These amendments seek to ensure that whoever undertakes lunchtime supervision in schools is properly trained and is working to national minimum standards of staffing.
The questions of training and staffing were both raised on Second Reading, but the Government gave no clear indication on either matter. Tonight they owe it to head teachers, teachers, parents, children and anyone who may undertake this work in the future to make their position clear and to give some answers, particularly on safety and discipline.
Safety and discipline are difficult enough for trained, qualified and experienced teachers, but for untrained people the problems they raise will cause grave difficulties for the quality and maintenance of standards in schools. The premise behind the amendments is that most of the staff undertaking this work are likely to be untrained. The National Association of Head Teachers has estimated that the sums involved will allow payments at the rate of approximately £2·75 an hour. Do the Minister's figures accord with that? If so, very few teachers will accept that payment, and it is highly likely that the staff undertaking this work will be untrained and working to levels of staffing that are not specified in the Bill.
The Minister's Department is ultimately responsible, along with local education authorities, for ensuring the safety of children in schools, through Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and the provision of trained, qualified staff to teach our children.
Schools are extremely hazardous places. They are full of complicated, dangerous and sometimes heavy equipment, as well as chemicals. Many modern schools are full of glass, and in the urban areas many of our older schools are full of railings. These are all potential sources of accidents, especially during the dinner hour. In addition to any playground accidents or accidents with equipment, particlarly PE equipment, there is always the danger of fire. Since the Education Act 1981 there is also the problem of dealing with children with special educational needs.
Will children with special educational needs in normal primary, comprehensive or high schools be suitably supervised at lunchtime by unqualified and untrained staff working to unspecified levels of staffing? Such staff may well be unfamiliar with the premises and the materials to be found on them. How will they cope? Many secondary schools are now very large. I represent an inner city constituency, yet a school that I visitd last week has 840 pupils. Although it is in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, it has 13 acres of ground, and additional hazards arise from shops, roads and visits to the chippy. How will unspecified levels of staff, particularly untrained people who do not know these premises, be able to supervise lunchtime?
I mentioned earlier the problems of fire and children with special educational needs. The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago a special school at Fenton in Stoke-on-Trent burnt down. Fortunately, that was not during the dinner hour. If it had been, handicapped children would have had to be got out of the building by unqualified staff. Is the Minister prepared to make any special provision for special schools? I am sure that he agrees that he has a particular responsibility to children with special needs.
Accidents are more commonplace, but how will unqualified staff cope with simple breaks and lacerations? I was amazed to learn from the North Stafforshire health authority last week that more than 100 children are admitted to the hospital casualty department in Stoke-on-Trent every week of the school term with lacerations and breaks. We are not accident prone; I am told that those are typical figures. Many more children suffer breaks, cuts and lacerations during the lunch break, and an onerous responsibility is being placed on staff who, if the Bill is not amended, will be working with no training and with unspecified numbers.
Who will be responsible for taking children to hospital? Will it be the head? What will happen if the head is off the premises, as the Bill allows him to be? What will be the levels of staffing and training? To whom will staff be responsible if things go wrong? Will they be responsible to the board of governors, to the local education authority or to the head?
What training do the Government envisage? Who will pay for the training? Who will set the standards of training? Will the Department of Education and Science get involved? What level of staffing does the Minister think will be necessary to ensure the safety of children? Will there be minimum national standards of training and staffing, or will it be left to each local education authority, with the Government saying, "You sort it out. It is your responsibility"? That would not be fair. The Government are changing the law and providing the money. They should be responsible for ensuring that staff are trained and that there is an adequate level of staff to ensure the safety of our children.
The problems of safety are containable compared with the less tangible problems of discipline. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will know that discipline is difficult, even in some primary schools, particularly in inner city areas. There is a narrow line between order and chaos, and between a good educational atmosphere and a shambles in the classroom or the playground. If the Minister had ever had to take charge of high-spirited teenagers, let alone more difficult and disturbed children, he would know that these are serious problems and that the skill of maintaining discipline is not easy to learn.
How will discipline work with untrained non-teaching staff? Will lunchtime supervisors have disciplinary powers? That question is not answered by the Bill. What synchronisation does the Minister envisage between the lunchtime supervisors and teachers and head teachers? Who will supervise the lunchtime supervisors? Who will ensure that there is continuity of discipline in school hours and at lunchtime?
What advice would the Minister offer to a dinner lady or lunchtime supervisor who is left in charge of a high school and is approached by a large 14-year-old lad who uses what can only be described as unparliamentary language to her? That is not a matter of jest, though it has made some Conservative Members smile. That would be an unfair and difficult situation for the supervisor. It would also be unfair to other pupils, and it would be detrimental to the standards of discipline in the school. What will a supervisor do if there are two outbreaks of disciplinary problems and there is not enough supervisory staff to cope? The Bill does not ensure that there will be sufficient supervisory staff with adequate skills—staff provided nationally—to make sure that discipline is maintained.
I am sure the Minister will not deny that a breakdown in discipline at dinner time will have an effect on the whole of afternoon education in the school and could affect the quality and atmosphere of education in the school more permanently. I am sure the Minister will agree also that discipline is a vital ingredient in education and in the ethos of a school. Untrained supervisory staff of variable numbers, with unspecified guidelines, could have considerable problems and could do considerable damage to the school, to pupils, to staff-pupil relationships, to education and to standards in schools, which, rightly, the Government say they are seeking to improve.
I fear that the Government have not thought about any of these problems. The Minister agreed on Second Reading that they have not consulted any of the teachers' unions. I understand that the Government sent a note to the National Association of Head Teachers, but they have not indulged in any consultation. They have not thought the Bill through. They have not thought through the difficulties that the Bill will raise of training, staffing, appointing staff, the accountability of staff, the liaison that the staff may have with teaching staff and the position of the head and deputy head in relation to the staff. They have not even defined the lunch hour. I do not know how they have made their calculations without defining what they mean by a lunch hour. The Minister will know that a lunch hour varies considerably from school to school and authority to authority.
None of these problems has been considered by the Minister or his Department. In answering the debate on the first amendment, the Minister suggested that everything was quite simple and that it was a thoroughly uncontroversial Bill. The amendments reflect the difficulties that lie behind the unconsidered parts of the Bill. Even now it is not too late for the Minister to recognise that there are difficulties with the Bill. He would be wise to recognise them and to accept the amendments. I am sure he will agree that the Government owe it to parents and teachers to ensure that standards are maintained and that the supervisory staff in a school are properly trained and sufficient in number. The Government should set the standards, because they are introducing the Bill. They should set an adequate standard of training, and they should pay for the staffing that is proposed and for the training of the staff, to ensure that the staff are competent and efficient. Failure to do that will put schools and the standards within them in jeopardy.
The amendments are extremely constructive and give the Government the chance to improve the Bill by addressing the serious problems of safety, discipline and the quality of supervisory staff in schools. I urge the Minister to accept them and to improve the Bill.
The amendments are another example of concern that was expressed on Second Reading. It seems reasonable that if LEAs are to have to bid for ESG moneys, which is how the system has worked in the past, they should know what the rules are by which their bids will be assessed in future. I suggest to the Minister that he has not thought about this nearly enough. We do not know what he feels about ratios or the role of teachers, if any. We do not know why he has rejected the idea of a national agreement. In a parliamentary answer which I received today—
I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. A short while ago he was accusing the Government of being too centralist in their approach. He is now saying that we should not leave everything to local authorities. His arguments are confusing. On the one hand, he is saying that we are centralising too much, and on the other he is saying that we are depending too much on local education authorities.
My point was that the Minister had not thought. I received a reply today, containing a fair amount of waffle, to my question about ratios. It stated:
the sum of £40 million is not based on any single staffing ratio or rate of pay but the Government are satisfied that it will suffice to provide reliable and adequate supervision in schools in England and Wales.
The Minister has had the brilliance to pluck a figure of £40 million out of the sky and say, "This is an adequate sum", without giving the rationale for what those ratios will be. I remind him of the success that the Secretary of State had when he plucked the figure of £1·25 million out of the sky and felt that it was adequate to settle the teachers' dispute.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will not regard me as being too legalistic if I say that the effect of the amendments would be decidedly bizarre. As they would add words to the end of clause 2, if enacted they would mean that the remuneration paid under the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965—the salaries of teachers and lecturers—should be paid only if local education authorities had satisfied the Secretary of State that they were providing adequate training and standards for supervisory staff. I cannot believe that that is the Opposition's intention.
I shall address myself to what may be the Opposition's intention. I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. We do not accept that additional training should be a statutory requirement for supervisory staff, which amendment No. 11 implies. It will be open to local education authorities to offer teachers separate contracts to do this work. It cannot be right to require local education authorities to train experienced teachers in the supervision of the midday break. I am sure that local education authorities will be guided by the principle that new supervisory staff must be capable of performing their tasks—covering safety and first aid, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said—and of discharging the authorities' duty of care to the pupils in their charge. No doubt, some recruits will need short courses of training for this purpose—a point that has been taken on board by the Manchester education authority and the Inner London education authority which were considering, independently of this legislation, introducing lunch-time supervision. Authorities have experience in the provision of courses for such staff on which they can build.
The Committee should leave this matter to the local education authorities, which were properly commended earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I take the point that local education authorities and the Government will need to pay particular attention to special schools and units. The Government do not propose to issue guidance on the ratios of supervisory staff to pupils, which I understand was the thinking behind amendment No. 7. Our concern is to assist local education authorities to put in hand supervision arrangements which provide for work to be done under separate contracts, secure effective supervision over the period of the midday break under the overall authority of the head teacher—this takes up a point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—and do not rely on voluntary participation of teachers. Provided that those objectives are met, we believe that staffing levels and the type of staff to be recruited are best left to local discretion.
We have set out in the draft circular which is in the Library the criteria on which we shall allocate funds. It is based on the number of children in an authority area and the number of schools. One must make some allowance for the size of schools and the existence of rural areas, which is why Wales has been treated in the way that it has been. Those details are set out in the circular. I am sure that that should satisfy the hon. Gentleman
Those who press for the Government to prescribe staffing standards for midday supervision should reflect on the fact that no standards have been prescribed for teacher staffing in primary and secondary schools for some time. The Labour Government revoked the regulations relating to maximum class sizes in 1969. The Government do not think that it is right to introduce arrangements to secure the supervision of pupils at midday subject to the conclusion of a national agreement.
We believe that local education authorities are best placed to decide, within broad criteria, what arrangements are best suited to the circumstances of their schools, taking account of existing arrangements that vary from one area to another. For example, it will be for authorities to decide whether teachers should he given the opportunity to participate in supervision and for teachers to decide whether to accept that opportunity. Until the balance between teaching and non-teaching staff within the new arrangements is known, it would be premature to attempt a national agreement. Whether there should ultimately be a national agreement on midday supervision is not an issue for the Government, who would not be a party to it. It is a matter for the local education authorities and the staff whom they employ to resolve in the light of experience. I do not hear much support for the call made by the National Association of Head Teachers for a national agreement.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested that midday supervision can be done only by teachers. That was a point that I sought to answer during the Second Reading of this admirable little measure. Already many people who are not teachers are employed to assist with supervision—about 90,000. Many adults are responsible for the safety and welfare of children in other areas. I do not believe that it is a job that can be done only by teachers. I therefore hope that the Committee will resist the two amendments.
The Minister is being a little legalistic. Of course the Bill is difficult to amend, because it is unspecific. If the Minister would like to draft some amendments to the Bill on Report we would look at them with great sympathy and kindness. I am sure that his staff would have no difficulty in amending the Bill, if only the will was there. Unfortunately, the will is not there. The Government have said that they do not accept that there should be statutory training. The Labour party believes that the Government are wrong and that they will regret that decision. Time will prove that it is necessary to have statutory levels of training for the serious job of supervising children in schools.
The Minister talked about that being the responsibility of local education authorities and said that they should have short courses. He will of course, recognise that it will mean extra expense for the authorities if they take their responsibilities seriously. Does he believe that short courses at the discretion of local education authorities are adequate to deal with the problems that we have discussed? He said he believed that they should work within broad criteria. Is it his intention to publish those critieria, because they are certainly not laid down in the Bill?
If the Minister is saying that the Government will come forward with certain criteria, for example, minimum standards and guidelines within which local education authorities will work, we welcome that. That is what he appeared to say in the Bill. If not, he was referring to other criteria set by other people. I understood him to mean that the Government would come forward with the criteria. We would welcome that, because we believe it to be necessary.
The Minister also seemed to suggest that special schools were a particular case. What will the Government do to protect all children with special educational needs, not only those at special schools? I am sure that he recalls the provisions of the Education Act 1981, which ensures that children with special educational needs are educated alongside other children in ordinary schools. They, too, have particular needs of safety and discipline.
Is the Minister seriously saying that he does not believe that children with special educational needs require specially trained staff to supervise them at lunchtime? He cannot mean that. He knows that I was referring, not to teaching staff, but specifically to trained staff. For children at special schools with special educational needs, and physically and mentally handicapped children, it is wrong for the Government to say that they can be supervised by untrained and unqualified staff.
If anything goes wrong when the Bill is put into practice in schools, the Government will regret it. I urge them now to publish the guidelines or broad criteria to which they are working. In the hope that they will think again seriously about safety, particularly that of children with special educational needs, and in the belief that the Minister is serious about addressing the problems and will reconsider them on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(2) Section 2A above shall not apply to nursery schools.'.
Before the Minister jumps up to tell us that the amendment will not have the effect that he thinks we intend, let me tell him that we wish to take the opportunity to probe the Government on how they see the measure
affecting nursery schools. If the amendment is impractical, we shall not be too disappointed. However, we shall be disappointed if the Minister fails to answer this question: in practice, what does he expect to happen in nursery schools?
The Minister has some major problems to sort out. In an earlier debate, he did not seem to be able to answer the question about the difference between supervision and education in the lunch hour. He will have greater difficulty in telling us where supervision finishes and where education starts in the nursery school.
In nursery education, the teacher and the nursery nurse have a different tradition of training and a clear difference in function, one being involved with education and the other in looking after the children, although in practice in many nursery schools it is often difficult to see where the skills of the one finish and the skills of the other start.
At lunchtime there will be greater difficulty in working out how to separate the supervision role from the education role. Anyone involved in looking after 3 to 5-year-olds in nursery schools will feel that it is part of the education to encourage the children to eat their midday meal in a civilised way and talk to each other, as well as to experiment with food that they are not likely to get at home. The teachers can talk about the nutritional content of the food and encourage the children to widen their taste so that they become interested in a wide range of foods. Those are educational areas. It would unfortunate if the Government want to give someone rate of pay that encourages him simply to supervise the children and see that they do not do any physical damage, rather than to carry out an educational role.
What does the Minister envisage will happen in the nursery schools? Does he envisage the nursery nurses working through lunchtime, or having a staggered lunch hour, whereas the nursery teacher will stop work at some point, and his or her role will be taken over by the person involved with lunchtime supervision? Then the teacher will start work again, having had a half hour or three quarters of an hour break. There will be great difficulties in making the Bill work effectively in nursery schools. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks it will work.
Two points set the argument in context and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, not unreasonably, they have determined our approach to the question. First, five out of six nursery pupils attend school part time, for either the morning or the afternoon, so the great majority do not need to be supervised during the midday break. Secondly, nursery schools and classes necessarily employ more non-teaching staff than other schools. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and as parents of young children will immediately appreciate, these very young pupils need more supervision at all times and not just at midday. That need is reflected in the fact that non-teaching staff out number teachers in these schools.
Local education authorities may consider that there are already adequate arrangements for supervision of pupils remaining on the premises at midday, but some may wish to make additional provision. That will be their choice in the light of the staffing of their schools. Authorities will be able to use ESG money for the supervision of pupils in nursery schools if they think it right to do so. If they decide to offer separate contracts, there is no reason why those contracts should be treated differently from contracts for staff in other schools in terms of the Remuneration of Teachers Act.
The distinction between lunchtime supervision and extracurricular work at lunchtime, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on several occasions, was made as long ago as the 1945 regulations and in the Rossetti report and subsequently, so although we all appreciate the distinction I think that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman is—to return to a word that we have both used—making a somewhat legalistic point.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Government's purpose in this admirable little Bill is clear. We are seeking to promote the education of pupils by assisting local education authorities to make arrangements for supervision at midday which will ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of schools. As I have said before, I have been surprised at the objections raised by the Opposition on Second Reading and in our earlier consideration of the Bill today. I should have expected people as genuinely interested as I know that they are in the wellbeing of the education service to welcome this long overdue measure.
I would like to comment briefly on some of the objections that have been raised. We are accused of taking control of money which would otherwise have been available to local education authorities to spend as they wished. In respect of other ESG activities to be supported through education support grants, we have indeed said that the money should be found through redeployment within the total of planned expenditure on education, but we have recognised that midday supervision is a new demand which requires new money.
Under the arrangements that we propose, 70 per cent. of the additional cost of midday supervision arrangements which are approved for ESG support this year and next will be met from the Exchequer. There will be no reduction in block grant as a result of this proposal, so we cannot be accused of asking authorities to bid for their own money. Authorities will need to find the remaining 30 per cent. if they wish to qualify for ESG support, but that will be their own choice. No authority which does not wish to do so will be forced to seek ESG money for this purpose.
I hope that, in practice, most authorities will see the advantage of using the assistance we are offering to improve their arrangements for midday supervision. Some local education authorities are already acting to introduce arrangements along the lines we propose. We expect that many more will do so.
We have also been accused of rushing this measure through with unseemly haste, but the need in our schools is clearly, alas, urgent. The General Secretary of the Secondary Heads Association has been quoted as saying:
the urgency of the situation was such that delay might have extremely serious implications for pupils, parents and local communities".
The Association's members are in a position to know the damage being done to our schools. I might add that the Association has broadly welcomed our proposals. Like all of the other teacher bodies, it was consulted about our draft circular.
A more substantial objection, if it were true—which it decidedly is not—is that we are prepared to bring forward proposals on this subject but not to do anything to resolve the dispute about teachers' pay. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made that point earlier. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put to the House many times. We want an end to this damaging dispute. We have done all that we can to achieve a settlement that is fair to all parties to the bargain. We should not forget that that must include the taxpayers and ratepayers who must ultimately foot the bill. They must find the £1·25 billion of new money that we have proposed.
Against that background, it is mischievous of Opposition Members to suggest that we should not go ahead with the Bill until employers and teachers reach a pay agreement for 1985–86. We all hope that an agreement will soon be reached. There is a meeting tomorrow, which I hope will move matters forward constructively. The Government will continue to try to find ways in which to bring the dispute to an end which is fair—
In that case, I shall come even more speedily to an exceptionally brief peroration. The Bill seeks to solve a longstanding problem which has caused increasing difficulties in our schools. I therefore commend it to the House.
We oppose the Bill receiving a Third Reading for the same reasons as we opposed its receiving a Second Reading. We object to the way in which education support grants are now being funded. Although we do not oppose the principle of specific grants, we oppose the Secretary of State removing money from hard-pressed local authorities to use it for his own purposes.
I accept that the Government will provide £28 million for 1986–87 to support supervision at midday. However, as the Minister admitted, local education authorities will have to provide £12 million out of their own resources and they will lose control over a further £12 million of their money.
Against the background of the growing crises of provision in our schools and the growing squeeze on education resources, we condemn the Government's failure to provide new money to cover all education support grants. We also oppose the Bill because we object to its timing. We recognise the strong case for a fully staffed ancillary service at lunchtime, but the Government have not answered some serious questions about training and staffing.
The Secretary of State is rushing through the Bill during the dispute without consulting the teachers, and that is understandably considered to be provocative, particularly since the £40 million approved expenditure comes from the so-called "envelope" of £1·25 billion which the Government say is available under certain conditions for teachers' pay.
The third reason why we are against the Bill is the Government's sense of priorities. There is a glaring contrast between the Secretary of State's eagerness to rush the Bill through the House and his inactivity in solving the teachers' dispute. Since August the Secretary of State has either wrung his hands or sat on them. The dispute over teachers' pay has lasted 18 months in Scotland and 11 months in England and Wales, inflicting great damage on our children's education. The Government must now set up an inquiry. It has responsibility for the education service—
The Government must take responsibility for finding a solution to this damaging dispute.
The Bill does nothing to tackle the desperate shortage of money and crisis of provision in our schools. It is illtimed. Above all, it does nothing to bring an end to the teachers' dispute. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.
The Minister described the measure as an admirable little Bill. That is how King Edward VII referred to the Kaiser. My right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the Bill, mainly because of its irrelevance, and because the Minister has failed to provide anything remotely like supervision at mealtimes. He is providing only for people to stand around while children eat.
I oppose the Bill because it does nothing to make education in 1986 less awful than it was in 1985. What is more, it takes £40 million out of education expenditure which might have helped solve the teachers' dispute. I oppose it because it will do nothing towards finding a solution, and nothing towards setting up an inquiry that might finally help education.
Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that I am the only right hon. Gentleman who is out of step, but I am the only one in step. I hope that he will get in step with me.
I accept that and shall move on quickly.
Our opposition to the Bill is predominantly because it does nothing new. The only new step taken by the Secretary of State recently was to appoint the hon. Ladies the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to junior posts because he is the only man in the House who does not know the difference between them. I welcome their appointments, but I hope that their talents will be used in future for more acceptable causes.
|Division No. 29]||[11.15 pm>|
|Alexander, Richard||Ancram, Michael|
|Amess, David||Aspinwall, Jack|
|Atkinson, David (B m'th E)||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Baldry, Tony||Hubbard-Miles, Peter|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Hunter, Andrew|
|Benyon, William||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Blackburn, John||Jackson, Robert|
|Body, Richard||Jessel, Toby|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Jones, Robert (Herts W)|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Knowles, Michael|
|Bright, Graham||Lang, Ian|
|Brinton, Tim||Latham, Michael|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Lester, Jim|
|Burt, Alistair||Lord, Michael|
|Butterfill, John||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Maclean, David John|
|Cash, William||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Chapman, Sydney||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Chope, Christopher||Major, John|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Malins, Humfrey|
|Conway, Derek||Malone, Gerald|
|Coombs, Simon||Marlow, Antony|
|Cope, John||Mather, Carol|
|Corrie, John||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Crouch, David||Merchant, Piers|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Dicks, Terry||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Moate, Roger|
|Durant, Tony||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Dykes, Hugh||Murphy, Christopher|
|Evennett, David||Neubert, Michael|
|Eyre, Sir Reginald||Newton, Tony|
|Fallon, Michael||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Favell, Anthony||Normanton, Tom|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Norris, Steven|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Forth, Eric||Ottaway, Richard|
|Freeman, Roger||Page, Sir John (Harrow W)|
|Gale, Roger||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Galley, Roy||Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Portillo, Michael|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Powley, John|
|Gow, Ian||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Raffan, Keith|
|Greenway, Harry||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Gregory, Conal||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Griffiths, Sir Eldon||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Ground, Patrick||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Spencer, Derek|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Squire, Robin|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Harris, David||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Harvey, Robert||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Hayward, Robert||Thurnham, Peter|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Heddle, John||Waller, Gary|
|Hickmet, Richard||Warren, Kenneth|
|Hind, Kenneth||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Mr. Peter Lloyd and|
|Holt, Richard||Mr. Francis Maude.|
|Alton, David||Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Bruce, Malcolm|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Caborn, Richard|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)|
|Boyes, Roland||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Clarke, Thomas||Kennedy, Charles|
|Clelland, David Gordon||Lamond, James|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Leighton, Ronald|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||McWilliam, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Madden, Max|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Marek, Dr John|
|Deakins, Eric||Maxton, John|
|Dixon, Donald||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dormand, Jack||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Douglas, Dick||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Eadie, Alex||Patchett, Terry|
|Eastham, Ken||Pike, Peter|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Ewing, Harry||Radice, Giles|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Rogers, Allan|
|Fisher, Mark||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Foster, Derek||Skinner, Dennis|
|Foulkes, George||Snape, Peter|
|Freud, Clement||Spearing, Nigel|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Golding, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Hardy, Peter||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Home Robertson, John||Mr. Alex Carlile and|
|Howells, Geraint||Mr. James Wallace.|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|