'—.(1) The Secretary of State, following consultations with the boards of management of further education colleges, shall publish an annual report on the welfare of students in further education.
(2) The Secretary of State shall require the Higher Education Funding Council to publish an annual report on the welfare of students in higher education.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament both reports published as a result of this Section, together with a statement of any conclusions he may have drawn as a result of the reports:.—[Mr. Stephen.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 61 and amendment No. 64, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end add—'(6) the Secretary of State shall lay annually before Parliament a report giving such information as may be prescribed as to how he has implemented his duty under subsection (1) above, and in particular what provision has been made for persons over school age who have learning difficulties.'.
§ Mr. Stephen
If the Minister were in his place, I would make no apology to him for returning to the issue of 347 student welfare, not least because in Committee he showed that he did not understand the poverty and the pressures that face most students in Scotland.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure the provision of an annual report on the welfare of students in further education. We should be very happy if that report were to be submitted by the further education funding council, but as the Minister appears to be reluctant to set up that body the report would have to come from the Secretary of State. The new clause also requires the Higher Education Funding Council to publish an annual report on the welfare of students in higher education.
One can have the very best of universities, with excellent teaching, excellent courses and excellent facilities, but they will be next to useless if the students are hungry, homeless, cold and debt ridden. That assumes that students are there in the first place. I return to the point that many students are deterred from going to university if they know that they will be under severe financial pressure and that their parents will put pressure on them not to go to university or into further education but to try to take up work—in many cases at much too early a stage.
During the last decade or so, the financing of students has undergone enormous changes. The loans system, which is opposed by an overwhelming number of students in Scotland, has been introduced. Student entitlement to benefit has been removed. Moreover, student grants have been frozen. At a time of general economic recession, another factor causes immense hardship: the shortage of employment for students during vacation periods. Employment has in the past provided an important source of income for them. Many parents now talk about saving to send their children to university, but some parents cannot do that. The gate cannot, therefore, be opened to children from those families. That bias against poorer families is a great source of worry.
In real terms, student grants have declined dramatically over the last decade. The mandatory grant would have to be increased by over 24 per cent. if it were to be brought back to its 1978–79 level and by 31.6 per cent. if it were to reflect the equivalent increases in the cost of living over the same period. Many students were caused immense additional hardship by the introduction of the poll tax and the still existing requirement—whose abolition should be announced as soon as possible, but no later than the next Budget—to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
A recent National Union of Students survey shows how many students find themselves in debt. In the case of those sampled, more than 50 per cent. had significant debt problems. That was even before the introduction of student loans. The problem may be that the Government take the same view of student unions and their surveys as they take of other trade unions. Although they appear to be disinterested, dismissive and hostile towards the NUS and other unions, I ask them to care about the plight of students. It is a very real problem.
We believe that the colleges and funding councils should provide independent, authoritative reports on the welfare of our students so that Ministers will be forced to listen. The areas of concern, where effective independent 348 monitoring is required, include housing costs, the availability of accommodation—a real problem—and general financial support.
Students are faced with particularly high prices in places such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh. In recent months and years, prices in Aberdeen have markedly increased. The costs of student accommodation there are quite prohibitive. Demand is high but accommodation is not available. Students are competing on the market with not only other students but oil workers in a very buoyant Aberdeen economy.
A similar situation now exists in Edinburgh where house prices are generally high compared with those in other parts of Scotland. For example, at Aberdeen university only first year students from outside the area are guaranteed accommodation. The situation is even worse at the Robert Gordon Institute of Technology which at present can provide only 16 per cent. of its students with accommodation.
In Scotland as a whole, only 44 per cent. of university students are provided with accommodation. Students in my constituency have been forced to be accommodated in local hotels. Others in the Aberdeen area have been living in tented accommodation. In some areas they have had to live in senior common rooms and university halls, provided with only a bed, a locker and a screen.
Inevitably the council tax will also hit some students severely. Certainly it is a property tax, but it still has some elements of the poll tax, a hangover from the poll tax system. I am convinced that in certain circumstances the cost of the new council tax will be passed on to students. Even if the Minister does not realise this from our deliberations in Committee, it still seems likely that many landlords and landladies will pass on to students in student accommodation the personal element of the new council tax.
In addition to covering housing needs, I hope that the annual reports will pay particular attention to the students most in need. Many mature students face extra financial burdens. Some students have parents on low incomes, some students are ill, have disabilities or have responsibilities for caring.
Despite what the Minister said, there remains concern about the level of and uncertainty over the future management of the access funds which the current Universities Funding Council distributes to each institution. While the future of access funds remains undecided and while the lessons from the high cost of distributing them remain unlearnt, the Minister cannot state that there are no problems of hardship merely because of the existence of the funds. Great hardship exists.
New clause 3 would allow the Government to assess the welfare of students on an annual basis. If the Minister were to argue that student welfare is adequate at present—I find it very difficult to believe that he could argue that on an objective assessment—the report from the Higher Education Funding Council could substantiate his argument. We are seeking independent objective advice that would, I believe, be of considerable assistance to the Minister and to the Scottish Office in the fulfilment of their responsibilities to our students. That is the purpose of the new clause. 349 The Secretary of State has often talked about funding. Liberal Democrats are committed to funding the whole education system and, in particular, our higher and further education systems. We would be prepared, if necessary, to put 1p on income tax to make the changes. We would guarantee all students access to a minimum income and give them access to the benefits that they now so sorely miss. The Liberal Democrats have a deep commitment to that issue which is sadly lacking from the Government.
The Minister argued in Committee about the increases in access which he has provided—I almost said "increases in expenditure". In many areas he expected increased access to occur without increased funding. However, I appreciate that he is striving to increase access to higher and further education among young people in Scotland. There is a long way to go and it should not be paid for at the cost of hacking at the grants made available to students, which seemed to be the logic of his argument in Committee.
We need a well-funded higher education system and a well-funded further education system, but we also need adequate provision through grants and a minimum income to all our young people.
§ Mr. Tom Clarke
I had expected the Minister to move amendment No. 61. I wonder whether he wants to intervene to say whether that is his intention.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not necessary to move any amendments. They are debated, the new clause having been moved.
§ Mr. Clarke
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am aware of that. May I explain that my colleagues and I tabled the new clause because of the Minister's undertakings in Committee. We want to be especially sure that the Government have not changed their policy in the past two or three minutes, perhaps because of the debate that we have just had. On the assumption that the Government are—
§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
Perhaps it would be more convenient if I explained. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind in the past few minutes. Undertakings given in Committee will be fulfilled.
§ Mr. Clarke
I am grateful to the Minister and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience but I am sure that you will understand that we couthie Scots want to be absolutely sure before we accept offers which are not concrete. However, the Minister has now assured the House that he will support amendment No. 61.
We welcome that because it is consistent and compatible with amendment No. 64 which arose from our discussions in Committee. We thought that there should be a recognition of the needs, difficulties and rights of people with disabilities and special needs and, most importantly, that reports should be made to the House.
Some hon. Members might think that I have been too kind to the Minister this afternoon perhaps because I am in the unusual position of having won not one but two concessions. Perhaps I should restore normality to our relationship across the Floor. First, the Minister should note the fact that our new clause deals with this House, the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, I think that he got it wrong earlier. He was perhaps a little carried away with the atmosphere. If he reads his words, he will find that he was wrong in the debate about Scottish history and the 350 Daily Record. The Daily Record has supported the Westminster Parliament but has exercised its devolved journalistic powers to support a Scottish Parliament in Scotland, so there has been no change in the position that it has held for some time. It has remained perfectly consistent.
Although I welcome the reports suggested in the new clause—and those suggested in new clause 3 which the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) commended to the House—I must say in the spirit of our discussions this afternoon that we have made it absolutely plain that we are discussing the Bill presented by the Government. We have made it clear that we are not in favour of taking colleges of education away from local Government. Despite all the debates, the hours we spent in Committee—I was very pleased to serve on the Committee—and the debates on the Floor of the House, we have made it clear that the salient fact about Government policy on these matters is that announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment. He made it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government are trying to rescue themselves from the mess they were in because of the poll tax by taking colleges of education away from local government. That is also to apply to Scotland and, by that method, the Government are hoping that their cosmetic approach will succeed.
In view of the fact that the changes have very little educational content, I believe that very few people will support the proposal from an education point of view. The Minister must know that there is precious little support for his proposals. Precisely because the Government seem to be steamrollering the Bill through in the hope of getting Royal Assent before the election, and thus of taking the colleges of education away from local government, it is all the more important that reports should be made to the House, as the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, and as our amendment No. 64 seeks to ensure.
That is our view for the time being. It will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the rest of the House, that we believe that in the not-too-distant future such important aspects of Scottish education as Scottish students, Scottish students with disabilities, and Scottish students with learning difficulties will be matters for a Scottish Parliament. Then we shall not have the sort of rushed debate that we are having today on such important issues.
As we are having the debate, and as the Minister—on these issues, at any rate—appears benevolent, I hope that he can give the House an assurance, as he did when we were discussing what would happen when the Government issued circulars about the implementation of their proposals. The people who will be appointed to the boards will be largely business people, with no specific relevant experience—few of them ever come into contact with students, or with people with learning difficulties. Will the Minister assure the House that when he deals with the boards he will consult Scottish care in the community groups before issuing circulars or deciding on full implementation of the provision?
You will be quick to correct me, I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stray too far from the subject, but the Minister is aware—he wrote to me on the subject—that our procedures do not allow us to stray too far towards the subject of community care. However, as Sir Roy Griffiths 351 observed in his report, there cannot be complete community care unless education is included as an important aspect of it.
How can it be otherwise, when so many of our young people are blind or deaf—some are blind and deaf—or otherwise physically disabled? The Spastics Society is very interested in this issue. Such young people, and their families and carers, want real fulfilment to be possible. We want to see those people reach their full potential, and education is very much part of that achievement. That is why there are so many 19-plus groups all over the country.
Further education is relevant here. Many such people have passed the age of 19, and at that stage, unless proper assessments are made, unless Parliament is fully aware of what is taking place, as amendment No. 64 advocates, there can be enormous difficulties.
We all know families in which young people have been attending ordinary schools—some might say, special schools—and then suddenly, when they are 19, their whole world changes. That may happen because proper assessments have not been made, or because services are not available. Adult training centres do not exist in every part of the country. Such families find that their whole world has changed, and that young people who have gone each day to special schools, or whatever, suddenly find that nothing is happening. Parents and carers have an immense problem—we must approach the subject with great humility. They must ensure that their youngsters are occupied 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That cannot be done unless we accept that colleges of education can offer hope, potential and fulfilment to such young people.
That will mean courses—perhaps courses in the use of computers. In many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) will confirm, it already does mean that. It could—and does—mean courses in horticulture, hairdressing, and in developing sign language, and so on. Furthermore, able-bodied students could enrich their own lives by becoming involved in such courses, and thus offering recognition to people with learning difficulties—offering an acceptance that they, too, are part of our modern society.
For those reasons, I commend amendment No. 64 to the Minister. As I have said, it is consistent with Government amendment No. 61, and with the arguments advanced in Committee. In fairness, I must add that it is also consistent with what the Minister has said. He has considered the matter and brought provisions before the House. I hope that there will be agreement, and that the annual reports will not be seen as a token acceptance. We want an Act which—in the interests not only of education but of every person, every fellow citizen, who has the right to participate in education—actively considers the serious problems involved.
§ Mr. Dalyell
I am glad that Mr. Speaker selected the amendments and judged that they were fit for inclusion in the debate. As is my wont on this Report stage, I shall content myself with a question to the Minister. Do he and his advisers know what the drop-out rates are for Scottish universities? I was taken aback by a recent paper requested 352 by Dr. David Ingram and myself—we are two lay members of the biological sciences advisory committee of Edinburgh university.
The paper was produced by Professor Dale and his colleagues. I shall not regurgitate the figures. They are very sensitive, and I do not want to shout them abroad. Anyhow, they are not my figures. I should simply like to establish clearly that the Scottish Office knows what the drop-out rate is. That rate has a great deal to do with the financial situation of students.
Like many other hon. Members, I have close connections with students, and all the information that I receive suggests that there is real and mounting poverty among them. Poverty often forces students to withdraw from courses. If Professor Dale's paper and the other evidence is correct, and can be generalised, the situation is serious not only in terms of hardship, human distress and tragedy, but in terms of value for money. It does not make sense to have young people embarking on courses and then dropping out because of the lack of relatively small sums to tide them through. Does the Scottish Office know what the position is ?
§ Mr. Dalyell
I rather hope that it does, and I suspect that it does, but I should like confirmation of the fact, and to hear any comment that the Minister is prepared to make on the subject.
§ Dr. Godman
I was not on the Committee. For my sins or otherwise, I was not chosen to serve on it, but I should like to say something about amendment No. 64. It would strengthen clause 1, which admirably aims, among other things, to make better further education provision for people with disabilities of various kinds. As the employment service is seeking to provide more job opportunities for people with disabilities—that is precisely what is happening right now—it is essential that we improve the education and training of our fellow citizens so that they are better able to present themselves for the few job opportunities open to them.
On Friday, I shall be speaking at a function organised by the local jobcentre, with a view to publicising locally the new service that the Department of Employment has put together to meet the need to impress upon employers their moral responsibility to employ people with disabilities. I was very happy to accept the invitation because, in my constituency, a quite remarkable relationship has developed between the local further education college—the James Watt college—and the Fitzgerald adult training centre, a centre designed primarily to train people with a handicap—in this case, people who are mentally handicapped in some way.
We have a responsibility, through our further education colleges, to provide education and training courses for people who are physically handicapped and for those citizens who are mentally handicapped. Many jobs in all kinds of industries can be adequately filled by people with disabilities, provided that the trainees are given the right kind of education and training both within that occupation and before they take it up. The Minister has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that colleges of further education provide those training and education opportunities for youngsters with disabilities. I shall never forget meeting a young constituent last year. That young man was confined to a wheelchair. He was given a 353 job—albeit a temporary job—and had to start work at eight o'clock in the morning. His parents told me that, although his place of work was only five minutes away, the lad was ready to leave before six o'clock, so excited was he to he given any kind of job opportunity. There are many thousands more like that young man—who, unfortunately, is unemployed again—who could benefit from education and training courses provided by local colleges.
My constituency is very fortunate because of the relationship between the James Watt college and the Fitzgerald centre, and the devolved training centre in Port Glasgow, but much more needs to be done, and the new clause would enable us to determine, for a start, the extent of the education and training problem that we have. It would also help us to determine more precisely and analytically the education and training needs of people with disabilities. I welcome the new clause and hope that it is accepted.
§ Mr. Michael Forsyth
Let me start by saying something about new clause 3. I remind the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) that I made it clear, in response to the amendments that he tabled in Committee, that a clear distinction had to be made between student support and institutional funding. Support for higher education institutions is, and will remain, the responsibility of the appropriate Secretary of State. The funding of higher education will be the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council.
Those two activities are quite separate and should not be confused. In addition, student welfare is primarily a matter for the institutions themselves. It embraces a variety of functions, including counselling and the disbursing of access funds. The current activities of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in distributing the funds to institutions is purely a matter of administrative convenience and does not imply any substantive responsibility for welfare matters. It is therefore illogical to propose that the funding council should produce a report on a matter for which it has no responsibility.
Support for non-advanced further education students is provided by bursaries from education authorities. I am still reviewing the future of the arrangements. In addition boards of management of FE colleges have powers in clause 8 to provide students of their college with such assistance of a financial or other nature as they consider appropriate.
The arrangements that are available for student support for further and higher education students are fair. They reflect a balance between support from the taxpayer and the contribution that an individual and his or her family makes. Student demand for places is buoyant. This does not suggest that the arrangements are unsatisfactory.
As either producing a report on the welfare of further education students or requiring the funding council to publish one on the welfare of higher education students makes no sense, it follows that laying the reports before Parliament would make no sense either.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was kind enough to suggest that the Scottish Office might have some information which his hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) thought it almost certainly would not have. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. We have known for some time—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow is right to 354 draw attention to it—that, on the face of it, non-completion rates at Scottish universities are comparatively high. For that reason, the Government have commissioned substantial research into the matter, which will take the form of statistical analysis of the available data to draw general conclusions about the extent, nature and possible causes of the problem, together with an in-depth examination of individual case histories to identify the facts at play and current examples of good and bad practice. Until the results of those research exercises have been assessed, it would be premature to assign any particular cause, such as financial difficulties, to non-completion rates.
§ Mr. Forsyth
If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I can give him an answer as quickly as conclusions can be drawn from the work that is being done. I shall certainly look into the matter, and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about it. Some of the proposals for changes in the secondary schools reflect anxiety about this very matter.
Amendment No. 61 meets an undertaking given to the Committee to emphasise the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament for the exercise of his duties for further education in part I of the Bill. I am confident that the annual report will show that the colleges of further education will flourish as never before with their new freedoms. It will also provide a means to allow the Secretary of State to show how he is meeting his important duty to have regard to requirements of persons over school age with learning difficulties. As on so many occasions, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Monklands, East—
§ Mr. Forsyth
I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) made it clear that he does not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on some matters when he intervened earlier. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that—
§ Mr. Clarke
For the sake of the record, let me make it clear that I have a remarkably good working relationship with my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a very generous man, as the Minister will find in a few months' time.
§ Mr. Forsyth
I am not sure that, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East reads what the hon. Gentleman had to say in distancing himself from the view that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed about containing public expenditure promises, the relationship will be as strong as it was before. The hon. Gentleman may have put a little pressure on it this evening.
Amendment No. 61 fulfils the undertaking that was given in Committee. Therefore, I suggest that amendment No. 64 is unnecessary because it is already covered by amendment No. 61. I draw the attention of the House to clause 21 and to the Secretary of State's power by order to require the boards of management to publish information. Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29 highlight the learning difficulties aspect.
§ 8 pm
§ Mr. Stephen
The Minister has made my point—not resisted it. The impact of student welfare on education should be and is the responsibility of the Scottish Office. Who monitors student welfare and its impact on the completion of courses? The Minister explained that the Scottish Office is currently looking into the matter. Presumably it will consider whether financial implications are one of the reasons for the high number of drop-outs from Scottish institutions. Although I repeat that this matter should be and is the concern of the Scottish Office and its education department, all we have seen from the Minister is a lack of concern for student welfare or a fear of what might be found if the Higher Education Funding Council was required to produce such an annual report.
I know that training is important to the Government, but we cannot treat our young people simply as if they were the feedstock of industry. One does not get the best performance from an individual if one simply trains that person; one must also treat people well. The Government, however, have neglected that important aspect of our education system and, as a result, the Conservative party is treated dismissively by many students in Scotland. I know that the Minister visits universities and other institutions from time to time, and I can assure him that that neglect is one reason for the hostile reception that he receives from a significant number of students in Scotland. The new clause is crucial to the future quality of education in Scotland, as well as to student welfare. Sadly, I cannot accept the Minister's assurance.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 235.357
|Division No. 71]||[8.1 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)||Galloway, George|
|Allen, Graham||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Alton, David||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Grocott, Bruce|
|Ashton, Joe||Haynes, Frank|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Barron, Kevin||Home Robertson, John|
|Beggs, Roy||Hood, Jimmy|
|Bellotti, David||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Benton, Joseph||Howells, Geraint|
|Bradley, Keith||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Illsley, Eric|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Ingram, Adam|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Janner, Greville|
|Carr, Michael||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|
|Cartwright, John||Kennedy, Charles|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Kumar, Dr. Ashok|
|Clelland, David||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Cohen, Harry||Leighton, Ron|
|Cryer, Bob||Lewis, Terry|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Livsey, Richard|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Dixon, Don||Loyden, Eddie|
|Douglas, Dick||McAllion, John|
|Duffy, Sir A. E. P.||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Enright, Derek||McCartney, Ian|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Fearn, Ronald||McLeish, Henry|
|Fisher, Mark||Maclennan, Robert|
|Flannery, Martin||McMaster, Gordon|
|Flynn, Paul||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Foster, Derek||Marek, Dr John|
|Fyfe, Maria||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Martlew, Eric||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Maxton, John||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Meale, Alan||Stephen, Nicol|
|Michael, Alun||Strang, Gavin|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Trimble, David|
|Morley, Elliot||Turner, Dennis|
|Mullin, Chris||Vaz, Keith|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wareing, Robert N.|
|O'Hara, Edward||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Patchett, Terry||Winnick, David|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Worthington, Tony|
|Salmond, Alex||Wray, Jimmy|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)||Mr. Archy Kirkwood and|
|Spearing, Nigel||Mr. James Wallace.|
|Adley, Robert||Fishburn, John Dudley|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Fookes, Dame Janet|
|Alexander, Richard||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Forth, Eric|
|Allason, Rupert||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Amos, Alan||Franks, Cecil|
|Arbuthnot, James||Freeman, Roger|
|Ashby, David||French, Douglas|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Baldry, Tony||Gill, Christopher|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Batiste, Spencer||Glyn, Dr Sir Alan|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Bendall, Vivian||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Benyon, W.||Gorst, John|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Gregory, Conal|
|Boswell, Tim||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Grist, Ian|
|Bowis, John||Hague, William|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brazier, Julian||Hannam, Sir John|
|Bright, Graham||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Harris, David|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Burt, Alistair||Hawkins, Christopher|
|Butcher, John||Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney|
|Butler, Chris||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Hill, James|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hind, Kenneth|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunter, Andrew|
|Couchman, James||Irvine, Michael|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Jack, Michael|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Jackson, Robert|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Janman, Tim|
|Day, Stephen||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Devlin, Tim||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Dover, Den||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Dunn, Bob||Kilfedder, James|
|Dykes, Hugh||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Eggar, Tim||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Knapman, Roger|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Evennett, David||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Fallon, Michael||Knowles, Michael|
|Farr, Sir John||Knox, David|
|Favell, Tony||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lang, Rt Hon Ian|
|Latham, Michael||Riddick, Graham|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Rost, Peter|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Lightbown, David||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lord, Michael||Shelton, Sir William|
|Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Sims, Roger|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Maclean, David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Speller, Tony|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Madel, David||Squire, Robin|
|Malins, Humfrey||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Maples, John||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Marland, Paul||Stern, Michael|
|Marlow, Tony||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Mates, Michael||Sumberg, David|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Summerson, Hugo|
|Mellor, Rt Hon David||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Mills, Iain||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Moate, Roger||Thorne, Neil|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Thurnham, Peter|
|Morris, M (N'hampton S)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Moss, Malcolm||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Neale, Sir Gerrard||Tracey, Richard|
|Needham, Richard||Tredinnick, David|
|Nelson, Anthony||Trotter, Neville|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Viggers, Peter|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Walden, George|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Walters, Sir Dennis|
|Norris, Steve||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Watts, John|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Wells, Bowen|
|Page, Richard||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Paice, James||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Patnick, Irvine||Wilkinson, John|
|Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)||Wilshire, David|
|Pawsey, James||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Wood, Timothy|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Yeo, Tim|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Price, Sir David|
|Raffan, Keith||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy||Mr. Nicholas Baker and|
|Redwood, John||Mr. Neil Hamilton.|
|Rhodes James, Sir Robert|
§ Question accordingly negatived.