HC Deb 06 July 1994 vol 246 cc375-89
Mrs. Ann Taylor

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 27, at end insert— '(1 A) A governing body exercising, or proposing to exercise, any power conferred by subsection (1) above shall, if the number of persons attending any course will exceed, or is in its opinion likely to exceed, such percentage of the school teachers of the schools concerned in the provision of the course as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe, take such steps as are reasonably practicable so to notify—

  1. (a) the parents of registered pupils at the school,
  2. (b) the applicants for the relevant course; and
    3. 376
  3. (c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.
The amendment relates to an important issue which caused an interesting debate in Committee. The amendment that we have tabled is somewhat different from the one which was discussed in Committee. It provides for information to be given to all parents and prospective students, and paragraph (c) provides for information to be given to such other persons as the Secretary of State may…specify". We would not normally include such a paragraph in an amendment, but we have done so in the hope that we can at last appeal to the Secretary of State for Education, or, indeed, on this occasion the Minister, in the absence yet again of the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be interested in providing information to parents and would perhaps attend this debate.

We have raised the issue of information again because we found it difficult to comprehend the -Government's attitude when we debated it in Committee. We think that it is important that Ministers reconsider their position on the vital issue of the information which parents need about important developments in the schools. Undoubtedly, if a school is to undertake school-centred initial teacher training, the impact that that will have on the school is of sufficient importance for the parents of any child in the school to be told of that development. I cannot understand why Ministers rejected that whole concept when it was debated in Committee.

One reason why I was amazed by the Government's attitude is that, two days before we debated the amendment in Committee, the so-called parents charter was published—a publication which cost £3 million of taxpayers' money and was sent to every home in the country. It provoked a great deal of indignation. I received letters such as this one, which says: I thought you would like to know that I have received two copies (so far!) of the 'Parents charter'. It's all utter nonsense and a complete waste of money anyway. I am 71 years, with children of 45 and 42! I shall be returning both to Mr. Patten, and asking him why so much money is, once again, being wasted.

Mr. Don Foster

Is the hon. Lady aware that the parents charter not only caused much annoyance, as she has rightly described, and cost some £3 million but was factually inaccurate?

Mrs. Taylor

I have had correspondence complaining about factual inaccuracies, not least the inaccuracy that parents must send their children to school. In fact, there are provisions for children to be taught at home in certain circumstances.

Mr. Robin Squire

At the risk of going far wider than the amendment, may I put on record the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the admirable document thus distributed was not intended as a full summary of legal rights in legal terminology. It was written in an accessible way, which most people welcomed. If people want legal advice, they get it. They would not rely on a booklet of that sort.

7.30 pm
Mrs. Taylor

The Minister had a broad smile on his face when he tried that explanation. If the document was not intended to give extensive information, his intervention was a confession that it was nothing more than an expensive public relations exercise. Perhaps that is not surprising from a Department that now spends £90 for every £1 that it spent in 1979 on self-publicity. Such publicity is one of the greatest growth areas in public expenditure, as far as the Government are concerned.

Like many of my colleagues, I have received numerous letters about the parents charter. It was supposed to contain information for parents. At the time, the Secretary of State issued a press release and made statements about the importance of information to parents, yet when we discussed our modest amendment in Committee two days later, Conservative Members were at great pains to talk us down—it was a painful and peculiar argument. When they did not succeed in doing so, they voted down the constructive amendment that we had tabled.

Then and now, the simple purpose behind our amendments seems to have escaped Conservative Members. In Committee, they seemed unable to decide whether the amendments would enforce on schools some new bureaucratic provision—perhaps the arguments will be used again this evening—or whether they were simply unnecessary because parents would find out about what was happening in schools anyway. The Minister may be indicating which it is, but it is not satisfactory for parents to learn by osmosis about what is going on in schools.

It is a significant step for a school to embark on teacher training as well as teaching children. I would not be happy if such a development took place at my children's schools and I would certainly not be happy if it took place without my knowledge. Parents have an absolute right to that type of information.

The Minister is doing something that Members on both sides of the House said was not the way forward: he is rejecting the amendment simply because it was tabled by the Opposition, as he did in Committee. Why else would Ministers, who had talked of the importance of information, put down the idea of giving information to parents? The amendment is not burdensome; it is very practical. As has been suggested, the information could have been extended to all partnership schools. As we said in Committee, we are willing to take that on board.

Mr. Robin Squire

If, as the hon. Lady reiterates, she would like the provision to be extended to all schools, why is that not reflected in the amendment?

Mrs. Taylor

This amendment is broader and allows the Secretary of State to make provision for that extension. I should have thought that the junior Minister, who is replying to this debate, would have said that the provisions in paragraph (a) would allow all parents of any pupils involved to be told.

If the Minister is saying that there is a technical deficiency and that he will embrace the spirit of the amendment, which is the same as the spirit of the amendment that he turned down in Committee, we may be making some progress. We offered the Minister that option in Committee, but he rejected it.

I had hoped that Ministers would look again at the reports of our debates in Committee, not least because I know that the two junior Ministers present are more reasonable than some of their colleagues in the Department. Obviously, that description does not extend to their being allowed to make their own decisions. They have to follow the briefs determined by others, which is rather disappointing.

If we are to agree that parents should have as much information about their children's education as possible, what was wrong with the amendment that we tabled in Committee? We have tried to adopt the spirit of that amendment here and I hope that the Minister will have a more constructive attitude this evening.

We included paragraph (b) in the amendment, not merely to keep it in order and give it a different dimension so that we could debate it, but so that we could ask about the provisions for ensuring that prospective students get sufficient information about the number of other students in a school and the full arrangements there, not least because parents can become worried when there are many student teachers in a school at any one time. Most parents do not mind the presence of the occasional student—they welcome it and that is how partnerships have developed. Students have a right to know all the information and that is why we have included that paragraph.

Parental concern will only increase if information is denied. It is not adequate to say that parents will find out anyway, either from parent-teacher organisations or from parent governors. Their methods of reporting back are not always sophisticated or well developed. It is not good enough just to say that that will happen and that parents will find out. Parents have a right to know what is going on. I want that right to be extended so that they are consulted before courses take place. Forward-looking schools will try to consult parents and to discuss those issues with them before they embark on courses. That would be good practice on the part of the school, and it ought not to divide us.

I hope that the Minister will not use his prejudices and the fact that the amendment has come from the Opposition to talk it down. Our attitude to providing information to parents ought to be based on the principle that local parents need local information. The provision of such information would be one key plank of the local information that parents should be entitled to, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South)

Following on from what my hon Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the principle of the amendment is that parents have the right to know. If the Government accept the amendment, they will be instructing school governing bodies to inform parents of changes that will take place in their schools if they become a centre for initial teacher training for postgraduates. That principle is right and proper, and I hope that the Minister will accept its strength. I hope that he will also accept that, if the amendment is enshrined in the Bill, it will strengthen the information available to parents.

In Committee, there were no objections, in principle, to the aim of the amendment that we tabled. When the Minister summed up in that debate, he merely pointed out what he thought were the practical objections. I hope that he has had time to reflect on the fact that the principle is the right one. If we need support for the principle, we need look no further than his noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who said: I do not think that any school would embark on a school-centred scheme unless it were able to convince and in due course demonstrate to local parents that the effect was beneficial to their pupils."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 1994, Vol. 553, c. 36.] Clearly, that is the right state of affairs. Schools should be able to convince parents of pupils at the school that if they embark on the course it will be good for the school, good for the education that children receive there and good for the students who participate in that form of initial teacher training. I do not feel that there is anything in principle to which the Government could object, and there is a great deal in principle that they should accept.

If initial teacher training based in schools is good for the students, that is another mechanism by which the Government can promote the benefits of school-based initial teacher training. What better way could there be than to say to parents that the school wants to be involved in the scheme and these are the benefits of it? It is an ideal mechanism to amplify the benefits of the training.

If schools want to become part of consortia delivering initial teacher training in schools for postgraduate students, that will involve a fundamental change to the school itself. The students will be in school for 24 weeks a year and will be teaching a range of pupils throughout the national curriculum. In itself, that is a fundamental change.

Parents need to know throughout their children's school career whether they will be subjected to a large percentage of teaching by student teachers. It may well be good, indifferent or awful teaching, because that is the benefit of initial teacher training exercises. The students learn the practicalities of teaching and the skills which go with that. Sometimes they will fail, and sometimes they will succeed. But parents need to know that that is an on-going feature of life at the school.

The Government should accept the amendment because they should recognise that there will be a fundamental change in the schools themselves. Teachers in those schools will have another job to do. Not only will teachers have to teach; they will have to become mentors for the students in the schools. One of the benefits of the scheme, we are told, is that good teachers pass on their skills to the students in a practical way. The good teachers may be taken out of the classroom and made student mentors, and they will be taken away from the job that they are good at. Parents need to know that that is a potential for the school if it contemplates that change.

7.45 pm

If I understand the process right, teachers—in addition to their teaching commitments in schools—will have to devote about 40 hours per student extra time for those students to receive the benefit of their mentors. Amendment No. 22 is absolutely essential so that parents can be told what is going on in schools. Clearly, parents have a right to know and to be informed about major changes in schools. I cannot contemplate many changes in the systems and structures of schools more major than that they become schools where initial teacher training for postgraduate students takes place.

In Committee, the Minister argued that the Opposition's request would be unduly bureaucratic. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) put it another way and, in a Freudian slip, said that it might be unduly democratic. We think that it was a Freudian slip—we are not sure. There may be other Freudian analyses one could place on what the hon. Gentleman said. He was probably saying the truth, but it was a subliminal intervention. [Interruption.] I shall make no mention of the parentage of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope). He was acutely embarrassed by the suggestion that his father might be the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.

I do not think that the measure would be unduly bureaucratic. A requirement to inform parents of a fundamental change does not involve teachers in any bureaucracy—it involves the school's administration in informing parents. The Government cannot hide behind that argument any more. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will not refer to what have been termed previously "unduly bureaucratic" problems with the amendment.

We were also told in Committee that the measure may be unduly costly. I am not sure what cost will be involved in informing parents of a change to the situation in schools. I do not think that there is any dispute about the fact that this is a fundamental change, and I do not think that the cost of a postage stamp on a letter to parents to say that the change will take place is over-burdensome. It would be an important step in the right direction.

Another argument against the amendment is that school-centred initial teacher training would be set aside from the school partnership for teacher training. There would be two different aspects—one provided by consortia, and one provided in partnership with institutes of higher education. Clearly that distinction no longer applies to the way in which amendment No. 22 is worded. All schools contemplating any change in that way will be obliged to tell parents about it. That is another practical argument which has been removed from the armoury that the Minister tried to deploy in Committee.

We were then told, interestingly, that parents were already involved in decision-making in governing bodies through parent governors. We have been told that it would be up to parent governors themselves to consult parents about whether they needed to know about any change. I do not think that that is good enough.

I send my son to a school in which consortia are involved in the provision of initial teacher training for postgraduate students. I was not informed by the parent governor that that would take place, nor was I informed by the governing body or by the school hierarchy. I was informed by my wife, who teaches at the school. I had privileged information. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) makes a comment about that from a sedentary position.

Other parents who send their children to the school do not know that that is going on, and they have a right to know. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet to defend the rights of parents. I know what is going on because my wife teaches at the school. I am quite sure that other parents do not know. We just cannot rely on parent governors to consult their electorate on that issue.

We have been told that the governing body has a range of important decisions to take, of which this is only one. The decision on whether a school is to get involved in the initial teacher training of postgraduate students is important, and parents ought to know. We were told by the Minister that that suggestion flies in the face of reason. What is unreasonable about asking school governors and governing bodies to inform parents that a change is taking place in the school? There are many reasons for arguing that the Minister was wrong to say that the amendment flies in the face of reason.

The final argument left in the Minister's armoury was that the measure was a vendetta against one sort of teacher training. Frankly, that is nonsense. The amendment takes cognisance of the fact that the Minister would like to ensure that all schools involved in the scheme are treated in the same way. The amendment attempts to be even-handed.

It is straightforward, simple, right and proper that parents should be consulted about changes in schools. The amendment gives fact to that desire and principle. I hope that, on this occasion, we do not have matters of practicality placed before the interests of parents. We should give them the right to know what goes on in schools to which they send their children.

Mr. Pickthall

There are rumours that members of the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) have been seen wandering the corridors of the Palace looking for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Judging by the latter's absence, they perhaps found him.

We had some interesting debates in Committee about the nature of and the right to information. One in particular dealt with the Government's refusal to countenance the Teacher Training Agency passing relevant information to those bodies which might be subject to its decisions. One expected that they would do it, but the Government refused to enshrine that in the Bill.

The reasons for the amendment have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), so I shall be fairly brief. The amendment hovers around the impact that school-centred initial teacher training will have on pupils and parents in the schools where it applies. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said in his pious way, in an intervention, that the most important part of the education system was the pupils and their parents. We are glad that he has discovered that, but it surely follows that those are the people who should have the relevant information—pupils when it would be useful to them, of course, but parents in particular, especially those in the process of choosing schools for their children. The nature of those schools could change significantly in the near future.

The reason why parents need that information—and, I believe, would demand it—is that student teachers present problems, under any system. They add a great deal to schools because they are fresh and new and may have more adventurous ideas than teachers who have been at the same school for some time; but they are bound to disrupt the flow of school work to some extent. That is true of schools with only one or two student teachers, and it will be even more true of schools that take on more of them for longer.

One of the most useful functions of the higher education sector, which has been derided by some Conservative Members and praised by others, including the Ministers—I give them credit for that—has been its hard work in trying to alleviate the problem of disruption caused by student teachers. As I said in Committee, a teacher at my children's school who had the misfortune to have three students teaching his class in rapid succession was subsequently unable to co-ordinate a proper display for the parents' open evening. That caused some consternation among parents who wanted to know how their children had been affected by the presence of student teachers. As it happened, the students appear to have been competent, and no harm was done.

Inevitably, teachers—from top to bottom—are distracted to some extent by the presence of students for whom they must be responsible, however seriously they may or may not take that responsibility. Parents need to know the position. One of the factors that make them accept the fact that, for a time, their children will be taught by students is the link with higher education and the knowledge that an attempt has been made to make the children's experience reasonably good.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly supported the idea of partnerships. The evidence from such partnerships shows that schools fear over-exposure of their pupils to student teachers; parents deserve to be able to make a rational judgment about that in advance.

Although parents are probably the most important recipients of the information that the amendment demands, it also mentions the applicants for the relevant course". As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, they too are important. Prospective student teachers should be told as much as possible about the quality of the course, its record of success—if it has got that far—and the employment prospects that a consortium course would provide. Paragraph (c) would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to specify other recipients of information, which I think should include local education authorities.

The organisation of schooling is a complex affair in any area. Despite the general tenor of the education reforms that have taken place in the past 10 years, schools are still interdependent and local authorities must still balance one against another in many respects. In the event of significant changes that could affect the uptake of places, for example, a local authority's relations with schools other than those in the consortium could be disrupted.

The amendment would also allow information to be passed, as of right, by governing bodies to the higher education institutions that had formerly provided schools with trainee teachers. That could have a significant effect if a consortium were fairly large and, say, 20 students were removed from the ambit of the local college or university. That is the equivalent of one member of staff, or perhaps more. Whatever view may be taken about that particular debate, the higher education institution concerned should be given the relevant information, as should other schools in the area.

As I have said, schools are not isolated entities. They have links of many kinds with other schools in their areas—not just the links between primary and secondary schools, but those among clusters of schools. The arrival of a SCITT consortium could change all that.

The amendment is eminently sensible. It requests the free passage of information to the people who are most likely to be affected by the results of the decisions involved, and I should have thought that any Government with the remotest belief in the usefulness of a right to information could not do other than accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) listed the opposing arguments advanced in Committee, and effectively demolished each of them. On reflection, I feel that a very poor argument was put up against a simple and straightforward proposition.

Mr. Robin Squire

Coming to this discussion for the second time, I shall endeavour—in the light of strictures, not least those of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall)—to advance an even stronger argument, and persuade the House to continue its support for my original line.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her team have made a number of attempts, in the form of amendments, to return to the gist of an amendment that was voted down in Committee. I shall not rehearse the details; as hon. Members have recognised, the same principle is involved. We are now debating only one amendment, which seeks to ensure that, when schools are heavily involved in SCITT, information about that is made available to parents and others.

Mr. Win Griffiths

Simple.

8 pm

Mr. Squire

As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, it is simple. But, as I shall seek to point out, a number of issues lie behind that simple concept.

First, do the existing channels of information for parents and others—never stronger than at present owing to the Government's reforms—set an adequate framework to ensure that parents and others have the information about school-centred training which they need? We believe that they do.

Mr. Hall

rose—

Mr. Squire

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for a few moments longer, I shall seek to develop that argument further.

Secondly, if more information proves to be required, do we need primary legislation of this rather odd sort to ensure that it is provided? I submit that we do not. And thirdly—as we have asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) every time she raises this point—why does she see an unmet need for information about school-centred training but has made no attempt to secure information flows about school-based training? I am sure that she does not seek to make life more difficult for schools that choose to offer their own courses.

Hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee—one or two are now in the Chamber—may need reminding that, on any reasonable projection, the number of schools and teachers involved in school-centred initial teacher training for the foreseeable future will be but a fraction of the schools and teacher-students involved in school-based training.

Mr. Hall

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Squire

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in a moment. As he said in his speech, there is concern about the impact that teacher training would have on schools. If that concern exists, why does not the amendment address the majority instead of just the minority?

Mr. Hall

The amendment takes account of the precise point that the Minister has just made. It refers to schools in general. If that is the only difference between us, he should table an amendment to cover that point. Paragraph (c) of the amendment covers that by dealing with what the Secretary of State may deem appropriate under the clause.

Mr. Squire

I like the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that does not cause him significant difficulties back home—but he cannot get away with that. The amendment refers to clause 12, which deals specifically with school-centred initial teacher training. Many responsibilities are put on Governments, most of them quite rightly, but it is not a Government's responsibility to assist Opposition Members in putting their amendments in order or redrafting them as they say they wish them to be. The Opposition are entitled to table what they wish, but they must then be judged on the basis of their amendments.

Mr. Pickthall

Even accepting what the Minister has just said, he must recognise that we are discussing a matter of concentration and quality. He is absolutely right to say that parents of pupils in schools that already have an extension of school-based teacher education are entitled to information on that, but the SCITT schools involve a different concentration of student activity. That is what we have been concerned about throughout most of this afternoon's debate. Does the Minister recognise that there is a qualitative difference between the two?

Mr. Squire

On the evidence of my contact with both sorts of course, any significant difference lies with whether the school is involved in training, not between school-based and school-centred training. Of course there are differences but the difference which the amendment deals with is more than the difference between whether or not a school is involved. The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with me in that respect, but I assure him that, on the evidence of my visits and those of others, it is true. The school-centred aspect is not significant; there are differences, small as they are.

On the adequacy of current information arrangements for parents, parent-governors in all schools have an open line to those who elected them. Each year, the governing body as a whole must report in writing to parents and hold an open meeting to allow face-to-face discussion. The effectiveness of teaching and learning in schools will be reported on publicly every four years via OFSTED inspections. A prospectus is issued each year setting out what a school offers its pupils, which, as well as meeting statutory requirements is, in practice, likely to stress any distinctive features of the school, for obvious reasons.

Given all of that, how could a school keep the size and nature of its commitment to teacher training a secret? Those running school-centred schemes will not want to do so. They are proud of their commitment to becoming "teaching schools" and publicise it locally not only to show that they have been selected as potential providers of high-quality training, but to encourage local applicants to their courses. School-centred training has absolutely no incentive to hide its light under a bushel.

If, despite all that I have said, a school appeared to be less than enthusiastic about publicising its involvement and parents failed to have the necessary information, that could be tackled under existing legislation. For instance, we could use the regulation-making powers that govern the content of prospectuses and annual reports if that should ever prove necessary. Moreover, the agency could use its powers under clause 6 to ensure that information about courses that it funds is made available to those who need it.

We would never make regulations in the simplistic terms suggested in the amendment. The number of students as a percentage of the number of teachers across a consortium says nothing about the degree of teachers' involvement in or pupils' exposure to students in any one school. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was in the Chamber earlier, is an ex-maths teacher. If he were here now, he would confirm that point.

Were we to go down the route of using regulations or conditions of grant, we should certainly want to treat all forms of teacher training on all fours. For completeness, I should mention how prospective students are to receive information about courses. They, too, will have access to prospectuses, the contents of which may be influenced by the agency under clause 6. Those requirements will bite on all providers of courses—higher education and schools—and allow us to ensure that students have all the information that they need to choose courses.

I could say more, but I am conscious that the House wants to make progress. I have demonstrated that the amendment is, in practice, unnecessary. I shall leave aside certain mechanical restraints. Despite our differences over other aspects of the Bill, I urge the hon. Member for Dewsbury on reflection to withdraw the amendment on the basis that what it seeks to secure will normally happen. In the event of it not happening, adequate alternative avenues exist. If she insists on pushing the amendment to a vote, I must ask the House to resist it.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

May I say just a few words in response to the Minister's arguments? This evening he has struggled even more desperately than he did in Committee to defend the indefensible. We know that he is a reasonable man and that his heart is not in such arguments.

First, the Minister said that providing such information to parents was a simple concept. When we tabled the original amendment in Committee, we thought that that was so and that, on that basis and in view of all that Ministers had said in the parents charter and elsewhere, this might be the one amendment which Ministers would accept. They have struggled to find arguments against it.

The Minister says that channels already exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) demonstrated that there are significant inadequacies. The Minister attempted to create a smokescreen by creating a division between school-centred initial teacher training courses and school-based teacher education. I conceded earlier this evening, as I did in Committee, that I would prefer all parents in those circumstances to find out what is happening in their schools.

The difference between school-centred and school-based ITT is significant and parents should understand its full implications. It is not simply that the funding of a school may be affected by any such arrangement but that, if a school embarks on school-centred ITT, it will have significant additional responsibilities for the education of teachers as well as their training and organisational matters, perhaps including co-operation with other schools. Those strains on already heavily stretched administrative services in schools could be significant. How can a governing body guarantee that parents are told at the right time?

It does no one any good to raise petty objections to this fundamental amendment. Sufficient mechanisms may be in place for informing students; sufficient mechanisms are certainly not in place for informing parents.

The Minister implied that the Secretary of State could use other powers or that the Teacher Training Agency could use its powers. I believe that the House should express its will tonight, and we should say that parents should be informed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 268.

Division No. 288] [8.09 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Fisher, Mark
Allen, Graham Flynn, Paul
Alton, David Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Foster, Don (Bath)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Fraser, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Fyfe, Maria
Ashton, Joe Galloway, George
Barnes, Harry Gapes, Mike
Barron, Kevin Gerrard, Neil
Battle, John Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bayley, Hugh Godman, Dr Norman A.
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Godsiff, Roger
Beith, Rt Hon A. J. Golding, Mrs Llin
Bell, Stuart Gordon, Mildred
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Graham, Thomas
Bennett, Andrew F. Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Benton, Joe Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bermingham, Gerald Grocott, Bruce
Berry, Roger Gunnell, John
Betts, Clive Hall, Mike
Blunkett, David Hanson, David
Boateng, Paul Harvey, Nick
Boyes, Roland Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bradley, Keith Henderson, Doug
Bray, Dr Jeremy Heppell, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) Hinchliffe, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Hodge, Margaret
Burden, Richard Hoey, Kate
Byers, Stephen Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Caborn, Richard Home Robertson, John
Callaghan, Jim Hoon, Geoffrey
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Canavan, Dennis Hoyle, Doug
Cann, Jamie Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Chidgey, David Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Chisholm, Malcolm Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clapham, Michael Hutton, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Illsley, Eric
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Clelland, David Jamieson, David
Coffey, Ann Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cohen, Harry Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Connarty, Michael Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Corbett, Robin Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy Keen, Alan
Cummings, John Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Khabra, Piara S.
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Kilfoyle, Peter
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Dalyell, Tam Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Darling, Alistair Lewis, Terry
Davidson, Ian Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Llwyd, Elfyn
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Loyden, Eddie
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Lynne, Ms Liz
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) McAvoy, Thomas
Denham, John McCartney, Ian
Dewar, Donald Mackinlay, Andrew
Dixon, Don McLeish, Henry
Dobson, Frank Maclennan, Robert
Dowd, Jim McMaster, Gordon
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth MacShane, Denis
Eastham, Ken McWilliam, John
Enright, Derek Madden, Max
Etherington, Bill Maddock, Mrs Diana
Evans, John (St Helens N) Marek, Dr John
Fatchett, Derek Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Martlew, Eric Rooney, Terry
Meacher, Michael Rowlands, Ted
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Ruddock, Joan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) Sedgemore, Brian
Milburn, Alan Sheerman, Barry
Miller, Andrew Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) Short, Clare
Moonie, Dr Lewis Simpson, Alan
Morgan, Rhodri Skinner, Dennis
Morley, Elliot Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Snape, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Soley, Clive
Mowlam, Marjorie Spearing, Nigel
Mudie, George Steinberg, Gerry
Murphy, Paul Stevenson, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, William (Normanton) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
O'Hara, Edward Timms, Stephen
Olner, William Tipping, Paddy
Parry, Robert Turner, Dennis
Patchett, Terry Vaz, Keith
Pendry, Tom Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Pickthall, Colin Walley, Joan
Pike, Peter L. Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Pope, Greg Wareing, Robert N
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Watson, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) Wicks, Malcolm
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Wigley, Dafydd
Prescott, John Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Purchase, Ken Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Quin, Ms Joyce Wilson, Brian
Radice, Giles Winnick, David
Randall, Stuart Worthington, Tony
Raynsford, Nick Wright, Dr Tony
Redmond, Martin Young, David (Bolton SE)
Reid, Dr John
Rendel, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) Mr. Alan Meale and
Roche, Mrs. Barbara Mr. John Spellar.
Rooker, Jeff
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Budgen, Nicholas
Aitken, Jonathan Burns, Simon
Alexander, Richard Burt, Alistair
Amess, David Butcher, John
Arbuthnot, James Butler, Peter
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Carrington, Matthew
Ashby, David Carttiss, Michael
Aspinwall, Jack Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Atkins, Robert Chapman, Sydney
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) Churchill, Mr
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Clappison, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Baldry, Tony Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Coe, Sebastian
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Colvin, Michael
Bates, Michael Congdon, David
Batiste, Spencer Conway, Derek
Bellingham, Henry Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Bendall, Vivian Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Beresford, Sir Paul Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Biffen, Rt Hon John Couchman, James
Body, Sir Richard Cran, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Booth, Hartley Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Boswell, Tim Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bowden, Sir Andrew Day, Stephen
Bowis, John Deva, Nirj Joseph
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Devlin, Tim
Brandreth, Gyles Dickens, Geoffrey
Brazier, Julian Dover, Den
Bright, Graham Duncan, Alan
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Duncan-Smith, Iain
Browning, Mrs. Angela Durant, Sir Anthony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Elletson, Harold Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Lidington, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Lightbown, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Evennett, David Lord, Michael
Faber, David Luff, Peter
Fabricant, Michael MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy MacKay, Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Maclean, David
Fishburn, Dudley McLoughlin, Patrick
Forman, Nigel McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Madel, Sir David
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) Maginnis, Ken
Forth, Eric Maitland, Lady Olga
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Malone, Gerald
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Mans, Keith
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) Marland, Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger Marlow, Tony
French, Douglas Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Fry, Sir Peter Merchant, Piers
Gale, Roger Mills, Iain
Gallie, Phil Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gardiner, Sir George Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Garnier, Edward Moate, Sir Roger
Gill, Christopher Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Gillan, Cheryl Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Nelson, Anthony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Neubert, Sir Michael
Gorst, Sir John Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW) Nicholls, Patrick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Norris, Steve
Grylls, Sir Michael Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hague, William Oppenheim, Phillip
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Ottaway, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith Page, Richard
Hannam, Sir John Paice, James
Hargreaves, Andrew Patnick, Irvine
Harris, David Patten, Rt Hon John
Haselhurst, Alan Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick Pawsey, James
Hawksley, Warren Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hayes, Jerry Pickles, Eric
Heald, Oliver Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hendry, Charles Rathbone, Tim
Hicks, Robert Redwood, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hill, James (Southampton Test) Richards, Rod
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) Riddick, Graham
Horam, John Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter Robathan, Andrew
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Howarth, Alan (Strar'rd-on-A) Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Hunter, Andrew Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Sackville, Tom
Jack, Michael Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jenkin, Bernard Shaw, David (Dover)
Jessel, Toby Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Key, Robert Shersby, Michael
Kilfedder, Sir James Sims, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knapman, Roger Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) Soames, Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby N) Speed, Sir Keith
Kynoch, George (Kincardine) Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Spink, Dr Robert
Lawrence, Sir Ivan Spring, Richard
Legg, Barry Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Leigh, Edward Stephen, Michael
Stern, Michael Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Stewart, Allan Ward, John
Streeter, Gary Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Sweeney, Walter Waterson, Nigel
Sykes, John Watts, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter Wells, Bowen
Taylor, Ian (Esher) Whitney, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter Whittingdale, John
Thomason, Roy Widdecombe, Ann
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Thurnham, Peter Willetts, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) Wilshire, David
Tracey, Richard Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Trend, Michael Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Trotter, Neville Wolfson, Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Viggers, Peter Tellers for the Noes:
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William Mr. Timothy Wood and
Walden, George Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Before we move to amendment No. 27, I have to say that I understand that there was a slight technical hitch earlier in that a small Government amendment, amendment No. 1, which should have been moved formally, was not. With the concurrence of the House, I shall put that now.

Forward to