HC Deb 27 June 2000 vol 352 cc824-35

It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Learning and Skills Bill (Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mrs. May

I have to say that I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) making those comments about small sixth forms in rural schools, because, from the sound of it, the Liberal Democrat policy is to abolish such sixth forms and put the pupils into other provision.

Mr. Willis

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May

I shall give way once more, and then I wish to make progress.

Mr. Willis

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is generous and courteous, as always. Hansard will show that I never mentioned rural schools; it was the hon. Lady who mentioned them. If she is extrapolating Liberal Democrat policy from what she believes I have said, she will clearly need to read the record.

Mrs. May

I will be happy to look at the record, and I am sure that it will show that the hon. Gentleman has not contradicted my interpretation of the Liberal Democrat view on small sixth forms in rural schools.

Mr. Chaytor

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. May

No, I want to make progress.

Amendment No. 76 clearly aims to provide certainty to schools that are worried about the future funding and very existence of their sixth forms and their ability to maintain them. They are worried about the impact of that on teaching and on pupils in earlier year groups. They are worried also about the impact on choice for students in future.

Many students choose to stay on in the school environment for their post-16 education, rather than moving to a sixth form college or further education college. Sadly, some choose to go to an FE college and then find that they have made the wrong choice and want to go back to their school. It is important that students have that choice and can actively decide to remain in the school environment and to benefit from the pastoral support and extra-curricular activities that are provided, rather than simply having the opportunity to go to a tertiary college.

Amendment No. 87 is a paving amendment for new clause 13, which would introduce a different method of funding pupils and give schools the power to choose how to spend all of their budget. This subject will not come as a surprise to the Minister. The Secretary of State referred to it in his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers on 1 June which led to The Daily Telegraph headline, "Blunkett frees state schools". The article said: All state schools will be set free of local education authority control and will effectively be given grant-maintained status, says David Blunkett, the Education Secretary. We know full well from long experience of the Secretary of State's speeches that, to understand his intentions, one has to look behind the headlines and search for the substance. Sadly, as with so many of his headlines, when we delve into the detail—with this Government, the devil is always in the detail—we discover that, although he claims to be freeing state schools, the proposals do nothing of the sort. There is a certain sense of déjà vu about that.

About two years ago, the Government introduced "fair funding"—their new method of funding schools, which was lauded as a measure by which the freedoms of grant-maintained schools would effectively be provided again for schools; they would get 100 per cent. of their money and be able to decide how to spend it. Of course, that was another example of the triumph of spin over substance. In fact, far from schools being given 100 per cent. of their budgets, funds are being held back by local education authorities.

LEAs can hold back 89 different categories of expenditure under four different categories of responsibility. Once again, we are told that 100 per cent. of the funding will go to schools and that LEAs will be funded for four specific categories of responsibility, but the Secretary of State has in fact proposed not that schools will get 100 per cent. of their funding directly, but that a Green Paper will be issued for consultation.

We all became interested in the fact that the Department for Education and Employment might publish a Green Paper on school funding, but we now find that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to issue a document which, among other local authority funding matters, will refer to LEA funding. Far from "Blunkett frees state schools", it is a case of the Green Paper being issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and, like most things that the right hon. Gentleman issues, it is likely to sink without trace.

Conservative Members genuinely believe in free schools and in schools being self-governing. We believe that they should have their budgets and the freedom to exercise choice over how they spend them. After all, the Conservative Government created grant-maintained status, but the Labour Government have abolished it. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would provide a new basis of funding that would enable schools to be entirely self-governing. One of the first issues raised with one when one visits a school is the degree of Government prescription, not only in relation to the amount of bureaucracy that the school faces but, and more particularly, in relation to its funding.

Schools do not have the freedom to decide how to spend money for themselves. They increasingly find that money is held back not only by LEAs, but, more particularly, by the Department for Education and Employment, to be spent purely on political priorities set by the Government, rather than on the practical priorities that the schools know are needed for their pupils.

I recently met head teachers in Kent who complained about funding and prescription. When I asked them whether they would prefer to have the money and the power to spend it themselves, their response was simple—to a man and woman, they just said yes. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would enable the Government to put into practice the headline that David Blunkett got into The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady knows the conventions of the House.

Mrs. May

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer of course to the headline that the Secretary of State achieved in The Daily Telegraph. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 give the Government an opportunity to put their legislation where the Secretary of State's mouth was. They give them the opportunity to say, "Yes, we actually want schools to be free; we want them to have their budgets; and we want them to be able to spend them in the way that they wish."

I fear that the Minister will oppose and reject amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 because, behind all the headlines, the Government have a centralising agenda. They have a bidding culture, in which spending priorities for schools are determined in Whitehall. They have a "one size fits all" approach and they think that the man in Whitehall always knows what is right for pupils throughout the country.

If we really want to raise standards, we should set the schools free. If we want to raise standards, we should enable schools to maintain their sixth forms. For the information of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the figures from the House of Commons Library show that 9 per cent. more pupils achieve five or more A to C grades at GCSE at schools with sixth forms than at schools without sixth forms. That is a clear message about the impact of school sixth forms.

Mr. Chaytor

Does the hon. Lady accept that of the schools with sixth forms, a significant proportion will be selective schools and therefore have a different intake? Of those without sixth forms, by definition, none is selective. It is inevitable that there is a higher percentage pass rate at GCSE because of the involvement of selection.

Mrs. May

As the hon. Gentleman told us earlier that grammar schools as well as other schools were not achieving in academic terms, that was a very silly argument for him to produce.

If we want to raise standards in schools, we should set the schools free. Grant-maintained schools have shown what can be achieved. They increased the number of teachers and the number of courses. They offered extra choice for pupils. They introduced new music departments. They added sixth forms to schools that wanted them. They raised standards because they had their budgets. They had the freedom. They were self-governing.

Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 will enable schools not just to enjoy the benefits of that freedom again, but, most important, to raise standards for pupils, to benefit pupils throughout the country and to do what the Government claim they want to do, but what their policies are not doing: ensuring that every young person develops their full potential and that we genuinely have an education system that provides high-quality education and high standards for all our children.

Mr. Willis

The reason why we have got to 10.10 pm and we are still not discussing the essence of the Bill is perhaps explained by the skills taskforce, which reported on Tuesday that 7 million adults have a lower level of literacy than an average 11-year-old and that a quarter of adults function at an innumerate level. The reason for that is the 18 years of Conservative education policy, which produced the most appalling levels of literacy and numeracy anywhere in Europe. The reason why Conservative Members do not want to speak about the Bill and to address it is because it is an indictment of what they left behind.

On amendment No. 76, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) clearly has an obsession about sixth forms. I hope that we will discuss much of the sixth-form agenda, and small sixth forms in particular, during consideration of a later group of amendments, but I must respond at least briefly. I hoped that she would make the point—it is a real problem—about Government policy on the funding of sixth forms in the transitional stage. They guarantee that, if their numbers stay the same, they will get the same amount of money. If the numbers go down, they will not, yet if the numbers go up or double, there is no guarantee that funding will rise in proportion. When the Minister replies to amendment No. 76, she must address that specific issue. Sixth forms cannot plan for the future when they cannot have the guarantee of funding, which is clearly necessary.

The amendments were yet another diversionary tactic away from the essence of the Bill. We have had discussion of sex, selection and grammar schools, and we are now on to free schools—or free-for-all schools. I do not need to remind the House—I was one of the people who worked under the glorious education system that existed until 1997—that the Tories want to return yet again to division, and to the idea that standards can be raised only by competition and not by co-operation. It is a travesty for the hon. Lady to talk about the grant-maintained schools movement being the saviour of our education system. The divisions that were created by the ballots organised for GM status caused immeasurable harm in authorities up and down the country, and a return to that would be desperate.

10.15 pm

The Tory policy of free schools is based on a series of myths about local education authorities. Before the hon. Lady attempts to intervene, let me say that not all local authorities are perfect. Many of them leave a lot to be desired in terms of supporting their schools.

The first myth is that local education authorities waste too much money on administration. In fact, LEAs spend less than 2 per cent. of their income on administration and most of that goes on the administration of appeals, the special educational needs system, the payroll and other essential expenditure. That pales into insignificance compared with the administrative costs of most schools or those of the Department for Education and Employment, which are estimated at about 5 per cent.

The second Tory myth about local education authorities is that they retain vast resources. They do nothing of the sort. Indeed, 94 per cent. of LEAs delegate at least 75 per cent. of their budget and the average figure, according to the DFEE' s latest statistics, is 82.4 per cent.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman omits to say that that is a result of legislation passed under the Conservative Government, which obliged LEAs to do just that. Until LEAs were obliged by legislation to start delegating money in the way that he described and slimming down their administration, they were far more cumbersome and burdensome bodies than he now tries to pretend.

Mr. Willis

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically frank intervention. I am not disputing the fact that the previous Government introduced the arrangements; I am complimenting them for doing so. That makes it even more ludicrous that those on the Tory Front Bench are now saying that the arrangements that they introduced are inadequate. If that is the case, who is to blame but the then Secretary of State?

An analysis of the money that local education authorities hold back for central expenditure shows that the vast bulk of it is to provide services for special educational needs and for people with disabilities. If the hon. Lady is saying that they should not hold back that money or that they do not do so with the consent of their schools and school governors, as applies in most cases, clearly the legislation that was introduced by the Government whom she supported is not working.

The third myth is that LEAs divert money that is planned for education into other sources and that, somehow, it gets taken out of the education budget and moved elsewhere. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that when the Tories left office, the contribution by local authorities to education budgets in 1996–97 was no less than £699.3 million and that, in 1999–2000, the contribution that local authorities made in excess of SSA to school budgets was £387.7 million. That is hardly a picture of local authorities taking money away from schools.

The whole essence of the free school movement, espoused by the hon. Member for Maidenhead in new clause 13 and amendment No. 87, is that we should have central funding. Heads and schools are attracted to central funding, and, as a former head, I would be the first to admit that. However, the new clause provides that, with a few exceptions, all children in all schools in England would get the same amount of money from central funds. The hon. Lady should be honest and admit that the cost of funding every school to the highest level of funding would be £4.4 billion. If, however, the hon. Lady does not intend to fund all schools equitably, she must say where the funds will be taken from to be spent elsewhere. If no increase in central spending is intended, current Tory policy means that some 40 per cent. of schools would see a reduction in their budgets in order to meet the free schools pledge.

The other point that the hon. Lady has to answer is that the £0.4 billion that local authorities spend on schools would have to be found either centrally or from somewhere else. I doubt whether any hon. Member would be prepared to urge local councillors to say, during a local election campaign, that the Government were funding schools now, but that we needed to spend another £400 million to top up what the Government should be spending. That is nonsense, but it is the reality of what the free school movement would mean.

What evidence is there that our schools want to be free? What evidence is there that small rural primary schools want to be their own admission authority, to run all their services, to be responsible for their grounds and every other function or to organise contracts on a daily basis? They do not, and if the hon. Lady were honest about her discussions with schools in rural areas, she would agree that they want less responsibility. They want to be able to get on with teaching and leading their staff. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would plunge our schools into chaos, and I hope that the House will reject them.

Jacqui Smith

I shall keep my response brief because—as has been mentioned—we have not yet got on to the key issues of the Bill. The Opposition have not concentrated on those either. This debate has more to do with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) performing a warm-up act for the Leader of the Opposition's major speech on education next week than with a serious willingness to engage in the debate.

New clause 13 seeks to establish a national funding formula, applying on the same basis to all schools. As we have heard tonight, the previous Administration often said that they were in favour of greater delegation, but, in reality, they did little to achieve it. However, we have acted. Under fair funding, there is not only greater transparency, there is also greater delegation.

Later this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish once again tables showing expenditure by local education authorities, and their delegation rates. Those tables will show a substantial increase in delegation, brought about by the targets we have set and by the requirements to delegate repairs and maintenance fully, as well as personnel and finance administration.

Mrs. May

If the Minister is claiming that the Government are so much in favour of delegating money to schools, why did they abolish grant-maintained status?

Jacqui Smith

We have succeeded in delegating more money to all schools. Along with those matters that I mentioned, we have delegated personnel and finance administration, school meals in secondary schools—with the option for primary schools—insurance, if schools want it, and a number of smaller items. In all, an extra £1 billion is available for delegation.

Although we have achieved greater delegation and will go on increasing it, we have done so with a responsible attitude towards pupils. The Opposition talk of free schools, but they are less keen to acknowledge that there are significant issues that need to be addressed. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, pupils with special educational needs cannot be dealt with just through a formula; they are not numbers. LEAs are needed to take a wider view of their needs. What would the Opposition do about those children?

The Government have inherited lots of failing schools and are making strenuous efforts to turn them round—efforts which owe much to the involvement of LEAs and need flexible and appropriate funding. Presumably, the Opposition would set those schools free to flounder.

School transport is a delicate and difficult matter which needs co-ordination, especially if pupils' rights to transport to denominational schools—or even, dare I say it, grammar schools—are to be actually reflected in the available services. Again, how would the Opposition cope?

While the Opposition are thinking about what they would do, we have made clear what we will do. We are reforming the funding of education for those aged 16 to 19; part of that will be the funding of sixth forms via the Learning and Skills Council, but through LEAs so that local needs are properly addressed and schools continue to get funds from a single source. That illustrates how unnecessary amendment No. 87 is. We will be reforming the very heart of the education funding system in ways indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke earlier this month about the forthcoming Green Paper.

In that Green Paper, we shall set out options for arrangements that would be fair to different parts of the country, are more transparent and provide more predictability and stability than the standard spending assessment system with which we have to cope now.

We shall also explore the possibility of having separate budgets for schools and LEA central functions, so that we can be much clearer about the funding intended for schools. That would make clear the amount of funding that was being made available and end once and for all annual arguments about what schools should be getting. We will do that on the basis of discussion and consideration and not on the basis of a policy drawn up on the back of an envelope, such as the Opposition have provided this evening.

Quite aside from the fact—as was argued in Committee—that it is entirely unnecessary to put our sixth-form funding guarantee in terms in the Bill, there are other problems with amendment No. 76. On funding, spending in schools fell by £60 per pupil in the last three Budgets of the Conservative Government. Under this Government, spending will increase by £300 per pupil. Given those facts, I feel that our guarantee has rather more basis than any comments that the hon. Member for Maidenhead may have made this evening.

The hon. Member suggested that there was a fear for school sixth forms. If pupil numbers reduce, all that will happen is that the funds will reduce pro rata. That is exactly what has always happened under local management of schools and fair funding. The guarantee is maintained and it is a real-terms guarantee; that is unprecedented and is not reflected in the amendments.

There are several other technical problems with the amendment. It suggests that the baseline should be the academic year from September 2001, despite the fact that the transfer will happen only eight months into that year. The amendment seems also to suggest that funding for sixth forms should all of a sudden switch to the academic year from the financial year, which would surely cause chaos and increase administration and bureaucracy.

On consultation, I agree that we did not ask the London Conservative party to carry out our public consultation. However, there was widespread support for the case for change and on the question of what the baseline year for the funding guarantee should be.

10.30 pm

In the light of all those problems, I urge the hon. Member for Maidenhead not to press the amendments and the new clause. I hope that the Opposition will also end their campaign of frightening parents, schools and LEAs into believing that the Government have a hidden agenda for school sixth forms. Our only agenda is one that we are proud to publicise—that provision for 16 to 19-year-olds should be of high quality, and that it should offer a range of options. School sixth forms will continue to be an important and valued element of education provision.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

The Under-Secretary of State smiles at the end of a speech that would have been more enjoyable if, instead of sounding like a wind-up Minister, she had smiled while she made it. She has assured the House that if sixth form numbers fall, funding will not be cut more than pro rata, but she did not say what would happen if sixth form numbers grew. We have to assume that she could not give the assurance that, in that case, funds would grow pro rata. Perhaps she would like to give an assurance to that effect to schools that are successful in expanding their sixth forms.

It is clear that people in many education authorities are keen to have a mixture of provision. In the West Sussex area, for example, there are sixth form colleges and schools with sixth forms. The House should unite in saying that the Government should show more confidence in children and their teachers, and that the aim should be to help them achieve far more than has been the case over the past 20 years or so.

When I first came to the House, some large schools had more than 1,200 pupils, none of whom gained an A-level pass in maths, physics or chemistry. Those schools were not successful. Many people said that pupils in large schools, regardless of whether those were rural or inner-city schools, should be able to achieve the sort of success that would allow them to go on to university or medical school, or join a range of professions. There is now a bipartisan agreement that that can and should happen.

The disappointment in the debate was that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seemed to think that he was opposing the Conservatives in government, and gave his implicit support to almost everything that the Labour Government are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked him what was the Liberal Democrats' policy on sixth forms in rural areas, but he did not answer. That will allow Liberal Democrats to be attacked by Labour and Conservative Members for letting down many teachers, pupils and parents in those areas.

Finally, it is true that children are not numbers. All children, parents and teachers want to achieve what in South Africa is called "upliftment". The connotations of that word are a greater sense of achievement, and a greater opportunity for it. Achieving that requires a little less of the partisan approach that we have heard from the Government over the past three years.

The Under-Secretary of State referred to a Green Paper. Will she assure the House that the consultation process will be more open than the health service consultation that was bounced out by the special political advisers to the Department of Health a month ago? An education Green Paper that was a genuine consultation exercise would be welcome, I suggest to the Labour party—

Mr. Blunkett

What has this got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Bottomley

I am following up a point made by the Under-Secretary of State in this debate. She referred to the Green Paper, and that involves consultation. If that is news to the Secretary of State, it is a jolly good thing that he is listening to the debate.

Mr. Blunkett

What a silly man. Is that a challenge?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, would refrain from making sedentary interventions.

Mr. Bottomley

The Under-Secretary referred to the Green Paper in her response to the debate on the amendments, for which the Secretary of State was not present. I was saying that I hoped that the consultation would be genuine. If the Labour party wants to respond to the consultation, that would also be welcome. For us to have a bipartisan approach to improving education, each person should try to respond to the questions that others are asking.

My belief is that we are doing our job better if we allow schools and sixth form colleges to improve their output. That requires the confidence of the teachers, the interest of the parents and rather less of the minor party bickering that the Secretary of State introduced into the debate this evening.

Mrs. May

I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the opportunity to accept the amendment that would remove the uncertainty from the future of school sixth forms. I am also disappointed that they have not indicated in answers to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) what will happen to school sixth forms when numbers increase—because the schools are worried. However, the Government do not trust the schools, the heads or the teachers. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats do not trust the heads or the teachers either. We do trust the heads and the teachers to get on with the job of raising standards in our schools. That is why we want to give schools complete freedom and ensure that they get all their funding and the opportunity to decide for themselves how to spend it, rather than having to take instructions from the Minister on where to spend every £10, and have the Government decide their priorities for them.

Because the Government have not seen fit to put their legislation behind the Secretary of State's mouth, I shall press amendment No. 87 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 323.

Division No. 241] [10.36pm
Amess, David Letwin, Oliver
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Lidington, David
Baldry, Tony Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Beggs, Roy Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Bercow, John Loughton, Tim
Blunt, Crispin Luff, Peter
Body, Sir Richard Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Boswell, Tim Mclntosh, Miss Anne
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) McLoughlin, Patrick
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Madel, Sir David
Brady, Graham Malins, Humfrey
Brazier, Julian Maples, John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Browning, Mrs Angela Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) May, Mrs Theresa
Burns, Simon Moss, Malcolm
Chope, Christopher Nicholls, Patrick
Clappison, James Norman, Archie
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Ottaway, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Page, Richard
Collins, Tim Paice, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick Paterson, Owen
Cran, James Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Prior, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Redwood, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Robathan, Andrew
Evans, Nigel Robertson, Laurence
Faber, David Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fabricant, Michael Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Fallon, Michael Ruffley, David
Flight, Howard St Aubyn, Nick
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Sayeed, Jonathan
Fraser, Christopher Shepherd, Richard
Gale, Roger Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Garnier, Edward Soames, Nicholas
Gibb, Nick Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gill, Christopher Spicer, Sir Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Spring, Richard
Gray, James Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Green, Damian Swayne, Desmond
Greenway, John Syms, Robert
Grieve, Dominic Tapsell, Sir Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hammond, Philip Tyrie, Andrew
Hawkins, Nick Viggers, Peter
Hayes, John Walter, Robert
Heald, Oliver Waterson, Nigel
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Wells, Bowen
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Whitney, Sir Raymond
Horam, John Whittingdale, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Hunter, Andrew Willetts, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Wilshire, David
Jenkin, Bernard Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Key, Robert Yeo, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Tellers for the Ayes:
Lansley, Andrew Mr. John Randall and
Leigh, Edward Mr. Stephen Day.
Abbott, Ms Diane Atkins, Charlotte
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Austin, John
Ainger, Nick Ballard, Jackie
Allan, Richard Banks, Tony
Allen, Graham Barron, Kevin
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Bayley, Hugh
Atherton, Ms Candy Beard, Nigel
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Fearn, Ronnie
Bennett, Andrew F Field, Rt Hon Frank
Bermingham, Gerald Fisher, Mark
Berry, Roger Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Best, Harold Flint, Caroline
Betts, Clive Follett, Barbara
Blackman, Liz Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Blears, Ms Hazel Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Blizzard, Bob Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Foulkes, George
Borrow, David Gardiner, Barry
Bradley, Keith (Withington) George, Andrew (St Ives)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Browne, Desmond Gerrard, Neil
Burden, Richard Gibson, Dr Ian
Burgon, Colin Gidley, Sandra
Burnett, John Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Butler, Mrs Christine Godman, Dr Norman A
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard Godsiff, Roger
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cann, Jamie Grogan, John
Caplin, Ivor Gunnell, John
Casale, Roger Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Caton, Martin Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Cawsey, Ian Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hanson, David
Chaytor, David Harris, Dr Evan
Clapham, Michael Harvey, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Healey, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hepburn, Stephen
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Heppell, John
Clelland, David Hesford, Stephen
Clwyd, Ann Hill, Keith
Coaker, Vernon Hinchliffe, David
Coffey, Ms Ann Hood, Jimmy
Cohen, Harry Hopkins, Kelvin
Coleman, Iain Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Connarty, Michael Howells, Dr Kim
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) Hoyle, Lindsay
Corbett, Robin Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Corbyn, Jeremy Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Corston, Jean Humble, Mrs Joan
Cotter, Brian Hurst, Alan
Cousins, Jim Hutton, John
Cranston, Ross Iddon, Dr Brian
Crausby, David Illsley, Eric
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cummings, John Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dalyell, Tam Jamieson, David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jenkins, Brian
Darvill, Keith Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dawson, Hilton Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dean, Mrs Janet Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Denham, John Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dismore, Andrew Keeble, Ms Sally
Donohoe, Brian H Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dowd, Jim Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Keetch, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Edwards, Huw Khabra, Piara S
Efford, Clive Kidney, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ennis, Jeff King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Kirkwood, Archy
Kumar, Dr Ashok Purchase, Ken
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Lammy, David Quinn, Lawrie
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Laxton, Bob Rammell, Bill
Lepper, David Raynsford, Nick
Leslie, Christopher Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Levitt, Tom Roche, Mrs Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Rogers, Allan
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen Rooney, Terry
Linton, Martin Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Livsey, Richard Rowlands, Ted
Llwyd, Elfyn Roy, Frank
Lock, David Ruane, Chris
Love, Andrew Ruddock, Joan
McAvoy, Thomas Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McCabe, Steve Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield) Ryan, Ms Joan
Salter, Martin
McDonagh, Siobhain Sanders, Adrian
Macdonald, Calum Savidge, Malcolm
McFall, John Sawford, Phil
Mclsaac, Shona Sedgemore, Brian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary Shaw, Jonathan
McNulty, Tony Sheerman, Barry
MacShane, Denis Shipley, Ms Debra
Mactaggart, Fiona Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McWilliam, John Singh, Marsha
Mahon, Mrs Alice Skinner, Dennis
Mallaber, Judy Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Martlew, Eric Southworth, Ms Helen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Squire, Ms Rachel
Merron, Gillian Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Steinberg, Gerry
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Stevenson, George
Miller, Andrew Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mitchell, Austin Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Moffatt, Laura Stinchcombe, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moran, Ms Margaret Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) Stuart, Ms Gisela
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Stunell, Andrew
Morley, Elliot Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
(B'ham Yardley) Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mountford, Kali Temple-Morris, Peter
Mudie, George Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mullin, Chris Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Tipping, Paddy
Naysmith, Dr Doug Todd, Mark
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Touhig, Don
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Trickett, Jon
Olner, Bill Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
O'Neill, Martin Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Öpik, Lembit Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Palmer, Dr Nick Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Pearson, Ian Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Perham, Ms Linda Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Pickthall, Colin Tyler, Paul
Pike, Peter L Tynan, Bill
Plaskitt, James Walley, Ms Joan
Pollard, Kerry Ward, Ms Claire
Pond, Chris Wareing, Robert N
Pope, Greg Watts, David
Pound, Stephen Webb, Steve
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) White, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Whitehead, Dr Alan
Prescott, Rt Hon John Wicks, Malcolm
Primarolo, Dawn Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) Woodward, Shaun
Woolas, Phil
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) Worthington, Tony
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Willis, Phil Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Wills, Michael Tellers for the Noes:
Winnick, David Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to