HC Deb 11 March 1998 vol 308 cc599-612
Mr. Don Foster

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 10, line 7, leave out from 'purpose' to the end of line 9 and insert—

  1. '(a) with the consent of the governing body of every school which it is proposed should be a participating school, and
  2. (b) where the LEA is not making the application, with evidence that it has been consulted by the proposers, with a view to being a partner in the Education action zone.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 85.

No. 88, in clause 12, page 11, line 13, at end insert— '(3A) In discharging any function transferred to it under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section an Education Action Forum may enter a contract for the performance of that function with any party, whether from the public or private sector, who, in the opinion of the Education Action Forum, is a fit and proper party to discharge the function or functions covered by the contract. (3B) Any party with whom the Education Action Forum enters a contract under the terms of subsection (3A) of this section (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor") shall be responsible for delivering the service defined in the contract with the Education Action Forum to the standard defined in the said contract and shall be permitted to acquire, employ, and manage, on terms to be determined by the contractor, such equipment, staff and other resources as he believes to be necessary to perform the duties defined in the contract.'. No. 122, in clause 13, page 11, line 35, after 'them', insert 'and where the employer is the local education authority, consult with that local education authority,'. Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.

Mr. Foster

The amendment is similar to new clause 15 in that it deals with the relationship between local education authorities and schools, but in this case it deals with schools forming part of an education action zone.

I must take this opportunity to place on record in the House what I said in Committee. We Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Government's proposals for education action zones, at least in principle. In Committee, we had discussions about some of the detailed operations of the zones and had the opportunity to press some concerns.

Education action zones are an important feature of the Bill. We hope that, when the Minister examines the bids for the first few zones, he will find himself inundated with exciting proposals for new forms of partnership in education, which will bring together not only schools but other interested bodies, including private businesses and other representatives of the local community, as well as further education colleges and perhaps even universities. We believe that EAZs will above all offer an opportunity for some exciting thinking about how education can develop to meet the needs of children in the next millennium.

Because it is so important that EAZs are successful partnerships, we must ensure that all possible partners are involved. In Committee, I tabled amendments to ensure that the local education authority would have the opportunity to be a partner. As was clear from our discussions, the Government expected that, in the vast majority of cases, LEAs would be partners, although, as was rightly pointed out, there might be cases in which it would be unhelpful for the LEA—perhaps because it was deemed to be failing the schools in its area, or because it wanted to propose a different EAZ consortium—automatically to have the right to membership of the EAZ.

As I was able to demonstrate in Committee, all the Government's documentation showed that, until the last minute, the Government clearly intended that LEAs should participate in all EAZs. I think that we now understand why they shifted their position slightly. Nevertheless, it is vital that the LEA is at least consulted about the applications for each EAZ, so that it can decide whether to become a partner.

Unlike the amendments that I tabled in Committee, amendment No. 121 does not insist on a guaranteed role for the LEA in the education action forum; it merely suggests that there should be clear evidence that the LEA has been consulted on whether it wants to be a partner in the EAZ.

I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of that, as he knows that the LEA will continue to have responsibilities, many of which are specified in the Bill, for the schools in any EAZ that is established. Those responsibilities include setting targets, operating early warning systems, reviewing special educational needs arrangements and providing for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties and for those who are educated out of school.

There are many other reasons why the partners in the EAZ will need to understand an LEA's work, not least in relation to local management of schools budget arrangements, the LEA services which are available, the requirement for continuing professional development, the relationship between a school's organisation committee, the LEA and the forum, and the general interrelationship of the LEA and more general local authority educational services.

Given that the LEA will carry out many functions that will affect schools in an EAZ, and given the need for schools in an EAZ to know about the work of the LEA, it is obvious that the LEA must be involved in some way in all EAZs. At the very least, the LEA must be consulted about plans to establish an EAZ and given the opportunity to become a member. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.

6.45 pm
Mr. Dorrell

I want to speak principally to amendment No. 88, which belongs to this group of amendments but which I shall seek, with your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put to a separate decision by the House. Its purpose is to tease out exactly what the Government think an education action zone will mean.

Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), when I first heard about education action zones, I found the idea rather attractive. It was certainly presented as an important new part of the Government's armoury for improving the delivery of service by our schools. At the north of England education conference at the beginning of this year, Professor Barber trumpeted it as an important step forward in introducing a new perspective—it would be an opportunity for new management and new ideas in areas where, for whatever reason, the Secretary of State felt that there were inadequate new ideas.

It seemed, originally, that the education action zones would be targeted at problem areas in the school system, but it became clear in Committee that the Minister wanted them to be established not only in areas of low educational attainment, but in any part of the country where he felt that improvement in service delivery by maintained sector schools was possible—he was looking for opportunities to introduce new structures and fresh ideas to any part of the country where significant improvement was possible.

All that seemed a rather attractive idea. When I was asked for my reaction to the proposal at the north of England conference, I said that I was receptive to the idea and would look forward to Ministers sketching out the detail. However, in Committee, when we considered the details of what the idea would mean in practice, the excitement started to fall away. It became obvious that the Government were unclear about their intentions for education action zones.

It is important that we should be clear about the Bill's provisions. When the Secretary of State has determined that an area should be an education action zone, individual schools' governing bodies will be responsible for deciding whether to participate. I agree with that—a school's participation should be voluntary.

When Professor Barber launched the idea, he made it clear that it was explicitly intended that the private sector should be able to play a role in the new structure, to bring in new ideas for the delivery of service. I understand that, at the north of England education conference, he speculated publicly that one of the companies that could be introduced—not only as advisers on a governing body or to provide tangential, relatively detailed advice, but as mainstream managers of the delivery of the schools service—was Procter and Gamble.

I admired the provocation that Professor Barber clearly enjoyed introducing to the argument. It was a piece of iconoclasm, although it is perhaps less provocative to those who recognise that Procter and Gamble already runs charter schools in the United States, where it picked up the concept—it is charged with delivering a specialist improvement in the schools service in different American cities. When I heard that the concept was part of the Government's idea, I thought that it was attractive. The name Procter and Gamble is provocative, but a more home-grown company is Nord Anglia, a British company with experience of employing teachers, managing schools and delivering a schools service.

The purpose of amendment No. 88, tabled by me and of my hon. Friends, is to probe the Government on whether they intend to create the opportunity for Nord Anglia and Procter and Gamble to manage and deliver a school service in an area where improvement is possible. When we came to this section of the Bill in Committee, it became pretty clear that at the very least there was a question mark over the idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked the Minister for School Standards: Will there be any circumstances in which a company will employ the teachers and have a form contractual arrangement with them? It may be the Government's vision that Nord Anglia, Procter and Gamble or anyone else should have the opportunity to deliver a new schools management service, as defined by proper public authorities, but it will be hard for a company to do so if it is not allowed to employ teachers.

The Minister's response in the Committee was rather depressing. He said: We currently take the view that teachers will be employed by their employing body, be that a local education authority or an individual school. I do not understand how we deliver the objective that Procter and Gamble certainly delivers in some charter schools in America.

Mr. Byers

I shall deal with this issue at greater length in my reply to the debate, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Government amendment No. 85. He will see that we intend to give legal powers to the forum. That was not the case when we debated the matter in Committee. We recognise that we need to have clarity and that is why we intend to put the education forum in the position of employer. That was not the case when we debated the matter in Committee.

Mr. Dorrell

I have seen that amendment and I understand that it is relevant, but in a sense it compounds the problem. The Government envisage that a manager will take over the management of a school where there is a problem—whether it is of low attainment or, to take the Minister's argument from Leafy Lane high, of low expectations, and there is an opportunity for improvement in a school that is complacent. Whatever the purpose of taking a school into an education action zone, if a company such as Nord Anglia or Procter and Gamble is to have responsibility for delivering the improved service that the Government say that they seek, it must have the power to manage all the necessary resources.

Government amendment No. 85 merely underlines the timidity of the response offered by the Minister in Committee and repeated by the Under-Secretary. I gave the Government a second chance to deal with the question. The Under-Secretary confirmed that at that stage the teachers would continue to be employed by…the LEA."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 February 1998; c. 270–76.] The Government's amendment says that the teacher contract can be converted to an EAZ contract, but that still does not allow an EAZ to decide that a bidder for the delivery of a school service offers to the children of a district the opportunity of a better education that meets their needs better and offers them a better start in life.

The Minister will acknowledge that the EAZ concept is based loosely on the ideas that have been shown to work in some very difficult city schools in the United States. I hope and believe that the Government are trying to learn those lessons. I do not believe that they will achieve that objective if they do not give the enterprise with the responsibility for managing the school the power that it needs to deliver its objectives in what will often be difficult circumstances. That is why our amendment makes it clear that, although not in every case—I do not say that this should apply in every EAZ—where a bidder wants to employ, manage and be responsible for all the resources in a school, and the EAZ is convinced that that is the best way of delivering the service in that area, that power should be available.

I appeal to the Government to have the courage of their convictions to embrace their own idea and not to run away from their own radicalism.

Mrs. May

I shall concentrate my comments on amendment No. 88, but I shall make passing reference to amendment No. 121, tabled by the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). It refers to the role that the LEA should play in bringing forward an education action zone. That proposal is interesting. It shows yet again that the Liberal Democrats constantly come back to the role of the LEA as the single deciding body to be involved in every aspect of education.

The Liberal Democrats do not simply suggest that where the LEA is not making an application, schools that wish to bring forward an EAZ should show that they have discussed or referred the matter to the LEA. There might be some sense in saying that schools within an LEA, or under two or three LEAs where schools wish to group together, should alert their LEAs to the fact that they are proposing an EAZ. The Liberal Democrats are saying that the schools must refer to the LEA with a view to its being a partner in the EAZ. They intend to remove the considerable flexibility that the Government have built into the Bill. That is why I am concerned. As in so many debates in Committee, the Liberal Democrats seem unable to envisage the provision of any aspect of education without a central and determining role for the LEA.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), I was interested in the concept of EAZs when it was first introduced. I seem to recall that the concept raised considerable interest not only among Conservative Members, but in a number of national newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, which said that the Government had come up with a radical and forward-thinking idea—very new Labour. However, as with so many new Labour ideas, including several in the Bill, the words and the practice tend to differ considerably. A radical message was put out to the press that the Government were thinking outside any confines about how they provided education, that they would innovate and that EAZs were one of the ways in which they would do so. Suddenly we see that the restrictions placed on the development of EAZs in the Bill mean that they are not as innovative as the Government would have people believe.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood made specific reference to EAZs, and we dwelt on them in Committee. It was not clear initially exactly what the Government's proposals were on employment. I accept that the Minister said that the Government were introducing their own amendment on the employment aspect of the operation of EAZs under the education action forum, but they are still shying away from the true concept of the EAZ as it was first expressed and understood when the Government proposed it. It is important to go back to that point.

There have been other misunderstandings. In the initial stages, it was expected that the Government intended to use EAZs purely as a way of helping failing schools to find another way of coming together to produce innovative ideas, to get over their problems. However, it has been made clear, and I hope that the Minister will reiterate it for the record today, that the Government do not intend to put in place EAZs purely as a structure for failing schools. It is a structure that any group of schools can request from the Secretary of State, even schools that are not underperforming, such as Leafy Lane high in the example that we were given in Committee. Schools that are performing well may want to be removed from the rigours of LEA control, to look for new ways of providing education. They will be able to come together with a proposal to set up an education action zone and an education action forum.

7 pm

It is ironic that the Bill abolishes grant-maintained schools, yet introduces very similar powers—the same powers in relation to employment—for education action zones. The Government tell us that an individual school cannot set itself apart from the local education authority and cannot remove itself from the strictures of the LEA, although many schools have done that with enormous success. The Government say that individual schools can no longer do that, but if the school gets together with two or three others, they can form what the Government call an education action zone and do that.

In the debate in Committee, we were told—by the Under-Secretary, as I recollect—that the EAZ was a new structure for education for the new millennium, and that we must stop thinking in the old way about schools being under an LEA. We must drop those ideas and start looking at new ways in which schools can come together and find new ideas on providing education for the children who choose to go to those schools.

Despite all that, we see from the Bill that the Government are not prepared to go that extra step. They say that EAZs are an innovative model and the new way forward, but they are not prepared to give EAZs all the powers necessary to do whatever they—the EAZs—consider appropriate to improve the standard of education in schools in that zone.

Amendment No. 88 would put into practice what the Government seem to have been saying in the early stages of the debate on EAZs. It will be interesting to hear how the Minister of State responds. The idea of EAZs and the powers given to them in the Bill are at the boundary between new Labour and old Labour. How far are the Government willing to go, to put into practice what they proclaimed about innovation in education for the new millennium? If they are committed to innovation, they will accept amendment No. 88, give education action zones full powers, especially in regard to employment, and enable EAZs to set themselves up as innovative groups of schools that are ready to consider new ways of providing a high standard of education.

Mr. St. Aubyn

I apologise for not being present for the beginning of the debate, but I was present during the Committee stage and am aware of some of the issues involved. I should be grateful if the Minister clarified a particular point. We shall have a debate later on grant-maintained schools. Having spoken at length to representatives of grant-maintained schools in my constituency, I know that they have severe doubts about the option of having foundation school status. We have discussed the idea of those schools forming an education action zone.

Will the Minister confirm that education action zones are not just for areas where the education system is seen to be failing, and that they are applicable to areas where a group of schools are striving for excellence? For whatever reason, those schools may not see control and regulation by the local education authority as their preferred route, and may see an interesting and exciting future in the new EAZ mechanism. Will he confirm that, under the Bill, it will be possible for such a group of schools to undertake that exciting initiative?

Mr. Byers

I shall start by replying to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I confirm that nothing in the Bill restricts education action zones to any particular type of school, whether it is underperforming, underachieving, or whatever. The Bill provides a mechanism to allow education action zones to be established.

The Government are looking to establish five EAZs with effect from September, and increasing that number to 25, probably by the autumn of next year. As we consider the applications that are submitted, we shall want to achieve a good geographical spread of EAZs, mixing urban and rural areas, and different types of school. The important aspect of the EAZ concept—this addresses some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—is that we see EAZs as the test bed for the schools service of the next century. That is why we want groups of schools, perhaps in partnership with local authorities or with the private sector, to come forward with new and exciting ideas. We want to examine ways in which we can empower schools.

Our earlier debate underlined the fact that schools have the primary responsibility for raising standards. If, through the EAZ concept, we can engage and motivate schools of whatever type, the Government are prepared to facilitate that and support schools that want to take advantage of the freedoms that might be made available in the EAZ.

That is why the three Government amendments are important. Government amendment No. 85, which I mentioned in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), makes the EAZ accountable as an employer for the decisions that it makes in relation to the people whom it legally employs.

Government amendment No. 86 gives the Secretary of State the power to approve or reject applications to disapply the national teachers' pay and conditions document. We consider it appropriate for the Secretary of State to have that power, because we want to monitor carefully a new teachers' contract and a new system of remuneration for teachers. The Secretary of State needs to be involved in that process, so that we can see what works and what does not work so well.

Mr. Willis

That matter concerns many teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has made clear, we support the general principle of the Government's proposal, but if, after three or five years of an education action zone, when there has been a disapplication of conditions of service and there are new rates of pay, will the Government underwrite those new conditions of service and rates of pay if the EAZ completes its work, or will it be the job of the LEA to do that? How will we assure teachers working in the schools that will move into those EAZs that their pension rights and future pay and conditions will not be jeopardised by what could be a glorious experiment for Nord Anglia?

Mr. Byers

The Government fully understand those concerns. When we deal with amendment No. 122, tabled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), we shall state clearly that there will need to be proper consultation with teachers, with their representative organisations and with local education authorities as employers about the changes that a forum might want to introduce in teachers' pay and conditions. We want people to be involved, so that they can express views on those pressing matters. We want a system whereby in three or five years, those teachers will be entering a quite different world from that of 1998.

I should be surprised if we did not look differently at teachers' pay and conditions in the light of the experience of EAZs. They are the test bed for the schools system for the next century. Changes will arise as a result of the initiatives that take place in the EAZs.

It is interesting to note that the advice that I have from my civil servants is that amendment No. 88 is redundant because the powers that it seeks to introduce are in the Bill as a result of the powers that we intend to give the education action forums. The point of the education action forum is that its powers are ceded from individual governing bodies. That makes the point that governing bodies are agreeing voluntarily that their powers should be given up to the education action forum. The education action forum can then act almost as a collegiate governing body. It will have all the powers that an individual governing body has at present. It could buy in specific services—for example, managing the payroll, running specialist literacy programmes and providing school meals.

Those are modest measures, and if this is to be an exciting initiative, we must go beyond them. It is most important that the education action forum is responsible for determining the aims and objectives of the schools for which it has responsibility; for monitoring and evaluating the schools' performance; for raising standards of educational achievement through determining the schools' strategy for improving performance; and for setting targets and taking any necessary action to support them.

It will be for the education action forum to decide who is best placed to achieve those objectives. If the education action forum takes the view that Nord Anglia or Procter and Gamble—given its good experience in America—is best placed to deliver those objectives, there is nothing in the Bill to stop the education action forum doing that.

Mr. Dorrell

That is crucial to the argument. The Minister is saying that the education action forum will have no powers that are not currently vested in governing bodies, because all the powers of the education action forum will be delegated to it by the governing body. Is he therefore saying that any governing body in the maintained system already has the power, if it chooses, to subcontract the management of its school to Nord Anglia?

Mr. Byers

It depends on exactly what the governing body wants Nord Anglia to do. At the moment, it could put payroll management or specialist literacy services out to Nord Anglia. The framework that we have inherited from the previous Administration places restrictions on exactly what governing bodies can do. As a result of the new framework, an education action forum will have the power from September next year to contract out to Nord Anglia or Procter and Gamble, to deliver those services and to meet objectives. Legally, it will be able to do that.

Mr. Dorrell

As the Minister recognised, subcontracting the power to run payroll services can be useful, but it is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the management of the school, the delivery of education services, deciding whom the school employs, deciding the terms and how their time is used, and the experience of the child in the classroom. Does an existing school have the power to subcontract those functions to a commercial company? If it does not, the Minister has not shown how the power can be vested in a forum. He said that the forum has only the powers delegated to it by the governing body.

Mr. Byers

The governing body will be responsible under the new framework that we are introducing in September next year. The education action zones will operate on a voluntary basis, depending on when the Bill reaches the statute book—probably five will operate from this September—and they will have full legal powers from September next year. If an education action forum has powers ceded to it by the governing bodies, it will be able to engage the private sector or the local education authority to meet its objectives. That is why education action zones are an exciting initiative—there will be flexibility. I hope that that meets the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who thought that this was a modest proposal. The powers are there, which is why my officials state that amendment No. 88 is unnecessary.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent)

Would the powers to be ceded include the power to suspend pupils? That would be an interesting departure from the norm. For the first time, the power to suspend a pupil would be given to a private company, which would not be in the same contractual relationship with the parent as a school.

Mr. Byers

The powers of the education action forum are derived from governing bodies ceding the powers that they have at present. We do not foresee a situation in which some of the exclusion powers would be handed over to a third party. Technically, that might be possible, but there are provisions elsewhere in the Bill, which prescribe the circumstances in which exclusions can and cannot take place.

Mr. Don Foster

For the avoidance of confusion, can the Minister confirm that once an education action zone is set up, the staff currently employed by the schools within the zone will continue to be employed by the LEA, and only new staff chosen by the forum will be employed by the forum? Can he confirm that it will not be possible to send on to a third party the responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum?

7.15 pm
Mr. Byers

It is more complicated than that. Under the framework, certain schools—for example, foundation schools—will be the employer of their staff. It is far more complicated than just saying that there is a blanket approach. One of the powers to be given to the education action zones will be to disapply the provisions of the national curriculum, so that they have greater flexibility. I am afraid that there is not a simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's complicated question.

Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 were tabled by the hon. Member for Bath. I understand his concerns about the need to involve LEAs, which will still have the underlying statutory responsibility for ensuring that children in their area receive an adequate and suitable education in terms of their age and ability. There is a difficulty with the way in which amendment No. 121 is worded, because it talks about consultation, but then refers to the LEA as a partner. The amendment states: with a view to being a partner in the Education action zone". There is a legal difficulty with that.

I might be able to help the hon. Member for Bath by referring to the guidance sent to the interested parties that might want to promote an education action zone, in which we make it clear that different zones will be run in different ways: In many cases, the LEA will be the driving force behind the proposal… In such cases there would still be a central role for business and for community and voluntary organisations. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about situations in which the LEA may not be the driving force behind the proposal. The guidance states: In others, a proposal to create a zone might come from a business, community or voluntary organisation, in conjunction with a group of schools"— addressing the situation that was referred to earlier. This allows for new and exciting groups to become involved in running an Action Forum, bringing with them fresh ideas on school improvement. In such cases, the LEA would be consulted in the development of the proposal, and we expect that LEAs will want to work closely with any successful bids which come through this route. That is more appropriate than requiring that to be so, because there may be circumstances in which, for one reason or another, the LEA is not happy with the group of schools with approval for education action zone status.

We can guarantee that consultation will be required before a proposal is approved by the Secretary of State, but we do not feel that it is appropriate to go further. Amendment No. 121 talks about the LEA, as of right, being guaranteed a place as a partner in the proposal. That would be inflexible and would create a range of possible difficulties.

Mr. Don Foster

The Minister seriously misrepresents the amendment when he says that it states that the LEA would, as of right, expect to have a place on the forum. I hope that he will accept that the amendment's wording is clear and does not have the interpretation that he has given it.

Mr. Byers

Legally, the hon. Gentleman's amendment can have that interpretation, which is why I shall ask the House to resist it.

Education action zones are an exciting initiative. They will allow schools to raise standards in new and imaginative ways. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Liberal Democrat amendments but to endorse Government amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87.

Mr. Foster

Although I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a need to consult the LEA in the vast majority of cases, given the many roles that it will continue to have in respect of schools that may form an education action zone, it is vital that we have a much clearer indication that the LEA will be consulted and that it is given an opportunity to consider whether it is appropriate for it to become a member of the education action zone.

As we have not received sufficient assurances, we wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 284.

Division No. 199] [7.20 pm
Allan, Richard Breed, Colin
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Baker, Norman Burnett, John
Ballard, Mrs Jackie Burstow, Paul
Beggs, Roy Cable, Dr Vincent
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Brake, Tom Chidgey, David
Brand, Dr Peter Cotter, Brian
Dafis, Cynog
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Donaldson, Jeffrey Oaten, Mark
Forsythe, Clifford Öpik, Lembit
Foster, Don (Bath) Rendel, David
George, Andrew (St Ives) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hancock, Mike Sanders, Adrian
Harris, Dr Evan Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Harvey, Nick Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Tyler, Paul
Keetch, Paul Wallace, James
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) Webb, Steve
Kirkwood, Archy Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Livsey, Richard
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert Tellers for the Ayes:
Maginnis, Ken Mr. Donald Gorrie and
Mr. Phil Willis.
Ainger, Nick Corbyn, Jeremy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Corston, Ms Jean
Alexander, Douglas Cox, Tom
Allen, Graham Cranston, Ross
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Crausby, David
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ashton, Joe Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Atherton, Ms Candy Cummings, John
Atkins, Charlotte Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Austin, John Dalyell, Tam
Barnes, Harry Darvill, Keith
Beard, Nigel Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Davidson, Ian
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bennett, Andrew F Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Benton, Joe Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Berry, Roger Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Best, Harold Dawson, Hilton
Betts, Clive Dismore, Andrew
Blackman, Liz Dobbin, Jim
Blears, Ms Hazel Donohoe, Brian H
Blizzard, Bob Dowd, Jim
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Drown, Ms Julia
Borrow, David Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bradshaw, Ben Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Brinton, Mrs Helen Edwards, Huw
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Efford, Clive
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Ellman, Mrs Louise
Browne, Desmond Ennis, Jeff
Burden, Richard Etherington, Bill
Burgon, Colin Field, Rt Hon Frank
Butler, Mrs Christine Fisher, Mark
Byers, Stephen Fitzsimons, Lorna
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Flint, Caroline
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Follett, Barbara
Canavan, Dennis Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Caplin, Ivor Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Casale, Roger Foulkes, George
Caton, Martin Fyfe, Maria
Cawsey, Ian Gapes, Mike
Chaytor, David George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Church, Ms Judith Gerrard, Neil
Clapham, Michael Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Godsiff, Roger
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Goggins, Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clelland, David Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clwyd, Ann Grocott, Bruce
Coaker, Vernon Gunnell, John
Coffey, Ms Ann Hain, Peter
Cohen, Harry Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Corbett, Robin Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Hanson, David Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hepburn, Stephen Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Heppell, John Mountford, Kali
Hesford, Stephen Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Hill, Keith Mudie, George
Hinchliffe, David Mullin, Chris
Hoey, Kate Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Home Robertson, John Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hope, Phil Norris, Dan
Hopkins, Kelvin O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Howells, Dr Kim O'Hara, Eddie
Hoyle, Lindsay Olner, Bill
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) O'Neill, Martin
Humble, Mrs Joan Palmer, Dr Nick
Hutton, John Pearson, Ian
Ingram, Adam Perham, Ms Linda
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Pickthall, Colin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Pike, Peter L
Jamieson, David Plaskitt, James
Jenkins, Brian Pond, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Pope, Greg
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) Purchase, Ken
Quinn, Lawrie
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Radice, Giles
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Rammell, Bill
Jowell, Ms Tessa Rapson, Syd
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Kelly, Ms Ruth Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Khabra, Piara S
Kilfoyle, Peter Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) Roche, Mrs Barbara
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Rooker, Jeff
Kingham, Ms Tess Rooney, Terry
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Rowlands, Ted
Lawrence, Ms Jackie Ruane, Chris
Laxton, Bob Ruddock, Ms Joan
Leslie, Christopher Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Levitt, Tom Ryan, Ms Joan
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Savidge, Malcolm
Liddell, Mrs Helen Sawford, Phil
Linton, Martin Sedgemore, Brian
Lock, David Shaw, Jonathan
Love, Andrew Sheerman, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McCabe, Steve Short, Rt Hon Clare
McCafferty, Ms Chris Singh, Marsha
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) Skinner, Dennis
McDonnell, John Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McGuire, Mrs Anne Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
McIsaac, Shona
McLeish, Henry Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McNulty, Tony Smith, John (Glamorgan)
MacShane, Denis Snape, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona Soley, Clive
McWalter, Tony Southworth, Ms Helen
Mallaber, Judy Spellar, John
Marek, Dr John Squire, Ms Rachel
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Steinberg, Gerry
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Meale, Alan Stinchcombe, Paul
Merron, Gillian Stoate, Dr Howard
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Milburn, Alan Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Miller, Andrew Stringer, Graham
Moffatt, Laura Stuart, Ms Gisela
Moonie, Dr Lewis Sutcliffe, Gerry
Moran, Ms Margaret Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Timms, Stephen Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Todd, Mark Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Touhig, Don Wills, Michael
Truswell, Paul Winnick, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) Wise, Audrey
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) Wood, Mike
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) Woolas, Phil
Vaz, Keith Worthington, Tony
Vis, Dr Rudi Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Walley, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N Tellers for the Noes:
White, Brian Mr. John McFall and
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to