- ( )—(1) Each local education authority shall determine, and notify the Secretary of State as to targets for the maximum number of pupils in classes in maintained schools in its area with respect to such years and year groups as the Secretary of State may specify.
- (2) The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
- (3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local education authorities, or to governing bodies or headteachers of maintained schools, for the purposes of this section.".'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 12 presents us again with what was new clause 90, which was debated and withdrawn in Committee on 16 January. It seeks to allow the phasing in of our proposals for reduction in class sizes, whose good sense I hope the Government will recognise. It is framed as an insert in the curriculum section of the Education Act 1996, to follow section 355. Section 355 deals with "teaching groups", which is the only definition of classes of which I am aware. The new clause attempts to focus debate on the curriculum benefits of smaller class sizes, and notes the role of governors and heads—who control class sizes—in enabling guidance to be issued to them as well as to local education authorities.
As I have said, the issue was debated at length in Committee. Indeed, it has been debated at length in the House and elsewhere on many occasions. The arguments are simple. All other things being equal, teachers teach better and children learn more easily if teachers have to work with fewer children at a time.
I note that no one dissents at this stage from that statement of the obvious. Common sense says that it must be so. Academic research proves it, and parents, governors and teachers believe it. Children themselves know it to be true. The Government alone, like the people who persecuted Galileo, persist in insisting that the educational world is flat.
Of course, all things are not equal—certainly not the Government's attitude towards education in different parts of the maintained sector. An excellent teacher will do well for a class of 40, even if he or she is acutely aware that he or she could have done much better with 20 children at a time. The poor teacher will fail to communicate and engage with a class of 15, although it is likely that confrontation with 35 could lead to total failure.
Devoid of rational argument and adrift from common sense, the Minister has persistently sought to compare the best with the worst in teaching, as if that somehow proved that class size made no difference. In Standing Committee, he led us down the byways of individual Members' decisions about their children's education. I thought that I would mention that before the Minister does. [Interruption.] He can be my guest and raise it at any stage that he sees fit, but for all his typically robust performance on that occasion—presumably he will repeat it tonight—few would be persuaded by his tortured logic. "Tautology" should be his middle name.
198 All things are not equal in another sense. The assisted places scheme allows a small minority of people to buy into smaller class sizes at the taxpayer's expense, but it is not just the anonymous taxpayer who pays for that. The privilege is bought at the expense of every child who suffers from the inflated class sizes that are imposed on the public sector by this parsimonious Administration. That is one inequality that Labour can—and, when in office, will—rectify.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Islington has class sizes of only 15 and it does not do a good job, so people go out of Islington into other boroughs?
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
The hon. Lady suggests that class sizes are not relevant to the way in which standards rise or fall in any given school. She may—or may not—understand that other factors are involved, but class size is important in raising standards for all children. That is the perceived wisdom in education, and I would far sooner go with that perceived wisdom than with the hon. Lady and her somewhat idiosyncratic views on education.
In Standing Committee, the Minister produced some odd figures that purported to show that little would be saved from abandoning the assisted places scheme. His calculations relied on some strange assumptions about education's cost. The independent work that we have commissioned through the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales shows that the likely savings from phasing out the scheme will allow us to make real progress in reducing class sizes in the lifetime of the first Parliament of the incoming Labour Government, but, even if the Minister were correct, our policy would still be right.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
If an incoming Labour Government did abolish the assisted places scheme, the saving would fund one teacher for every seven schools.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I have of course heard that soundbite before, but if the hon. Lady cares to consider the way in which the new clause has been constructed, she will find that it is a matter for consultation across a given area, so that all stakeholders can have a say in how class sizes can be reduced.
Resources are restricted, but it is fundamentally wrong anyway for significant sums of public money to be spent on buying an advantage for the few, which the Government perversely and persistently deny to the many. That does not take into account the arguments that I am sure will be advanced, certainly by Conservative Members, about the dead weight cost that is inherent in schemes such as the assisted places scheme.
It is far more sensible for education funding—the incoming Labour Government will realise this at the earliest opportunity—to be put into the reduction of class sizes rather than to allow the current 35,000 or 36,000 or so pupils to be taken out—or, as one hon. Member put it in our debate last night, to escape from comprehensive schools and from the maintained sector generally.
I therefore hope that good sense will obtain on Report, and that the Government will finally bow to the inevitable. There is a better way to spend the money that goes on the 199 assisted places scheme. The most appropriate way is the Labour way, of dedicating that resourcing to reducing class sizes.
A huge number of children are in classes of over 30 pupils—over 20,000 children are taught in classes of over 40—so the new clause is the way forward in education.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)
The hon. Gentleman appears to be repeating himself about the reduction in class sizes. Does he not realise that the average cost of an assisted place is less than the amount that is put into the education budget for a place in any inner-London school?
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
It is nonsense to propagate the myth that an assisted place costs less than a place in a typical maintained school, but the point is that the sum total of that money can, as the new clause suggests, be dedicated through grants to ensuring that class sizes are reduced for the many, rather than being an advantage proffered to the few.
§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)
I back my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). The new clause does not explicitly say anything about the assisted places scheme, but my hon. Friend is correct to point out that the new clause states:The Secretary of State for Education and Employment may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.The Minister knows that the Labour party has explicitly said that money from the assisted places scheme will be used to reduce class sizes for primary school pupils. We must recognise that the reason for doing that is that we believe that it is proper for that money to be used for the benefit of the many, not of the few. It may serve some people well, but the assisted places scheme reaches a limited number of people. Having a policy that potentially affects everyone in a primary school is clearly a far more equitable distribution of those resources.
It is obvious to everyone except Conservative Members that the size of a class is a factor in the performance of pupils in that class.
§ Mr. Gunnell
The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a point, he can do so. Is he anxious to make that point?
§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
We are listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and we are enjoying it.
§ Mr. Gunnell
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is enjoying my speech.
Let me put it like this. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) says, "Put more money in." Obviously, that money must come from somewhere. On every spending pledge that the Labour party has made, it has been explicit about where the money comes from.
That is why the myth that I have heard repeated again and again at Prime Minister's Question Time—that the Labour party has made £30 billion of election pledges— 200 is complete nonsense. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) knows that that myth is complete nonsense and a fiction. We have made it clear where the money is coming from in our pledges, and we intend to continue to do that. The Government are on a false trail if they wish to label us as spendthrifts. We have made it clear that education is a priority. It is a priority for us to reduce class sizes in primary schools.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
The hon. Gentleman has said that, if the ultimate disaster happened and it got into power, the Labour party in government would not be spendthrift. Why, when providing a given level of service anywhere in the country, do Labour local authorities cost much more than Conservative local authorities?
§ Mr. Gunnell
That is a contentious statement. If the hon. Gentleman takes into account the spending and grants per head in Westminster, he will find it very hard to take the view that Labour authorities consistently spend more than Conservative authorities. Labour authorities are certainly more concerned with the level of public services that they provide. I do not think that his thesis holds water.
There is a popular belief, which the Minister apparently does not share, that smaller class sizes mean better pupil performance and a better life for teachers. Advertisements for almost every private sector school boast small classes. Why would they advertise that their classes were small if they did not think that it was attractive to parents and that it improved the school's educational performance? They know that small classes are an important selling point. It is not part of Labour's argument that such schools are not offering a good education to their pupils. Class size is one of the factors that enables them to do so.
I taught in a United Nations school that was neither public nor private; it was private to the citizens of New York but public to those for whom it was set up: children of people at the UN. Like most schools of its sort, it advertised—although it did not really need to, because it was known throughout the UN—that its class sizes were reasonable, and certainly a good deal smaller than the 30 about which we have talked.
Everyone knows that class size is important, but it is not the only important factor. The primary school in the greatest demand in my constituency has classes—certainly on entry—of as many as 39 pupils. I am sure that people at that school wish that the classes were smaller. The school's quality is due in part to the staff, in part to the facilities and in part to the area in which it is situated. It is a very popular school, and many therefore want to go to it.
I ask the Minister to name research—
§ Mr. Gunnell
He might find some research that shows that other factors are very important, but he will not find any that shows that class size has no effect on pupil performance. Popular belief is backed by evidence and research. Much research on class size has been conducted in the United States, and it all points to the fact that reducing class numbers is relevant to pupils' progress. 201 Class size is also a factor in the ability of staff to cope and give individual attention to their pupils. A consistent stream of evidence points in favour of smaller class sizes.
In choosing as its priority in education the reduction of class sizes in primary schools, the Labour party has taken a very wise step, which is fully in tune with public opinion. One of the concerns expressed among people when talking about their local school is about the amount of attention that their child receives. It is common sense that it is not possible to give the same attention to each child in a class of 40 as it is to those in a class of 30 or fewer. The fact is self-evident, backed by research and condoned by almost everybody in the education system; yet Conservative Members seem to think that it is of little or no importance.
I look forward to hearing the Minister cite research that demonstrates that class size is irrelevant to pupil performance. I have not argued—and would not—that class size is the only factor. There are plenty of others—
§ Mr. Marlow
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you have been following the debate very carefully. I was always brought up to believe that there was something called tedious repetition. I am sure that you will assist the House if it comes about.
§ Mr. Gunnell
The reason why we have spent so much time debating class size is that we consider that it is very important. It is clear to the public that one of the messages on education that the Labour party has sought to get across is that the start that children get is fundamental to their continued progress in the system. There is no doubt that pupil performance is affected by class size. I look forward to the Minister demonstrating that it is not.
§ Mr. Forth
We have come to recognise that Labour Members believe that, if they peddle a shibboleth often enough, people might begin to believe it. I shall explain why not all parents seem to have been persuaded of the much-repeated shibboleth about class size, and I shall name names. Before I do so, I note that, at the very least, we have seen Labour Members backing off from some of the wilder claims that they used to make on the subject. The wording of the new clause is modest, to put it mildly.
Labour Members are saying that there will be a determination of targets for maximum numbers of pupils in classes and thatThe Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes ofreducing numbers. They omit to point out that, unless they propose to change the whole system of education funding, giving an LEA money does not guarantee that it will spend it on the named objective. We can all think of many LEAs that have not spent their education money in anything like the way that was intended.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I am sure that the Minister will go on to give us a very full list of authorities that—he will allege—have misspent their funding. I refer him to Subsection (2) of the new clause, which says specifically that any 202 funding would take the form of grants. Such funding would not be subsumed in the generality of education funding.
§ Mr. Forth
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to subvert the long-established principle that, as we have always recognised, elected, accountable LEAs should make their own decisions on their priorities or that schools should make their own decisions on how they spend their money—whether on more teachers, buildings, books, equipment, or whatever—it marks a significant departure for Labour Members.
The new clause contains the implication—if not the certainty—that Labour Members now believe that they know, class by class throughout the nation, how many pupils should sit in front of a teacher in a classroom, the better to be taught. That is such a significant departure from what we have heard in the past that I suspect that some Labour Members may not be prepared to support it. I am sure that most of my hon. Friends would not, either.
Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believes that, if the assisted places scheme were abolished at some unspecified time during the period of office of the next Labour Government, some progress may begin to be made on some reduction in the numbers in some classes. I paraphrase his words only slightly.
That is perhaps a more honest statement than those of the past. The implication in the past was that, if one abolished the assisted places scheme, the alleged problem of oversized classes would be resolved. Now we are hearing a rather clearer idea that, since there would not be anything like enough the money that was needed as a result of the scheme's abolition, Labour could not in any case meet the target.
The only correction that I would make to the figures given in the very useful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is that, according to my figures, the abolition of the assisted places scheme would provide one extra teacher for every 90 schools. That provides some idea of how useless it would be to abolish the scheme.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) challenged me on the subject of research. Professor Mortimore—from no less than the university of London institute of education—has said that the impact of class size on education quality isat best not clear cut and at worst contradictory".The American research that he quoted is equally contradictory. Not only could the Americans not sustain the very small class sizes in their pilot projects—I know of no evidence that they have done so statewide, let alone nationwide—but they believe that other forms of intervention are generally much more likely to be cost-effective.
Time and again, we have heard from Labour Members that parents believe that smaller classes provide better education. I shall cite two pieces of evidence that I believe contradict that oft-repeated statement.
First, we know that parents who have a choice of school for their children prefer that they attend a popular school that provides an excellent education, even if it is over-subscribed and the choice means that their children 203 will attend large classes. Moreover, parents choose those schools knowing that the attendance of their children will further increase class size. They also choose those schools in preference to ones that may be just down the road—such as, for example, Hackney Downs, which was so awful that it had to be closed down, although it had a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, spent more per pupil than the assisted places scheme ever could.
Labour Members should think carefully about the second piece of evidence. They seem to be insulting the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition, and challenging the wisdom of his parental choice. As the House will know, class sizes in Islington—the borough in which he did not choose to educate his child—are smaller than those at the London Oratory school, which he did choose. If Labour Members require any evidence that parental choice contradicts their entire argument, they need only ask their own leader. I invite them to do so, and I invite the House to reject new clause 12.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I was quite taken by the Minister's Freudian slip about the "the next Labour Government"—which will not be long in coming, to put our policies into effect. He was very quick to correct the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) about one teacher for every seven schools, but he made no attempt to correct the figures provided by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who said something very different about the cost of places in the assisted places scheme compared to those in the maintained sector.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed the Tennessee Star research and said that it was inconsequential and covered conditions in America, and in only one American state. He attempted to make the same point by quoting Professor Mortimore, and said that the impact of class size is at best unproven. However, research from the university of London institute of education suggests quite the reverse. The Minister knows that, for every academic prepared to make one argument, it is possible to find another to argue the opposite.
What is the real test on the matter? In his reply, the Minister referred to the real test, which is parental choice and how that choice is exercised. There is no doubt what Conservative Members choose to do. They choose the independent sector, which uses smaller class sizes as one of its strongest selling points.
The Minister is a great advocate of choice and is determined to support parents' choice to opt for the independent sector—I do not disagree with that exercise of choice, for their children; if that is how people choose to spend their money, let them do so—but he is not prepared to offer the same choice to parents who say in overwhelming numbers that they would like smaller classes for their children. They do not have that choice, because places are not provided.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own speech, as he knows.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
As for the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), can the 204 Minister tell me the name of any Prime Minister with children in the maintained sector—as the next Prime Minister surely will? The Minister cannot produce an example. The Leader of the Opposition has made that commitment to the maintained sector.
We have repeatedly heard comments—true cant—from Conservative Members about the choices and children of Labour Members. In this debate and in Committee, the Minister has advocated choice. I am surprised that he does not now support the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, who chose the maintained over the independent sector.
The Minister's opening comments on the wording of new clause 12 were not critical but damned with faint praise. He said that, compared with previous comments made by Labour Members, the wording is "modest". If it is so modest, I am sure that the Government will find it in their heart to support it—to ensure that parents can choose smaller class sizes, which they so evidently want.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 295.208
|Division No. 56]||[6.45 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Cook, Robin (Livingston)|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Corbett, Robin|
|Ainger, Nick||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Corston, Ms Jean|
|Allen, Graham||Cousins, Jim|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Cox, Tom|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Cummings, John|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Ashton, Joseph||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)|
|Austin-Walker, John||Dafis, Cynog|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Dalyell, Tam|
|Barnes, Harry||Darling, Alistair|
|Barron, Kevin||Davidson, Ian|
|Battle, John||Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Davies, Chris (Littleborough)|
|Beggs, Roy||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Beith, A J||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Benn, Tony||Denham, John|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Dixon, Don|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dobson, Frank|
|Berry, Roger||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Betts, Clive||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Blair, Tony||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Blunkett, David||Eastham, Ken|
|Boateng, Paul||Ennis, Jeff|
|Bradley, Keith||Etherington, Bill|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Fatchett, Derek|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Burden, Richard||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Caborn, Richard||Fisher, Mark|
|Callaghan, Jim||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Fraser, John|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Fyfe, Mrs Maria|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Galbraith, Sam|
|Canavan, Dennis||Galloway, George|
|Cann, Jamie||Gapes, Mike|
|Chidgey, David||Garrett, John|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||George, Bruce|
|Clapham, Michael||Gerrard, Neil|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Gilbert, Dr John|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Clelland, David||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Gordon, Ms Mildred|
|Cohen, Harry||Graham, Thomas|
|Connarty, Michael||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Meacher, Michael|
|Grocott, Bruce||Meale, Alan|
|Gunnell, John||Michael, Alun|
|Hain, Peter||Milburn, Alan|
|Hall, Mike||Miller, Andrew|
|Hanson, David||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Hardy, Peter||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Harvey, Nick||Morley, Elliot|
|Hattersley, Roy||Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Heppell, John||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Mowlam, Ms Marjorie|
|Hinchliffe, David||Mudie, George|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Mullin, Chris|
|Hoey, Kate||Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)|
|Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)||Oakes, Gordon|
|Home Robertson, John||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Hood, Jimmy||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||O'Neill, Martin|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||Orme, Stanley|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Pearson, Ian|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Pendry, Tom|
|Hoyle, Doug||Pickthall, Colin|
|Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)||Pike, Peter L|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Pope, Greg|
|Hughes, Simon (Southward)||Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Hutton, John||Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)|
|Illsley, Eric||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Ingram, Adam||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)||Purchase, Ken|
|Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)||Radice, Giles|
|Jamieson, David||Randall, Stuart|
|Janner, Greville||Raynsford, Nick|
|Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)||Rendel, David|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)||Rogers, Allan|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)||Rooney, Terry|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Jowell, Ms Tessa||Ross, William (E Lond'y)|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Rowlands, Ted|
|Keen, Alan||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)||Sheerman, Barry|
|Khabra, Piara S||Sheldon, Robert|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Shore, Peter|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Terry||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Smith, Chris (Islington S)|
|Litherland, Robert||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)||Snape, Peter|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Soley, Clive|
|Loyden, Eddie||Spearing, Nigel|
|McAllion, John||Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Steel, Sir David|
|McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Macdonald, Calum||Stevenson, George|
|McFall, John||Stott, Roger|
|McKelvey, William||Strang, Dr Gavin|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|McLeish, Henry||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|MacShane, Denis||Thurnham, Peter|
|McWilliam, John||Timms, Stephen|
|Madden, Max||Tipping, Paddy|
|Maddock, Mrs Diana||Touhig, Don|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Trickett, Jon|
|Marek, Dr John||Turner, Dennis|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Tyler, Paul|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Vaz, Keith|
|Martin, Michael J (Springburn)||Walker, Sir Harold|
|Martlew, Eric||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Maxton, John||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Wareing, Robert N||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Wicks, Malcolm||Worthington, Tony|
|Wigley, Dafydd||Wray, Jimmy|
|Williams, Alan (Swansea W)||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wilson, Brian||Mr. Joe Benton and|
|Winnick, David||Mr. Kevin Hughes.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Day, Stephen|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Deva, Nirj Joseph|
|Alexander, Richard||Devlin, Tim|
|Alison, Michael (Selby)||Dicks, Terry|
|Amess, David||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Ancram, Michael||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Arbuthnot, James||Dover, Den|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Duncan, Alan|
|Ashby, David||Duncan Smith, Iain|
|Atkins, Robert||Dunn, Bob|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)||Eggar, Tim|
|Baldry, Tony||Elletson, Harold|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)|
|Bates, Michael||Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Evans, Roger (Monmouth)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Evennett, David|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Faber, David|
|Biffen, John||Fabricant, Michael|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Booth, Hartley||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Boswell, Tim||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Forman, Nigel|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Forth, Eric|
|Bowis, John||Fowler, Sir Norman|
|Boyson, Sir Rhodes||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)|
|Brazier, Julian||Freeman, Roger|
|Bright, Sir Graham||French, Douglas|
|Brooke, Peter||Fry, Sir Peter|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)||Gale, Roger|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Gallie, Phil|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Burns, Simon||Garnier, Edward|
|Burt, Alistair||Gill, Christopher|
|Butcher, John||Gillan, Mrs Cheryl|
|Butler, Peter||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Butterfill, John||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Carrington, Matthew||Gorst, Sir John|
|Carttiss, Michael||Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)|
|Cash, William||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Channon, Paul||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Churchill, Mr||Gummer, John|
|Clappison, James||Hague, William|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hannam, Sir John|
|Coe, Sebastian||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Congdon, David||Harris, David|
|Conway, Derek||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)||Hawkins, Nick|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Cope, Sir John||Heald, Oliver|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Heath, Sir Edward|
|Couchman, James||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Cran, James||Hendry, Charles|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Heseltine, Michael|
|Curry, David||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)||Higgins, Sir Terence|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)||Pawsey, James|
|Horam, John||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Pickles, Eric|
|Howell, David (Guildf'd)||Porter, David|
|Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)||Portillo, Michael|
|Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)||Redwood, John|
|Hunter, Andrew||Renton, Tim|
|Hurd, Douglas||Richards, Rod|
|Jack, Michael||Riddick, Graham|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Robathan, Andrew|
|Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)||Roberts, Sir Wyn|
|Jessel, Toby||Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Robinson, Mark (Somerton)|
|Jones, Robert B (W Herts)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Rowe, Andrew|
|Key, Robert||Rumbold, Dame Angela|
|King, Tom||Ryder, Richard|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Sackville, Tom|
|Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Sainsbury, Sir Timothy|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Knox, Sir David||Shephard, Mrs Gillian|
|Kynoch, George||Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Sims, Sir Roger|
|Legg, Barry||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Leigh, Edward||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark||Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)|
|Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)||Soames, Nicholas|
|Lidington, David||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Lilley, Peter||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)||Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)|
|Lord, Michael||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Luff, Peter||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Lyell, Sir Nicholas||Spring, Richard|
|MacGregor, John||Sproat, Iain|
|MacKay, Andrew||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Maclean, David||Stanley, Sir John|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Steen, Anthony|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Stephen, Michael|
|Madel, Sir David||Stern, Michael|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Stewart, Allan|
|Malone, Gerald||Streeter, Gary|
|Mans, Keith||Sumberg, David|
|Marland, Paul||Sweeney, Walter|
|Marlow, Tony||Sykes, John|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Mates, Michael||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Thomason, Roy|
|Mellor, David||Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)|
|Merchant, Piers||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Tracey, Richard|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Tredinnick, David|
|Moss, Malcolm||Trend, Michael|
|Nelson, Anthony||Trotter, Neville|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Newton, Tony||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Viggers, Peter|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Waldegrave, William|
|Norris, Steve||Walden, George|
|Onslow, Sir Cranley||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Waller, Gary|
|Ottaway, Richard||Ward, John|
|Page, Richard||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Paice, James||Waterson, Nigel|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Watts, John|
|Patten, John||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Pattie, Sir Geoffrey||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Whittingdale, John||Wolfson, Mark|
|Wiggin, Sir Jerry||Wood, Timothy|
|Wilkinson, John||Yeo, Tim|
|Willetts, David||Young, Sir George|
|Wilshire, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)||Mr. Roger Knapman and|
|Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)||Mr. Bowen Wells.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.