strong as it was before the vandalism of the two right hon. Members whose actions led to the destruction of ILEA.

Secondly, the Secretary of State tries, as only he can, to create the impression that London Labour boroughs are desperate to take over the education functions of ILEA. He tries to create the impression that London Labour boroughs want the abolition of ILEA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

London Labour boroughs want the continuation of ILEA. We value its work and we want to see that work and the opportunities that it provides continue for the children who are benefiting from ILEA's education policy. London Labour boroughs are now co-operating with ILEA's abolition because, unlike the Government, they do not want to play politics with children's education. They want to ensure that there are real opportunities for London's children. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) can laugh and scoff as much as he will, but the Government's record shows that they have never considered the educational opportunities for children in inner London. All that they have done is to allow their political spite and their political opposition to be vented against ILEA.

If anyone wants further evidence of that, he need look no further than these amendments. The Under-Secretary of State said that the amendments were basically technical, but one set allows the Secretary of State to appoint senior managerial officers in the education authorities in the boroughs. We know from the Government's record that they are not at all ashamed of making and vetoing appointments on political criteria. [Interruption.] We have seen that already with the willingness of the Prime Minister's office to veto the appointment of John Harvey—Jones and Peter Mortimer. How can we trust the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister not to make those appointments on political grounds? They will clearly do that.

When the Government fail at the ballot box, as they have done in inner London on education matters, and as they will do in the inner London boroughs, they rely upon bureaucratic and political arguments. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)


Mr. Fatchett

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always worrying to see the group of yobbos on the Conservative Benches. We are now accustomed to their co-ordinated activities.

The other point that I want to raise relates to finance for London boroughs. We know that the Minister of State believes that ILEA spends too much per pupil on education. Yet she would support greater spending for a minority of youngsters on the assisted places scheme. We know that the Government are determined to reduce the level of spending on education in inner London.

In a press release on 7 July from the Department of Education and Science, the Secretary of State announced that there would be further cuts in ILEA's budget for the financial year 1989–90. He went on to say: While expenditure at £940 million is still well above what is desirable, I believe that it represents a fair and reasonable level". In a letter to Norman Willis, he makes a similar point. He says that in 1990–91 the effect of the safety net will be that the boroughs will be able to spend the same on education as ILEA could have expected to spend in their area in that year". Those weasel words are not a promise to maintain spending levels. They are not a promise to make sure that boroughs such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets, and all the other poor boroughs, will not suffer from the measure. That is simply a promise that the Department of Education and Science will determine the level of expenditure on education for each of those boroughs. What we do know is that the Minister of State has said that this measure is a means of reducing expenditure and, therefore, a means of reducing opportunity.

The lack of time and consultation, the Government's inability to produce a cogent argument, and their willingness to take more centralised powers and to cut education expenditure in inner London lead to one inexorable conclusion—they are not bothered about the education of 270,000 children. They like to play politics, but they are not concerned. We are concerned, and that is why we shall oppose the Lords amendment.

8.15 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate)

I, too, can fight yesterday's battles, but at least I am a Londoner. I have worked for the abolition of ILEA for some 25 years because it was wrong that inner London should have been made inferior to the outer London boroughs which were judged capable of being education authorities. I will not go any further into that. Instead, I want to talk about three matters with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has dealt.

First, my hon. Friend has made it clear that the Secretary of State's approval for certain posts is a provision in the 1944 Act. I remind the House that it was also a provision in the reorganisation of local government after the Seebohm report for the post of director of social services, and no one objected to that.

Having seen the way that the Labour party has appointed failed Members of Parliament to be their so-called advisers in Brent, Camden, Lambeth and Islington—it is only lack of time that prevents me naming all the London Labour boroughs and many others—it is right that these posts should be filled by educationists who will help the children. Therefore, I welcome this particular point as being important.

Secondly, I am glad that the London Labour boroughs which are happy to take over education are co-operating in producing their plans according to the timetable set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, unlike the way in which they refused to co-operate with, for example, the right-to-buy legislation. They are doing it not because of any sob stuff about looking after the children, but because they know that parents realise that the Labour party has been playing politics with their kids' education in inner London for far too long.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the ability of London boroughs to spend money on education. The figures are £3 million this year and £10 million next year. Those are important sums which show that the Government want the London boroughs to get on with the job.

I am glad that the London residuary body will have powers to look after functions such as the supply services. The LRB is fortunate in having people of the calibre of Tag Taylor and Peter Bowness who understand education, who are Londoners and who will put the interests of the service well ahead of anything else.

The real tragedy is that the Labour party is obsessed with the fact that it could not win Kensington—I take this chance to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on his presence here. May he remain for a long time. Despite all that has been said about the unpopularity of the Government in abolishing ILEA and the community charge, the Labour party has finished up with egg on its face and is now trying to make capital out of this part of the Bill. It will not wash and the Labour party knows it.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I and my hon. Friends fought bitterly against the Government's proposal to abolish ILEA when it first surfaced in the House. We remain convinced that we were right. In that we have the support of over 90 per cent. of the parents of the children in our areas. We look forward to the day when a Labour Government will reintroduce a London-wide authority for education in London.

Mr. Dunn

I am sorry to intervene, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is his party's policy, if in government, to reinstate the Inner London education authority?

Mr. Smith

The Minister was obviously not listening because I said that we would introduce a London-wide authority for education because it is the principle of a unitary authority which is important, and that is recognised right across the Labour party.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith

No, time is short so I will not give way.

The Lords amendments do several things. For example, they give the Government centralised authority to make senior managerial appointments for the conduct and preparation of education in individual boroughs. Such a proposal makes a mockery of the Government's pledge when they came to office nine years ago to take central Government off the backs of local government. By supporting the amendments, they are putting central Government in control of local government, and that is unacceptable.

The Government also propose to put the London residuary body of all things in charge of a number of London-wide education services. Clearly, they have not had direct experience of the way in which the London residuary body has been performing its functions since the abolition of the Greater London council. That gives Opposition Members absolutely no confidence that the education services that are important to our constituents will be looked after and treasured.

Perhaps most important of all, the amendments completely fail to make proper financial provision or to give the boroughs the proper resources that they will need to run a good education service once ILEA has been abolished. My borough of Islington receives about £30 million worth more services from ILEA than it contributes through the rate income that it receives from Islington residents. That provides a high standard of education for Islington students, parents and pupils. I have asked the Government where that money will come from once ILEA is abolished, because the Government have not given us any assurances that proper resources will be available once ILEA has been abolished to ensure that the present level of education services for the people of my borough will continue. There is no proposal on that in the Lords amendments. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made a valiant attempt to amend the Lords amendments to make the position rather more reasonable. However, there has been no guarantee from the Government that decent and proper resource will be available.

I am deeply worried about the future quality of education in my constituency. The Government have given me no reason to hope that education will survive or thrive after abolition. Unless and until the Government make proper provision or give us decent guarantees that that provision will he made, we shall oppose their measure. The Government have so far failed entirely to give us any such guarantees.

Mr. Bowis

Neil Fletcher, and people like him, should have asked the hard questions years ago; they have been waiting to be asked for at least a decade. The Left did not face up to its failures, and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents. Those are not my words but the words of the editor of the New Statesman and they sum up the reason why we are where we are today in pursuing the need to take on the management of education in inner London.

The amendments concentrate on management and on the Secretary of State having a role in the appointment of senior managers in the inner London boroughs. The whole purpose of that is to ensure that the past does not recur; that the future is not as bad as the past; that the future to which we look forward is educationally assured; and that the anxieties that have been expressed so often by Opposition Members about the inability of their counterparts in the London boroughs to run education are put at rest. If Opposition Members are concerned about such things, they will be reassured that the Government are to ensure that suitable and good appointments are made to improve the standards of education in every inner London borough.

The arguments for the transfer of powers are well known and well rehearsed. They are, "Twice the cost, but half the results; twice the number of pupils leaving school without results". That is the equation with which we have had to come to terms. Parliament has debated, agreed and decided. The House of Commons has agreed——

Ms. Ruddock

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis

No, I cannot give way because of the time.

The House of Commons has agreed and the Lords have concurred with the Commons. Many amendments have been tabled by the Government to improve the transfer.

We should direct our debate to forward-looking measures. It is crucial that we have good education in London and good educational management. Therefore, it is crucial that the Secretary of State is able to ensure that, as far as he can.

My borough of Wandsworth has already attracted as senior chief education officer Mr. Naismith from Croydon. He is a man of proven worth and experience who has been attracted by the challenge of running education in Wandsworth. Had the Bill not represented a great opportunity for the children of Wandsworth, someone of that eminence would not have been persuaded to accept that challenge. We are looking for men of such vision to produce a new ethos for the schools and children of inner London, in which there will be high expectations for children of every level of ability. We want a new ethos in which there will be co-operation with local businesses, firms and professions and in which there will be co-operation between boroughs on the provision of resources and co-operation with the polytechnics and colleges. Above all, we want co-operation with the parents in the boroughs and, as we said yesterday, especially with the parents of children with special needs. This is an opportunity for a new ethos based on a listening local council providing local education by listening to local people, through local councillors.

Returning to the debate earlier today on city technology colleges, I hope that they will provide an opportunity for local boroughs to move forward without the burden of the blockages created in the past by ILEA. In so doing, the CTCs will help to attract back the 45 per cent. of parents who in my borough, which is the Division 10 borough, currently opt to send their children to other than the local mainstream schools.

We are looking forward to a practical vision. We want to look beyond the narrow political debate to the real possibilities and real opportunities of training standards for the children of London. I believe that with this measure London's pride will grow again in our schools.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

If the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) had been working with the consent and co-operation of his constituents, he would oppose these provisions instead of being in favour of them. The overwhelming evidence is that the parents of London voted against the break-up of ILEA because they know the consequences.

I should like to speak briefly about expenditure. My borough of Lambeth is already an impoverished borough. The only borough that is poorer than Lambeth is Hackney. However, with our straitened resources we try to do something to supplement what is provided in formal education. We try to provide and fund playgroups, voluntary nursery groups and daycare facilities in the community. We try to provide some supplementary sports facilities—[Laughter.] I do not see anything funny about that. As a result of rate-capping we have had to cut by 10 per cent. the amount of money given to playgroups, which are mostly run on a voluntary basis. That is a taste of what is to come. We shall have a much more serious attack on the budgets of education authorities when they are run by the London boroughs. We have seen what has happened to voluntary playgroups—the money has been cut simply because money is not available from central Government.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

Does my hon. Friend recognise that because of the meanness of the London borough of Kensington, which refuses to fund directly the playgroups in my area, ILEA is disproportionately funding playgroups in that borough and that people are worried that when education is taken over by the borough the playgroups will close because of lack of funding?

Mr. Fraser

That must be right because boroughs such as Lambeth have been forced against their own judgment and good will to close facilities. Even worse will happen in boroughs such as Wandsworth and Kensington which have the will to close playgroups, not the will to resist.

We know the consequences of Government expenditure cuts. If we consider the grant-related expenditure assessment for London's educational requirements, we discover that the Government intend to reduce that expenditure to 54 per cent. of its current level. Those expenditure cuts will affect inner city schools that are already understaffed and that have to cope with enormous problems. Many of the children come from deprived communities, many of their parents are unemployed and they live in poor housing and in poverty. Rate restrictions have given us a taste of things to come.

The proposals contained in the Bill will control the management of an authority and further deplete available resources. If those proposals are pushed through as a result of this brief, half-hour debate, the consequence will cause irradicable damage to the children that I try to represent. One way out of the reinforced bars of the inner-city cage——

It being half-past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 204.

Division No. 423] [8.30 pm
Aitken, Jonathan Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Alexander, Richard Batiste, Spencer
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Allason, Rupert Bellingham, Henry
Amos, Alan Bendall, Vivian
Arbuthnot, James Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Biffen, Rt Hon John
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Blackburn, Dr John G.
Ashby, David Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Atkinson, David Body, Sir Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Gregory, Conal
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bowis, John Grist, Ian
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Ground, Patrick
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brazier, Julian Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham Hanley, Jeremy
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Hannam, John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Browne, John (Winchester) Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Haselhurst, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony Hawkins, Christopher
Burns, Simon Hayes, Jerry
Burt, Alistair Hayward, Robert
Butcher, John Heddle, John
Butler, Chris Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Butterfill, John Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hill, James
Carttiss, Michael Hind, Kenneth
Cash, William Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda Holt, Richard
Chapman, Sydney Hordern, Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher Howard, Michael
Churchill, Mr Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Colvin, Michael Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Conway, Derek Hunter, Andrew
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Irvine, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John Irving, Charles
Couchman, James Jack, Michael
Cran, James Jackson, Robert
Critchley, Julian Janman, Tim
Curry, David Jessel, Toby
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Davis, David (Boothferry) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Day, Stephen Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Devlin, Tim Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dicks, Terry Key, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen Kilfedder, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)
Dover, Den Kirkhope, Timothy
Dunn, Bob Knapman, Roger
Durant, Tony Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Emery, Sir Peter Knowles, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Knox, David
Evennett, David Lang, Ian
Fallon, Michael Latham, Michael
Farr, Sir John Lawrence, Ivan
Favell, Tony Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lee, John (Pendle)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fishburn, John Dudley Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Forman, Nigel Lightbown, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lilley, Peter
Forth, Eric Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Sir Marcus Lord, Michael
Franks, Cecil Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger McCrindle, Robert
French, Douglas Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Fry, Peter Maclean, David
Gale, Roger McLoughlin, Patrick
Gardiner, George McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Gill, Christopher McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Madel, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip Major, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Malins, Humfrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Mans, Keith
Gorst, John Maples, John
Gower, Sir Raymond Marland, Paul
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) Marlow, Tony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Speed, Keith
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mates, Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maude, Hon Francis Squire, Robin
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stanbrook, Ivor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stern, Michael
Mellor, David Stevens, Lewis
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Miller, Sir Hal Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mills, Iain Stokes, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Sumberg, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW) Summerson, Hugo
Moate, Roger Tapsell, Sir Peter
Monro, Sir Hector Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Morris, M (N'hampton S) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Morrison, Sir Charles Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mudd, David Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Neale, Gerrard Temple-Morris, Peter
Nelson, Anthony Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Neubert, Michael Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nicholls, Patrick Thorne, Neil
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Thurnham, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Townend, John (Bridlington)
Page, Richard Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Paice, James Tracey, Richard
Patnick, Irvine Tredinnick, David
Patten, Chris (Bath) Trippier, David
Pawsey, James Trotter, Neville
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Twinn, Dr Ian
Porter, David (Waveney) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Portillo, Michael Viggers, Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Waddington, Rt Hon David
Price, Sir David Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Waldegrave, Hon William
Rathbone, Tim Walden, George
Redwood, John Waller, Gary
Renton, Tim Walters, Sir Dennis
Rhodes James, Robert Ward, John
Riddick, Graham Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Warren, Kenneth
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Wells, Bowen
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Whitney, Ray
Roe, Mrs Marion Widdecombe, Ann
Rost, Peter Wiggin, Jerry
Rowe, Andrew Wilkinson, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Wilshire, David
Ryder, Richard Wolfson, Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan Wood, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover) Woodcock, Mike
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Young, Sir George (Acton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Tellers for the Ayes:
Sims, Roger Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Soames, Hon Nicholas
Abbott, Ms Diane Blair, Tony
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Boateng, Paul
Allen, Graham Boyes, Roland
Alton, David Bradley, Keith
Anderson, Donald Bray, Dr Jeremy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Armstrong, Hilary Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ashdown, Paddy Buckley, George J.
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Caborn, Richard
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Callaghan, Jim
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Barron, Kevin Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Battle, John Canavan, Dennis
Beckett, Margaret Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Beggs, Roy Cartwright, John
Beith, A. J. Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Bell, Stuart Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Clay, Bob
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Clelland, David
Bermingham, Gerald Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bidwell, Sydney Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald Litherland, Robert
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbett, Robin Loyden, Eddie
Corbyn, Jeremy McAllion, John
Cousins, Jim McAvoy, Thomas
Cryer, Bob McCartney, Ian
Cummings, John McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Cunliffe, Lawrence McKelvey, William
Cunningham, Dr John McLeish, Henry
Dalyell, Tam McNamara, Kevin
Darling, Alistair McTaggart, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) McWilliam, John
Dewar, Donald Madden, Max
Dixon, Don Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dobson, Frank Marek, Dr John
Doran, Frank Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Duffy, A. E. P. Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dunnachie, Jimmy Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Martlew, Eric
Eadie, Alexander Maxton, John
Eastham, Ken Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Evans, John (St Helens N) Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fatchett, Derek Morgan, Rhodri
Faulds, Andrew Morley, Elliott
Fearn, Ronald Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Mullin, Chris
Fisher, Mark Murphy, Paul
Flannery, Martin Nellist, Dave
Flynn, Paul Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Foot, Rt Hon Michael O'Brien, William
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) O'Neill, Martin
Foster, Derek Parry, Robert
Fraser, John Patchett, Terry
Fyfe, Maria Pike, Peter L.
Galbraith, Sam Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Primarolo, Dawn
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) Quin, Ms Joyce
George, Bruce Radice, Giles
Godman, Dr Norman A. Randall, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin Redmond, Martin
Gordon, Mildred Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Gould, Bryan Reid, Dr John
Graham, Thomas Richardson, Jo
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Robertson, George
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Robinson, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Rogers, Allan
Grocott, Bruce Rooker, Jeff
Hardy, Peter Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Harman, Ms Harriet Rowlands, Ted
Haynes, Frank Ruddock, Joan
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Salmond, Alex
Heffer, Eric S. Sedgemore, Brian
Henderson, Doug Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hinchliffe, David Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Short, Clare
Holland, Stuart Skinner, Dennis
Home Robertson, John Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hood, Jimmy Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Steinberg, Gerry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E) Straw, Jack
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Turner, Dennis
Illsley, Eric Wall, Pat
Ingram, Adam Wallace, James
John, Brynmor Walley, Joan
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Wareing, Robert N.
Kennedy, Charles Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Lambie, David Wigley, Dafydd
Lamond, James Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Leadbitter, Ted Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Leighton, Ron Wilson, Brian
Lestor, Joan (Eccles) Winnick, David
Lewis, Terry Wise, Mrs Audrey
Worthington, Tony Tellers for the Noes:
Wray, Jimmy Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Alun Michael.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 343 agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 344 to 395 agreed to, some with Special Entry.

Forward to