I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 18, line 5 after 'conditions', insert 'of parental income'.
We now come to the question of the income test for parents seeking admission for their children to the assisted places scheme. Unfortunately, we shall not be able to discuss the matter in detail because of the way in which our discussions have been truncated. I shall speak briefly because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The proposition in clause 17 is that children who might not otherwise be able to do so, presumably on the ground of their parents' limited income, should be able to take advantage of places in the independent sector. We have always held the belief that this is a false prospectus and that the possibility of poor children being able to participate in education in the private sector by means of this scheme is remote. Indeed, the idea that the proposal is for the children of the poor is a cosmetic to disguise the restoration of the direct grant system, with all its distortions and unequal distribution of opportunity.
Examination of the figures in the written answer of 7 February 1980 will more than adequately demonstrate that our fears about the scheme and the opportunities allegedly said to be open to the children of the poor have been well founded. It is worth commenting that if anything should attract the support of Conservative Back Benchers it is the idea that, for reasons of charity and humanitarianism, the scheme could offer opportunities for children from poor backgrounds. Yet, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report there has been little support for the Government from their Back Benchers. Indeed, in the last debate only one Conservative Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page)—spoke in support of the Government. The Government will know how much store to set by that degree of support.
The Government propose that there should be a sliding scale of contributions depending on the total family income. Remission will be made according to that income and set against the fees. On first sight of the lower income level, the fact that a family with an income of less than £4,000 per annum will be able to have access to the scheme for one of its children absolutely free appears to be an egalitarian measure. At least it appears to provide an opportunity that did not exist previously. However, taking into account the class structure of the country, which I suggest Opposition Members are more intensely engaged upon destroying than are Conservative Members, it is inconceivable that there will be a substantial take-up among the poor with incomes of less than £4,000 per annum of the opportunities alleged to be offered by the assisted places scheme. Indeed, unless there were to be a sudden resolution of the class conflict and removal of class divisions, it is impossible to conceive of that sort of advantage being taken. I do not imagine that in the lifetime of this Government, or for several Governments to come, we shall see the miraculous eradication of the class system.
However, there are other reasons for believing that this system has never been geared to the needs of the poor. About half an hour ago the Secretary of State informed us that the Government intend to spend £3 million on 6,000 pupils. That is an average, over each year, of £500 per head. As a result, the Government anticipate that the overwhelming majority of those going into assisted places will come from homes that will require remissions of substantially less than £500 a year.
Therefore, if the total allocation for each year is divided by the number of children they expect in the scheme, the children of the poor will not reap any advantage. The Government recognise that. The other weakness of the Government's proposal is that they manage to equate attendance at maintained schools for two years before the great deciding examination with poverty—or something less than affluence. That is a ridiculous error.
There is evidence to show that the Government do not pretend that the scheme will help the poor. We have received no undertaking, despite continuous questioning, about how much each parent will be expected to pay in addition to the fees in order to meet the conditions of attendance. We have had no indication whether children are to be assisted with travel to school or with school meals.
We have received no definition of the role of education authorities. Will they be permitted to provide top-up finance towards tuition, boarding and travelling fees as well as towards other additional expenses? If local authorities or school bursaries do not provide money, the vast majority of those on limited incomes will never be able to send their children to such schools.
Turning to the reality of the Government's suggested income structure, the family with one child and a total income of £6,000 a year will be expected to pay £354 towards the annual tuition costs of the assisted place. That family is likely to have a mortgage involving repayments of £1,400 a year. After tax and other stoppages, it is likely to have a net income of £4,800 a year. The sum of £354 represents one-tenth of the family's net income after meeting the basic needs of housing, and after tax and national insurance contributions. It is impossible to imagine that such a family would be able to send its child to an assisted place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. The tuition costs will represent one-tenth of that family's net income. That does not include travelling costs or the cost of school meals. To send such a child to an assisted place would require a level of aspiration that is beyond even the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).It is cruel to play such a joke. If a family aspires to get its child into private education by this means, it will find that the Government's formula mocks it.
If a family has a gross income of £7,800, it will be expected to pay tuition fees of £894, provided that it has only one child. It will have a net income of approximately £6,200 a year after stoppages. It will be paying about £2,000 per annum for its mortgage at present interest rates, leaving a residual income of about £4,200. That family will have to pay one-fifth of its income to get a child into the scheme. If the Minister doubts my figures, I suggest that he pops along to the Library to read the written answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on 7 February.
The hon. Gentlemen tells us a sad and heartrending story of a family on £6,000 a year being required to spend £354 a year on school fees for one child, which will be one-tenth of its net income. If the husband and wife each smoked 20 cigarettes a day, how much would they save—[HON. MEMBERS: 'Choice".]—if they decided that instead of spending money on cigarettes they would stop smoking and send their child to school at a cost of £354 a year? If the hon. Gentleman made that calculation, I believe that he would find that that couple would make a significant saving, in addition to sending their child to school and improving their health.
The hon. Gentleman should explain other factors. Why is it that that couple, with their limited income, and ready to give up smoking and drinking—if ever started—get assistance to send their child to an independent school but do not receive the bus fares to send that child to a maintained school? That is only one inconsistency. There are many others.
The major inconsistency is in the scheme itself. The Government suggest that the child who qualifies is one who manages to reach his or her examination-passing capability at 11 or 13 years of age, whose parents can afford to pay a substantial part of the fees not met by the assisted places scheme and who neither smoke, drink nor want to take holidays. I suppose that there are such people, and I am the last to criticise them. If people want to surrender their pleasures in order, as they think, to advantage their child, they have my full commendation as caring parents. However, does the Minister really want to superimpose on all the other selective disadvantaging systems in our society the further requirement on a family not to participate in normal habits, to no great excess, in order to secure that opportunity for its child, which is at least dubious in advantage, if that advantage exists?
We can debate choice further, but that is better not done during a guillotined Report stage. I hope that we shall have that opportunity later.
Further to the point raised by may hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North(Mr. Marlow), I know of a number of people in my constituency, as must other hon. Members, whose income is not much more than £6,000 or £7,000, and who pay much more than £350 a year to send their children to private school. It is not incredible, if parents have saved and made the choice, that they should wish to pay £350 a year for an assisted place.
I am the first to recognise that such people exist. They have freedom to follow their choice, for whatever reason. I object to the idea that a precondition to securing what the Government consider to be an advantage for a child should be the test of parental interest and motivation. I hope that the Minister will distinguish between all these aspects. Unless he does, he will leave a confused view of the possibilities offered by the scheme.
What about the realities? What about the systems that we already have for testing? What are the consequences of providing various forms of assistance for families when the aspirations and motivations vary from family to family? In Cheshire—a county with which the Secretary of State will be familiar—there is an assisted places scheme. A report provided by the chief education officer to the education committee at the beginning of this year showed the income distribution of the parents of children using the scheme. Twenty-four per cent. of children in the scheme were covered by a heading of "incomes not declared", presumably because the income level was too high to benefit from any financial assistance. The other figures were: incomes over £10,000, 32 per cent; incomes between £7,000 and £10,000, 26 per cent.; incomes between £5,000 and £7,000, 11 per cent.; incomes between £3,000 and £5,000, 5 per cent.; and incomes below £2,000, 2 per cent.
If that is the consequence of an assisted places scheme, it is certainly not offering advantages to people on the kind of incomes scale that was laid down by the Secretary of State in his answer to the hon. Member for Streatham on 7 February. Hon. Members can examine these papers from the Cheshire county council at any time. They emphasise and demonstrate yet again the enormous disparities in the use of such systems, dependent almost entirely on the material background of the home and the social class from which the pupil comes.
If Conservative Members want to join us in the eradication of those class divisions, I will cheerfully join hands with them. But they have a most schizophrenic attitude. They want to espouse the idea of ending all the class divisions, while at the same time insisting on maintaining, watering and otherwise manuring the roots of that class system by keeping the independent sector in education.
Earlier, when I suggested that the average cost of the assisted places scheme would be less than that of maintaining a child in the State sector the hon. Gentleman told me that I was wrong. He has now said that his average estimated cost is £500, which is lower than the average cost in the maintained school.
The hon. Gentleman read out the income bands in Cheshire, but surely those must be compared with the distribution of income in Cheshire itself. Has he bothered to do the research to find out what proportion of families in Cheshire have an income of less than £3,000, or between £3,000 and £5,000? Or is he just producing figures which provide no comparison and therefore mean nothing?
It is fair to use the figures produced by the Cheshire county council, on which basis it is prepared to decide the future of its scheme. Even if that were not the case, and even if the local authority were not acting on the basis of these figures, I cannot imagine that Cheshire is such a blessed plot on the face of England that it is so different from the general pattern of income distribution as to make these figures meaningless or worth less than I think they are.
I shall give way to the hon. Member later. I realise that he is from Cheshire and I will give way, but I was hoping that I would not be interrupted quite so often. A lot of hon. Members want to speak before we reach the witching hour of two o'clock.
Conservative Members must, in their support for this system, understand that there are elementary weaknesses in the view that by providing this system they can achieve their declared aim—and I give them credit at least for declaring it—of providing for those who are materially disadvantaged. Professor Halsey's recent publication "Origins and Destinations" demonstrates the differentials yet again. He says:
Class differentials are most extreme in the case of the independent Headmasters' Conference schools; a boy from the service class"—
that is administrative or professional class and above—
had nearly forty times the chance of his working-class peer of entering one of these schools…In the case of Direct Grant schools his chance was twelve times as good, and in that of the grammar schools it was three times as good.
There is a dictatorship of class in the system of educational opportunity. It should be a matter of unanimity, if we represent the people and children of this country, that we are determined to eradicate those divisions, not only because of our interest in securing the educational advantage of the children, but because we know that the divisions that begin as fissures of selection at the age of 11 widen and harshen into intracable divisions in industry, culture and attitude and become prolonged and repeated from generation unto generation. If any hon. Member considers that that system of breach and enmity is unhelpful, unproductive and altogether abominable, he will not seek to perpetuate those divisions by trying to introduce an assisted places scheme, even with the cosmetic of trying to help those from less affluent backgrounds.
The facts are known. We have seen the direct grant scheme and the Cheshire example. We understand what the income scale will boil down to. The system was never intended to benefit the poor. It has always been an accommodation of parental snobbery scheme, and not a scheme for the assistance of children who could not secure advantage.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is probable that Cheshire needs to take up quite a number of places in an independent Catholic school, because there are inadequate Catholic schools to provide an education for children of the many parents who wish to use denominational schools? I am sure that, from what the hon. Gentleman has said about school transport, he values the denominational schools and will wish to see Cheshire continue to take up those places. Will he correct the impression that he has given to the House?
If it is a mistaken impression, I shall certainly correct it, though I do not think that it is mistaken. I do not think that the distribution is so eccentric as to make those figures meaningless. I repeat that the Cheshire county council is making major educational decisions on the basis of the figures. Who is to say that in other parts of the country there will not always be caveats, reservations and demographic considerations that may slightly strengthen the Secretary of State's argument or enormously weaken it?
The case put by the hon. Member for Macclesfield does not make any significant difference to the argument. However, I hope that his concern for the rights of people to secure denominational education for their children will be demonstrated tomorrow when we shall be testing whether he and his hon. Friends really want people to have the right of choice of denominational education as we discuss the transport clause.
We do not like the amendments. One would involve the whole income of the family, which would mean a return to the means tests of the 1930s, which I am sure are well remembered by the Labour Party, and the other would allow parents to exclude only the income of their children.
It was interesting to hear the attack of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the income scale that we have provided. He complained not that we are helping the rich but that some parents will not be able to afford fees, even with the help that we are offering. We must have disappointed Labour Members.
We shall see whether parents take it up. Let us see what the hon. Gentleman says in two years' time. He and his hon. Friends would not be so worried if they thought that it was a con trick. They fear what may happen.
A family with an income of £4,000 a year and one child will not have to make any contribution. The minimum help under the scheme goes to a one-child family earning £7,800. No mortgage payments are included—nothing but £300 per child. There is no question of mortgages or anything adding up.
At present, the average wage, upgraded from 1979 earnings, is £5,928. The average income of a family—this figure includes pensioners—is £6,250. I do not think that anyone can say that we are being over-generous by it being free up to £4,000 with one child, and going up to £7,800, beyond which no help is given.
What will it mean? Let us have the figures, instead of going round the country and seeing what is happening in Cheshire, the Windermere canal area and other odd places. Let us look at the situation. This scale will mean that 30 per cent. of families can send their children to the ex-direct grant schools free; they pay nothing. Incidentally, those are the families with least income. That does not seem wrong to me or to my hon. Friends. It may not even seem wrong to the hon. Member for Bedwellty. He may see nothing wrong in the 30 per cent. at the bottom paying nothing.
Forty-three per cent. will get some help, and 27 per cent.—those at the top, such as Members of Parliament, the people gathered here, the rich and the class-ridden in our society—will get nothing. It seems to me that we are doing this pretty fairly.
No, the hon. Member will have to wait for the three illustrations. They may answer his point, because I know that he is carefully following what I am saying.
A mathematics teacher with £5,512—we are short of maths teachers, so I am saying this to encourage them—with one child, will pay £4 a week. We have had illustrations of where one can save that sum, and I shall come to that matter later.
The agricultural labourer is often mentioned when social benefits are discussed. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an expert on the agricultural labourer. He exists—and I do not mean that at all unpleasantly. I am sure that the hon. Member would want to know how the agricultural labourer will be affected. On the average wage of £3,500 it will be free, whether he has one child, two, four or whatever number. For the docker, the average income is £6,500. If he had one child he would pay £504. If he had three children he would pay £324. There is no doubt that on that scale the help is going to those who need it.
When the hon. Gentleman says that 30 per cent. will go free, is he saying that, in terms of the 6,000 places and the £5 million, the Government have calculated that that is the result that they expect and aim to achieve when the first tranche of the assisted place pupils enter the schools?
The hon. Member knows me well enough to know that, obviously, what I say is true. What I mean is that children from 30 per cent. of the families in this country will go free on this scale. Obviously the hon. Member wants to know what will happen under this scheme, and he will become a supporter of it as we go along. We must try it in an experimental, progressive fashion, and see what actually happens.
Let me just repeat the figures for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I do not want him to have a worried night. For 30 per cent. of families it will be free; 43 per cent. will have some help; and 27 per cent. will have no help at all. That is what it means.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem with the Opposition's argument—which has taken up much of the time that Back Benchers might have used—is that they would prefer people to spend their money on a motor car or on smoking rather than on educating their children as they would like? What they really want to do is to exclude from these schools the very people for whom they ought to be fighting.
I agree entirely. It seems to me that once this scale is published, and once people know the help that they can get—and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said tonight, 113 of the 118 former direct grant schools have applied, with their superb sixth form academic record, which no one in this Chamber can deny—shouts of joy will be heard in this country. I have no doubt about that.
Let me go on to another point about cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked about cost. I mentioned this point a number of times in Committee. Those who were not privileged to enjoy the 100-plus hours that we spent in Committee on the Bill must have a little of those joys this evening.
The average recoupment cost for children between the ages of 11 and 16 as between one county and another when real money has to go over and when counties become realistic—even county education officers become realistic at that time—is £675. At 16-plus the cost is £1,155. The figures for six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester average £841. Direct grant schools, we all agree, are heavily weighted at the sixth form. If one adds up—I know that many hon. Members have their mental calculators with them tonight and as 2 o'clock approaches they will work even more speedily—it means that Manchester ratepayers would save money if they sent their children to direct grant schools. I am not suggesting that all the children in Manchester should be sent to direct grant schools. I do not want to put that idea into people's heads. But no one can say that we are wasting money.
Last week I visited a school on the South Coast, where I had a speaking engagement. Whilst there I looked at the day fees, which differed from those for day boarders, and compared them with day fees at Tiffins—a Manchester grammar school for day boys—and discovered how realistic the fees were.
I should like to mention one other table, because it will answer one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty. The hon. Gentleman did not like our scale because people would have to make sacrifices to enable their children to attend the direct grant schools. That does not seem to be a bad thing. If people say "This is what we want; this is our priority", we are prepared to help them, but they must also try.
By sheer chance I have here a table showing the distribution of income of families with children at independent secondary schools. I obtained this whilst listening to the hon. Member for Bedwellty, and we enjoyed listening to him in Committee from time to time. But this is new stuff. Neither of us has used this before. One might say that this is going out with a flourish this evening.
The average family income is £6,200. Approximately 1·5 per cent. of children in independent secondary schools come from families with an income of less than £4,000; 2·1 per cent. come from families where the income is between £4,000 and £5,000; and 3·1 per cent. come from families with an income of £6,000 to £7,000. About 9·8 per cent. of children at independent secondary schools come from families with an income below £8,000. Those people are achieving what they want to do without any help at all.
The direct grant scheme was different, because money was given to the school and the school then took in the pupils. Pupils from some of the richest families in the country could go there completely free. That is totally different from the assisted places scheme, because the money will go only to those who need it. The Opposition may not like it, but this is selectivity with a vengeance, because the money goes to those who need it.
We believe that in some of the ex-direct grant and other schools where there are superb academic standards there are those who need help. Those studying mathematics and languages need help just as much as the ballet dancers and musicians. What is wrong with being born a linguist? Such a person may in future be able to help the country in his way. What is wrong with being born a mathematician? Of course, mathematicians are often spent by the time they reach the age of 30.
|Division No. 177]||AYES||[2 am|
|Abse, Leo||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Mabon, Rt Kon Dr J. Dickson|
|Adams, Allen||English, Michael||McCartney, Hugh|
|Allaun, Frank||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Anderson, Donald||Evans, John (Newton)||McElhone, Frank|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Ewing, Harry||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest||Faulds Andrew||McKelvey, William|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Field, Frank||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Ashton, Joe||Flannery, Martin||Maclennan, Robert|
|Atkinson, Norman (H gey, Tott'ham)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McMahon, Andrew|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Forrester, John||McNally, Thomas|
|Beith, A. J.||Foster, Derek||McWilliam, John|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Foulkes, George||Magee, Bryan|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||George, Bruce||Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Golding, John||Maxton, John|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Graham, Ted||Meacher, Michael|
|Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)||Grant, John (Islington C)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Buchan, Norman||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)|
|Campbell, Ian||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Cant, R. B.||Haynes, Frank||Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Heffer, Eric S.||Morton, George|
|Cartwright, John||Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Home Robertson, John||Newens, Stanley|
|Cohen, Stanley||Homewood, William||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Coleman, Donald||Hooley, Frank||Ogden, Eric|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Horam, John||O'Neill, Martin|
|Conlan, Bernard||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Cook, Robin F.||Howells, Geraint||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Cowans, Harry||Huckfield, Les||Palmer, Arthur|
|Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Park, George|
|Crowther, J. S.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)||Parry, Robert|
|Cryer, Bob||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Janner, Hon Greville||Pendry, Tom|
|Cunningham, George (Islington S)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Penhaligon, David|
|Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)||John, Brynmor||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Johnston, Russell (Iverness)||Prescott, John|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)||Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelll)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Race, Reg|
|Davies, I for (Gower)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)|
|Deakins, Eric||Kerr, Russell||Richardson, Jo|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Dempsey, James||Kinnock, Neil||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)|
|Dewar, Dorald||Lambie, David||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Dixon, Donald||Lamborn, Harry||Robertson, George|
|Dobson, Frank||Lamond, James||Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)|
|Dormand, Jack||Leadbitter, Ted||Rodgers, Rt Hon William|
|Douglas, Dick||Leighton, Ronald||Rooker, J. W.|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Roper, John|
|Dubs, Alfred||Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)||Litherland, Robert||Rowlands, Ted|
|Eadie, Alex||Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Sever, John|
|Eastham, Ken||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Sheerman, Barry|
|Ellis, Raymond (N'E Derbyshire)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)|
|Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)||Whitlock, William|
|Silverman, Julius||Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Snape, Peter||Tilley, John||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Soley, Clive||Torney, Tom||Winnick, David|
|Spearing, Nigel||Urwin, Rt Hon Tom||Woodall, Alec|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Stallard, A. W.||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Wright, Sheila|
|Stoddart, David||Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)||Young, David (Bolton East)|
|Stott, Roger||Weetch, Ken|
|Strang, Gavin||Wellbeloved, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Straw, Jack||Welsh, Michael||Mr. Terry Davis and|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)||Mr. James Tinn.|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Adley, Robert||Dover, Denshore||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Aitken, Jonathan||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Alexander, Richard||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||Kaberry Sir Donald|
|Ancram, Michael||Durant, Tony||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Arnold, Tom||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Eggar, Timothy||Lamont, Norman|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston North)||Emery, Peter||Lang, Ian|
|Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)||Fairbairn, Nicholas||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Fairgrieve, Russell||Latham, Michael|
|Baker, Nicholas (NorthDorset)||Faith, Mrs Sheila||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Banks, Robert||Farr, John||Lawson, Nigel|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Lee, John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)||Fisher Sir Nigel||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Fletcher, Alexande- (Edinburgh N)||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Best, Keith||Fookes, Miss Janet||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Forman, Nigel||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Loveridge, John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fox, Marcus||Luce, Richard|
|Blackburn, John||Fraser Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Elaker, Peter||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Body, Richard||Fry, Peter||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gardiner George (Reigate)||MacGregor, John|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Garel-Jones, Tristan||MacKay, John (Argyll)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Glyn, Dr Alan||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Goodhart, Philip||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Bradford, Rev. R.||Goodlad, Alastair||Madel, David|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Gorst, John||Major, John|
|Bright, Graham||Gow, Ian||Marland, Paul|
|Brinton, Tim||Gower, Sir Raymond||Marlow, Tony|
|Brittan, Leon||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Gray, Hamish||Marten, Neil (Banbury)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Greenway Harry||Mates, Michael|
|Brotherton, Michael||Grieve, Percy||Mather, Carol|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)||Maude, Rt Hon Angus|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mawby, Ray|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Grist, Ian||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Grylls, Michael||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Buck, Antony||Gummer. John Selwyn||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Budgen, Nick||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)||Mellor, David|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Butcher, John||Hampson, Dr Keith||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Hannam, John||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Haselhurst, Alan||Mills, Peter (West Devon)|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Hastings, Stephen||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hawksley, Warren||Moate, Roger|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)||Hayboe, Barney||Monro, Hector|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Heddle, John||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Channon, Paul||Henderson, Barry||Moore, John|
|Chapman, Sydney||Heseitine, Rt Hon Michael||Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)|
|Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)|
|Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)||Hill, James||Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)||Mudd, David|
|Cockeram, Eric||Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Murphy, Christopher|
|Colvin, Michael||Hooson, Tom||Myles, David|
|Cope, John||Hordern, Peter||Neale, Gerrard|
|Cormack, Patrick||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Needham, Richard|
|Corrie, John||Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Costain, A. P.||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Neubert, Michael|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Newton, Tony|
|Critchley, Julian||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Nott, Rt Hon John|
|Crouch, David||Hurd, Hon Douglas||Onslow, Cranley|
|Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Irvine, Charles (Cheltenham)||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)|
|Parkinson, Cecil||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexloyheath)|
|Parris, Matthew||Shersby, Michael||Trippier, David|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Silvester, Fred||Trotter, Neville|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Sims, Roger||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Skeet, T. H. H.||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Pawsey, James||Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)||Viggers, Peter|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Speed, Keith||Waddington, David|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Speller, Tony||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Pollock, Alexander||Spence, John||Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)|
|Price, David (Easlleigh)||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)||Waller, Gary|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)||Ward, John|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Sproat, Iain||Warren, Kenneth|
|Raison, Timothy||Squire, Robin||Watson, John|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stainton, Keith||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)||Stanbrook, Ivor||Wells, Bowen (Kert'rd & Stev'nage)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stanley, John||Wheeler, John|
|Renton, Tim||Steen, Anthony||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Stevens, Martin||Whitney, Raymond|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Wickenden, Keith|
|Ridsdale, Julian||Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Stokes, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Stradling Thomas, J.||Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Rost, Peter||Tebbit, Norman||Wolfson, Mark|
|Royle, Sir Anthony||Temple-Morris, Peter||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)|
|Scott, Nicholas||Thompson, Donald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)||Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Thornton, Malcolm||Mr. John Wakeham.|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|