HC Deb 29 January 1992 vol 202 cc997-1009

'In Section I of the Education Reform Act 1988, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted"— (aa) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England as respects every maintained school in England; (bb) of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales as respects every maintained school in Wales;".'.—[Mr. Fatchett.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fatchett

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) moved new clause I, she said that it was a modest new clause. Perhaps that was characteristic of her own approach, but I am sure that she did not expect the sort of debate that the new clause stimulated. If I may make a slightly immodest point at this stage, I feel that new clause 2 is probably more important than new clause 1. It is not the modest clause that new clause I was, because it relates directly to the inspectorate and the independence of the chief inspector.

In the previous debate, we had comments, particularly from the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), about the need to preserve the independence of the chief inspector. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury specifically drew attention to clause 2(5), which I think the Secretary of State had not had an opportunity to read, because when he referred to clause 2(5) he spoke of the word "may", whereas the word "shall" is used in the Bill. The crucial element of the new clause is the preservation of the independence and integrity of HMI.

To achieve that objective, the new clause would insert in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 the responsibility of the chief inspector to make sure that the national curriculum is delivered within the terms cif the 1988 Act.

It is interesting to recall the debates on the Education Reform Bill. My colleagues who served on the Standing Committee will recall that the Government said at the time that it was the last substantial piece of education reform that they expected in this Parliament. It was deemed to be similar to the Education Act 1944 and would set in place a legal framework for education for many years. It is not without significance that this year we are debating two major education Bills, neither of which will probably be enacted but both of which attempt to fill the gaps already created by the Education Reform Act 1988.

One thing was clear from the debate on new clause 1: the respect of those who know about education for the independence and integrity of HMI. Anybody involved in education recognises that HMI performs a difficult task with integrity, skill and knowledge of the education system. The inspectorate is an essential attribute of the system, and the independence of the chief inspector is an important element in putting the system above party politics, making it a national system and one in which, while we may disagree about many aspects, we may have some national pride. The inspectorate is valuable in its own right and it is therefore important that we try in new clause 2 to preserve its integrity and independence.

We have moved new clause 2 not simply because of that traditional respect for Her Majesty's inspectorate, but for other reasons. It is crucial that new clause 2 is added to the Bill because the measure as it stands would create a charter if not for corruption, certainly for collusion about inspection. That point was made in our earlier debate on new clause 1.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) realised as a result of interventions by Opposition Members that only the leader of an inspection team requires the approval of the chief HMI. The rest of the team could comprise anyone. As I said on Second Reading, the net could be cast so widely, that even the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) might be a member of an inspection team. Only the team leader must be approved by the senior HMI. As the hon. Member for Buckingham recognised, that system could work only on the basis of, to use his term, trial and error.

The wrong inspectors may be appointed. The definition of "wrong" is interesting. Do we mean wrong ideologically or in terms of efficiency? It has been said that, if the wrong inspectors are appointed, the right team might appear on subsequent occasions. If the wrong team has been chosen, during the rest of the four-year cycle, the standards in the school concerned will decline. The best defence that the hon. Member for Buckingham could offer for that system was that it would be based on trial and error. Our schools and the education of our children are too important to depend on a system that relies simply on trial and error.

Mr. Pawsey

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that parents are concerned about the quality of their children's education? The quality of that education will depend at least to some extent on the quality of the inspection. Why does not the hon. Gentleman agree that parents will ensure that they select the best teams to inspect school adequately?

Mr. Fatchett

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has just made my argument for me. Obviously good education depends on good inspection. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Sir. T. Raison) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made similar points. There is no guarantee that an inspection team will be appropriate or efficient. It may prove to be the wrong inspection team.

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth fell back on the argument of parental choice. He said that parents will be able to choose a new inspection team. Let us consider a primary school that is inspected by a trial and error team which I will call T and E inspection. That inspection may take place when a child is half way through the primary cycle. Four years on, that child will be out of the primary cycle, and into the secondary cycle. What parental right will then exist?

We have learnt from the Secretary of State for Education and Science that there is no guarantee of a right of complaint. Parents will not be able to demand a further inspection. In those circumstances, that child's education will be put at risk. That is what the T and E system will create and that is the system which the Government and the hon. Member for Buckingham are advocating.

Mr. Pawsey

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise. Why should there be trial and error? I do not understand why he uses that phrase. If a team leader is registered, he will ensure that the team with which he is working and for which he is responsible, will perform its work satisfactorily. The hon. Gentleman is straining at gnats, such is the weakness of his argument. He is calling into aid the most improbable situation.

Mr. Fatchett

I am not calling into aid improbable situations. With his sycophantic enthusiasm for Government policy, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth tends to forget that the statements were made by the hon. Member for Buckingham and the right hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Worthing. They expressed concern.

6.45 pm

Concern has also been expressed by others. It would be useful if the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth talked to a wide range of parents' organisations which have expressed the same concerns. The hon. Gentleman will have seen reports suggesting collusion in the system. It does not make for good inspection to have the potential for collusion within the system.

In our debate on new clause 1, the Secretary of State said that the local education authority would have a monopoly, as purchaser of the inspection team, as the employer. We must bear it in mind that HMI is in the system. It is independent and not employed by local education authorities. Its role is being changed substantially by the Bill. HMI is a source of independence and integrity.

There is a weakness in the argument of the Government of the Secretary of State. The Government argue that because the LEA is the employer, it will call the tune. However, if that is a flawed relationship, will not the same relationship exist in terms of the contractual relationship—and even more so? The team of inspectors will be dependent on a contract with the governing body for its inspection function. Because of the nature of business, the team will be looking for more work. If it does that, it will want to satisfy the governing bodies for which it is producing reports. In those circumstances, the relationship is more controlled and incestuous than the relationship with an individual local authority.

Mr. Enright

I want first to declare an interest as I belong to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and 1 express a specific view. In supporting new clause 2, the association is concerned that, as the Bill is drafted, there will be political control from the centre.

I was a teacher for 22 years and spent some time teaching in the west riding. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has already referred to the old west riding, which was Conservative-controlled. At that time, we were determined that we would not be controlled by politicians. When Wakefield metropolitan district council was Labour-controlled, we were equally concerned not to have political control. Will not control now directly pass to the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Have we not seen the disastrous results of his interference in the national curriculum? Would not the new clause give independence to the inspectorate?

Mr. Fatchett

My hon. Friend has made many valid points. He was right to refer to collusion in terms of the contractual relationship between the inspectorate team and the governing body. He is right to say that there is no guarantee of quality from the inspectorate. He must have looked at my notes to make his point about the constitutional importance of new clause 2, which is to preserve the independence and integrity of the inspectorate. My hon. Friend is assiduous in such matters, so he will be aware, unlike the Secretary of State, that clause 2(5) states: In exercising his functions the Chief Inspector for England shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct. That is a substantial power. If, as the Minister of State tried to pretend in Committee, the subsection does not mean "shall" but really means "may", why does the Bill not say that? The Bill states that the chief inspector, on a mandatory basis and under a mandatory responsibility, "shall have regard" to aspects of government policy. He "shall have regard" to the Secretary of State's whim, because the Secretary of State has very substantial directions.

The Bill does not give any flexibility. It talks simply in terms of a mandatory obligation upon the chief inspector. There is no freedom—the chief inspector will be fettered. Why is it so important that we try to limit the Secretary of State's fettering power? There are good arguments for limiting that power. For example—it is a general point, but it is an important constitutional point—we know from the Government's record that there seems to be a crucial criterion that they use in appointing people to senior public office. That criterion is simple—"Are you one of us? Do you support the Conservative party?"

The Minister of State looks surprised by that point. I sometimes wonder what a sheltered life he leads. If he ever left his garden and looked at what was going on in the world, he would understand the issues that take place. Let us consider the Government's appointments in the health service. This matter is very important to the integrity of the chief inspector. Each appointment seems to be vetted by Conservative central office. They are card-carrying members of the Conservative party. We have the atavistic element on the Conservative Back Benches. Conservative Back-Bench Members enjoy every party-political appointment. I warn them not that Labour will not do that in office but that Labour will have regard to the constitution. When Conservative Members behave in that way, they undermine the country's constitution.

Mr. Enright

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Wakefield health authority district, democratic results gave only two seats to the Conservatives but that every appointment in the health authority area is a Conservative? Is not that a disgrace? Does not it give us cause to fear clause 5?

Mr. Fatchett

Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point relating to new clause 2 and the method of appointment. We are trying to preserve the integrity of the chief inspector. My hon. Friend will know that, not too far from Wakefield, the chairman of one of the hospital trusts in Leeds, who is the largest private donator to the Tory party—a man who decided last week that he would use private medicine in the hospital trust that he manages—was yet another of those appointments.

You probably consider that my remarks are a little wide of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been a recent discussion about contextual factors in education. This is a contextual argument, which makes one understand the way in which the Government are prepared to make appointments for political reasons.

We know that from time to time, there has been a slight delay in publishing the HMI annual report. We also know that the Government are not reluctant to make it clear to those working on their behalf exactly what sort of political message they want to receive. There are real risks in that. I refer, for example, to a recent HMI report. My hon. Friends will be interested in this matter, because]t is an HMI report on the first city technology college, Kingshurst, in Solihull in the west midlands. It is a creature of the Government, a college in which the Government have invested substantial money, and a college which, in the Government's terms, should be a success.

The independence of the inspectorate enabled it to make its comments, which is why new clause 2 is so relevant. On the Kingshurst CTC, it stated: On occasions, the lessons are undemanding. On curriculum management, the inspectorate report stated: There is no co-ordination of the various aspects and strands that support the curriculum, nor are there effective links with the social education programme or with careers education and guidance. In other words, a college had substantial Government money but was producing education standards that were not satisfactory to the inspectorate. I want an inspectorate to have the ability to make comments and criticisms and to be free of direct government interference.

Why have we decided to relate the responsibility and the duty to the national curriculum? We have linked back to the Education Reform Act 1988 for several reasons. There is broad acceptance of the principle of a national curriculum. It seems sensible for the inspectorate to maintain that national curriculum. There are certain characteristics that any national curriculum should have. It must be national and it must not be the plaything of any political party.

Mr. Pawsey

Hear, hear.

Mr. Fatchett

Yes. Over recent months, we have seen good evidence of a Secretary of State who is prepared to overturn independent expert advice in order to satisfy his own prejudices. We saw that in terms of history, and we recently saw it in terms of music, although he did a famous U-turn after his cage was rattled, I suspect. In those circumstances, we have seen party-political interference as represented by the idiosyncratic views of the Secretary of State.

We want a national curriculum which is above and beyond the suspicion of party politics. Above all, it must be a national curriculum that gives all our children a guaranteed entitlement to higher standards in education. That has been the Government's argument for a national curriculum—it has been broadly accepted—but we need a national curriculum that is secure and delivered by the inspectorate. We need an inspectorate that is powerful and independent and has a chief inspector who can make comments on aspects of Government policy, free from the interference of Education Ministers.

There are points on which my hon. Friends would like HMI to comment. For instance, they would like HMI to comment on the increase in class sizes in primary education, the scandal that one in four of our children are now taught in classes of 30 and over, and the fact that 10,000 of our children in primary education are taught in classes of 40 and more. We should like the inspector to comment on what those large classes do to the quality of education. A reading of the report of the so-called three wise men last week will show the difficulties in delivering key stage 1 and key stage 2 in very large classes.

I have no evidence to support it, but I suspect that Ministers looking for private schools for their children will not take as a key selling point class sizes of more than 35 or 40. They will be looking for smaller classes. We should like the inspector to comment on that point. We should also like the inspector to comment on the quality of our school buildings. We are faced with a backlog of £3.5 billion of school repairs. We need comment on that. We need to know what that does in terms of the quality of education and the standards of education for our children. They are legitimate matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems delighted to have children taught in substandard schools.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

The hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that schools in my constituency are improving substantially under LMS.

7 pm

Mr. Fatchett

Clearly the hon. Lady does not understand LMS. Let me explain it to her. We may find that there is a substantial difference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. Let us get a bit closer to the new clause.

Mr. Fatchett

I believe that this is close to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it is totally within it to talk about the fact that the inspector has a right to comment on the quality of school buildings and its impact on education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I thought that the hon. Gentleman, for the benefit of the hon. Lady and the House, was going to explain LMS.

Mr. Fatchett

I appreciate that in that respect I was drifting out of order. I probably felt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thought that the task was beyond my intellectual capacity. In the circumstances I was asking a great deal.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Surely the hon. Gentleman would expect an inspector commenting on school buildings to do so in proper context by drawing attention to the fact that deterioration, about which we are all concerned, has been prevalent for 40 or 50 years, and sometimes much longer. This is an historical situation that must be addressed by everybody.

Mr. Fatchett

That was an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman says that the problem has existed for 14 years.

Mr. Greenway

No, 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Fatchett

Ah, 40 or 50 years. I was about to remind the hon. Gentleman that the present Government have been in office for the past 13 years and therefore must accept a great deal of responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a considerable understanding of education issues and will realise that all the independent evidence suggests that the problems have worsened over the last few years. There is the problem of crumbling schools. Literally hundreds of thousands of children are taught in substandard buildings. That must have direct effect on education standards, and it is legitimate that Her Majesty's inspectorate should comment on it.

I want the independent inspector to be able to comment on other aspects of Government policy. Whether the Government are Labour or Conservative, the inspector ought to have the right to comment, on, for instance, funding and on what is currently going on in the Prime Minister's county of Cambridgeshire, where there have been some very severe reductions. These must be matters for the inspector.

A report prepared by head teachers in Cambridgeshire and circulated to all county councillors comments on the impact of the £2 million cut in the county council's budget. It refers to the reduction in the number of teachers, to cuts in the provision for children with special educational needs, to larger classes, to cuts in the expenditure on books and equipment and to the national curriculum. The hon. Member for Lancaster will be interested to hear that it says that the national curriculum will not be delivered because of the difficulty—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

It will be delivered in our schools.

Mr. Fatchett

The hon. Lady demonstrates the typically inward-looking Tory approach. She says that the national curriculum will be delivered in her schools. It does not seem to matter to her what will happen on the other side of the road. She is bothered only about what happens in Tory Lancashire. That is a quite legitimate interest, but surely what is going on in other parts of the country should be of interest to all of us. If we are to improve our general education standards we must have funding for the system and an inspectorate able to comment on that matter.

I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take a keen interest in educational matters. If you look at other schools in Cambridgeshire, you will find cuts in physical education, technology, language assistance and music. All that is the result of the Government's funding policies, and an independent inspectorate has a right to comment on it.

An independent inspectorate would have a right to comment also on teacher supply and teacher shortage and on instances of classes being taught subjects in which the teachers are not qualified. The Minister of State does not see this as a legitimate area of concern for the inspectorate, but I do. It is an important matter. We know from an HMI report of last year that more than three quarters of our secondary schools are finding it difficult to deliver the national curriculum because they do not have properly qualified staff in every subject. This is a crucial difficulty.

We should be concerned not just about the number of teachers but about their quality. We should be concerned about whether a science teacher is available to teach a science lesson, or whether the only person available is someone trained over a very short period. We want an independent inspectorate that is able to comment on all those matters.

We want, above all else, a system of inspection that does not derive from ideology, that is not a quick fix, that does not represent a commitment to privatisation on the ground that the Department of Education and Science must deliver its element of privatisation. We want an education partnership between parents, schools, local authorities, industry and higher education—a partnership that will enable us to achieve standards comparable to those in the rest of western Europe. The only way we can achieve such standards is to have a chief inspector who is independent and free and who brings integrity to the partnership. That is why we have moved new clause 2.

Mr. Eggar

Before hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) I was going to say how much we had missed him in Committee. Having heard him speak, I can just about forgive him for not understanding the Committee debate. Indeed, he probably did not read the report of it. But there is something for which I have rather more difficulty in forgiving him. It is quite clear that he has failed to read not only the Bill and the report of the Committee's proceedings but his own party's policy document "Raising the Standard".

It is up to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether hon. Members are in order, but I must say that the hon. Gentleman went on at considerable length about matters some of which seemed to stray interestingly from the subject of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about his desire for a totally independent inspectorate. If he had bothered to read his own party's policy document he would have seen that it is his party which seeks to deprive the inspectorate of its independence; that it is his party which is determined to put the inspectorate under the control of a new quango quaintly called the educational standards commission; that it is his party which would deprive Her Majesty's inspectorate of an essential part of what has given it independence and credibility—its role in advising the Secretary of State of the day.

I am not the first one to have criticised this side of the Labour party's proposals. The criticism came from the former senior chief inspector, Mr. Eric Bolton, who pointed out that, under Labour's proposals, the inspectorate, instead of advising the Secretary of State directly, would have to rely on the secondment of some senior inspectors. It must have been a considerable disappointment to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to hear Mr. Eric Bolton describe their proposals as "cloud cuckoo land".

To people who seek to follow the Labour party's proposals in this area I suggest that the new clause demonstrates very deep and very worrying confusion. Her Majesty's inspectorate—presumably still under the control of the education standards commission—would apparently have executive responsibilities. That is what the new clause suggests. The chief inspectors would be responsible for the curriculum in all schools. As well as supposedly advising the Secretary of State on policy and standards, they would take on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the local education authorities, the governors, the heads and the senior management of schools. For good measure, it appears that the inspector is meant also to advise in respect of a number of other matters, including resources.

I was interested that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said nothing about the importance of separating inspection from advice. I recommend to him a good paragraph in "Raising the Standard": We propose that every LEA should be placed under a legal duty to maintain a local inspectorate of schools, separate from any team of advisers or advisory teachers. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central will recognise those words, and he should own up to them. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)—whom I welcome to the Chamber—missed that point in Committee, where we enjoyed the confusion that reigned on the Opposition Benches in respect of this issue.

Although one can understand the Opposition having difficulty with their own Back Benchers, I never expected that they would have difficulty with members of their own Front Bench. It is no use the hon. Member for Leeds, Central looking to either side of him; he is the guilty man. In a document that has conveniently been leaked to me, the hon. Gentleman, without any hesitation, contradicts the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in "Raising the Standard". I refer to a letter written by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on 28 November 1991 to the secretary of the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers: The subsequent evaluation, monitoring and implernentation of new practices could be carried out by both the initial inspector or by a group of advisers. At this point, whilst we define separately the responsibility of inspection and advice we also recognise that in certain circumstances approved by the LEA and the Education Standards Commission inspection and advice could be offered by the same group of people. That is directly contrary to what was stated in "Raising the Standard" and to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackburn from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blackburn is not here to set the hon. Member for Leeds, Central right. I would welcome an intervention from the hon. Gentleman to explain whether Labour's policy is that described in "Raising the Standard" or that stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central in his letter to the Society of Chief Inspectors and Advisers. I suspect that the Opposition are in the same muddle on this as on every other issue—including taxation, over the past three weeks.

If the Opposition Front Bench cannot get its act together, how can we believe that they want to introduce effective inspection? New clause 2 is humbug. It clearly exposes the weakness that is at the heart of Labour's inspection policy, and demonstrates that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not speak to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central.

Mr. Fatchett

It is flattering of the Government to spend so much time on Labour's proposals. There is a growing consensus, which the Minister is prepared to support, that there will be a Labour Government before too long—when our proposals will be implemented.

It is characteristic of the Government that although the Minister spoke for one quarter of an hour, he did not once refer to new clause 2 or defend the Government's record. That is typical of the Government's tactics and negative approach.

The Minister called the new clause "humbug". If he regards the inspectorate's independence and integrity as humbug, he is not fit to serve as Minister of State. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response and will divide the House on new clause 2.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes, 203, Noes 285.

Division No. 60] [7.15 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.) Anderson, Donald
Allen, Graham Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Alton, David Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Grocott, Bruce
Ashton, Joe Hain, Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Hardy, Peter
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Barron, Kevin Haynes, Frank
Beckett, Margaret Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Beggs, Roy Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bell, Stuart Henderson, Doug
Bellotti, David Hinchliffe, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish) Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Benton, Joseph Home Robertson, John
Bermingham, Gerald Hood, Jimmy
Bid well, Sydney Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Blair, Tony Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Blunkett, David Howells, Geraint
Boateng, Paul Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Boyes, Roland Hoyle, Doug
Bradley, Keith Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Ingram, Adam
Caborn, Richard Janner, Greville
Callaghan, Jim Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Kennedy, Charles
Carr, Michael Kilfoyle, Peter
Cartwright, John Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Lambie, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Lamond, James
Clelland, David Leadbitter, Ted
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Leighton, Ron
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Corbett, Robin Lewis, Terry
Corbyn, Jeremy Litherland, Robert
Cousins, Jim Livingstone, Ken
Crowther, Stan Lloyd, Tony (Stretlord)
Cryer, Bob Loyden, Eddie
Cummings, John McAllion, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence McCartney, Ian
Cunningham, Dr John McCrea, Rev William
Dalyell, Tarn Macdonald, Calum A.
Darling, Alistair McFall, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) McKelvey, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Maclennan, Robert
Dewar, Donald McMaster, Gordon
Dixon, Don McNamara, Kevin
Dobson, Frank Madden, Max
Doran, Frank Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dunnachie, Jimmy Marek, Dr John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Eadie, Alexander Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Eastham, Ken Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Enright, Derek Martlew, Eric
Evans, John (St Helens N) Maxton, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Meacher, Michael
Fatchett, Derek Meale, Alan
Faulds, Andrew Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Fearn, Ronald Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Fisher, Mark Moonie, Dr Lewis
Flannery, Martin Morgan, Rhodri
Flynn, Paul Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foster, Derek Mowlam, Marjorie
Foulkes, George Mullin, Chris
Fraser, John Murphy, Paul
Fyfe, Maria Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Galbraith, Sam O'Brien, William
Galloway, George O'Hara, Edward
Garrett, John (Norwich South) O'Neill, Martin
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
George, Bruce Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Golding, Mrs Llin Parry, Robert
Gordon, Mildred Patchett, Terry
Gould, Bryan Pendry, Tom
Graham, Thomas Prescott, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Primarolo, Dawn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Quin, Ms Joyce
Reamona, Martin straw, JacK
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Robertson, George Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Rogers, Allan Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Rooker, Jeff Turner, Dennis
Rooney, Terence Vaz, Keith
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Walley, Joan
Ruddock, Joan Wareing, Robert N.
Sedgemore, Brian Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Sheerman, Barry Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Short, Clare Wilson, Brian
Skinner, Dennis Winnick, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) Worthington, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) Wray, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel
Steinberg, Gerry Tellers for the Ayes:
Stephen, Nicol Mr. Eric Illisley and
Stott, Roger Mr. Thomas McAvoy.
Strang, Gavin
NOES
Adley, Robert Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Alexander, Richard Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Couchman, James
Amess, David Cran, James
Amos, Alan Currie, Mrs Edwina
Arbuthnot, James Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Davis, David (Boothferry)
Arnold, Sir Thomas Day, Stephen
Ashby, David Devlin, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack Dickens, Geoffrey
Atkins, Robert Dicks, Terry
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Dorrell, Stephen
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Dover, Den
Batiste, Spencer Dunn, Bob
Bellingham, Henry Durant, Sir Anthony
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Dykes, Hugh
Benyon, W. Eggar, Tim
Bevan, David Gilroy Emery, Sir Peter
Biffen, Rt Hon John Evennett, David
Blackburn, Dr John G. Fallon, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Farr, Sir John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Favell, Tony
Boswell, Tim Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bottomley, Peter Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Fishburn, John Dudley
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Fookes, Dame Janet
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brazier, Julian Forth, Eric
Bright, Graham Fox, Sir Marcus
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Franks, Cecil
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Freeman, Roger
Browne, John (Winchester) French, Douglas
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Fry, Peter
Buck, Sir Antony Gale, Roger
Budgen, Nicholas Gardiner, Sir George
Burns, Simon Gill, Christopher
Burt, Alistair Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Butcher, John Goodhart, Sir Philip
Butler, Chris Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Butterfill, John Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Carrington, Matthew Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Carttiss, Michael Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Cash, William Gregory, Conal
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Chapman, Sydney Grist, Ian
Chope, Christopher Ground, Patrick
Churchill, Mr Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hague, William
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Colvin, Michael Hannam, Sir John
Conway, Derek Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Haselhurst, Alan Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hawkins, Christopher Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hayes, Jerry Norris, Steve
Hayward, Robert Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Oppenheim, Phillip
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Page, Richard
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) Paice, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Patnick, Irvine
Hill, James Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Hind, Kenneth Patten, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Pawsey, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Porter, David (Waveney)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Portillo, Michael
Hunter, Andrew Powell, William (Corby)
Irvine, Michael Price, Sir David
Irving, Sir Charles Raffan, Keith
Jack, Michael Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Jackson, Robert Rathbone, Tim
Janman, Tim Redwood, John
Jessel, Toby Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Riddick, Graham
Jones, Robert B (Herts W) Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Key, Robert Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Kilfedder, James Roe, Mrs Marion
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Rossi, Sir Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy Rost, Peter
Knapman, Roger Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Knowles, Michael Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Knox, David Sayeed, Jonathan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Shaw, David (Dover)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Latham, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lee, John (Pendle) Shelton, Sir William
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lightbown, David Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lord, Michael Soames, Hon Nicholas
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard Speller, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
McCrindle, Sir Robert Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Squire, Robin
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Steen, Anthony
Maclean, David Stern, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick Stevens, Lewis
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Madel, David Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Malins, Humfrey Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mans, Keith Summerson, Hugo
Maples, John Tapsell, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Taylor, Sir Teddy
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) Temple-Morris, Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Mates, Michael Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Maude, Hon Francis Thorne, Neil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Thornton, Malcolm
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Thurnham, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony Townend, John (Bridlingtonj
Miller, Sir Hal Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mills, lain Tracey, Richard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Tredinnick, David
Mitchell, Sir David Trotter, Neville
Moate, Roger Twinn, Dr Ian
Monro, Sir Hector Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Morris, M (N'hampton S) Walden, George
Morrison, Sir Charles Walker, Bill (Tside North)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter Waller, Gary
Moss, Malcolm Ward, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Neale, Sir Gerrard Warren, Kenneth
Needham, Richard Watts, John
Nelson, Anthony Wells, Bowen
Neubert, Sir Michael Wheeler, Sir John
Whitney, Ray Yeo, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wiggin, Jerry Younger, Rt Hon George
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann Tellers for the Noes:
Winterton, Nicholas Mr. John M. Taylor and
Wolfson, Mark Mr. Tom Sackville.
Wood, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to