With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.
No. 8, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98; and in making such evaluation he shall consult those organisations which appear to him to be representative of local authorities, teachers and parents.'.
No. 7, in page 11, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) Requirements under subsection (1) above shall include—
Nursery vouchers lead us to the substantive part of the Bill. We had lengthy discussions in Committee on the structure of the vouchers. The purpose behind the amendments is to demonstrate that the Government's proposals are seriously damaging to Scottish education, especially that which applies to pre-fives. We believe that the voucher provisions are seriously flawed. We became increasingly concerned during our discussions in Committee about the lack of any due consideration by the Government of the quality of education provision for pre-fives.
Issues of quality assurance lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. In another place, when the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was being discussed, their lordships saw fit to introduce an amendment that would require the Government to ask the House to evaluate pilot schemes for nursery vouchers.
The very proposal to introduce nursery vouchers is wrong. It is educationally divisive. At its root is a fundamental flaw: nursery vouchers do not guarantee a nursery place. The Government are intent on using their majority in this place to force through wrong-headed legislation. I urge the Government to take on board the serious quality assurance issues that must be taken into account and to allow the House to apply detailed consideration in evaluating the pilot schemes that the Government are intent on forcing through and implementing.
The hon. Lady suggests that nursery vouchers are divisive. I cannot understand that, because every parent in Scotland will be offered £1,100 for their child's nursery education. That is certainly what my constituents want, and they resent the hon. Lady's attempt to remove the option from them when they are desperate to ensure that their children have a nursery education.
The hon. Gentleman was a source of great enjoyment to Labour Members in Committee. Yet again he fails to take on board the basic point: a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place. In correspondence, Scottish Office officials have acknowledged that a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. She should not be misled by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). His constituents are getting proper nursery places, not vouchers. South Ayrshire is expanding its nursery provision by providing proper nursery classes in spare classrooms. That is exactly the sort of provision that Labour proposes, and Labour-controlled South Ayrshire council is introducing it. The hon. Gentleman's constituents, who will not be represented by him for much longer, are getting a first-class education service.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the voice of common sense from Ayrshire. It is clear that parents want good-quality nursery provision, and sensible, well-organised nursery provision by local authorities has been widely welcomed.
One damaging effect of the Bill is that it will undermine important partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors in Scotland. All three sectors are as one in condemning the Government for the lack of quality assurance and for the quality of education provision.
In Committee, Conservative Members paid limited attention to quality and to how nursery providers are to be assessed. Eighty profiles of education provision have been received and 57 approved. Who is checking those self-assessed applications to provide nursery places? Everyone, from local authorities to the voluntary sector and to the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association, has one common fear about the provision of nursery education: the intervention of cowboy operators interested only in getting money out of the Government, under a convoluted system that will not benefit anyone who cannot secure a nursery school place for their child.
I am deeply concerned about the Government's proposals for evaluation. It is critical that the House be given an opportunity to decide whether the pilots have been fair, sensible, open and honest and whether the evaluation scheme has been properly conducted. The university of Stirling is to evaluate the scheme in the four pilot areas in Scotland. Membership of the research advisory committee has not been announced, but we know that applicants with considerable expertise in child care and education, such as Children in Scotland, have not been included.
The university of Stirling—this is a very important point—is already aware of the terms of the evaluation: cost-effectiveness, not quality. That is deplorable, because the education and care of children at the most vulnerable stage of their education will not be properly assessed for quality. It is all the more disturbing when we bear in mind the fact that 50 per cent. of a child's educational development takes place before the age of five.
The Government's lack of strategic cohesion for pre-five provision in Scotland has been apparent throughout consideration of the Bill. Their failure to give the Scottish Pre-School Play Association adequate funds to allow it to implement improved training is a clear sign that they do not intend the Bill to contribute to the education debate in Scotland, but are using it as a fudge in the run-up to a general election.
I do not think that the Government have been clear enough on the whole question of what new money will be made available for the provision of nursery vouchers throughout Scotland; nor have we been given enough information about the true administration costs. On Second Reading, we were told that only 2 per cent. of the budget would be spent on administration. We were told that £22 would be needed to deal with a voucher that would have to go through 10 stages before it could be fully implemented, but we estimate the cost at £290.
In Committee, many of our questions were not answered. The amendments seek to introduce some cohesion to the legislation, but, at the end of the day, we can improve the quality of education for pre-fives in Scotland only by getting away from the whole concept of nursery vouchers, and introducing a system of nursery education that provides adequately for children aged three and four.
Does the hon. Lady feel an apology coming on? She may remember that, in Committee, she denounced my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for forcing a vote on exactly the same two amendments, on the ground that they would make it impossible to return to the matter on Report. She also said that, because a Tory rebellion was under way, she anticipated an Opposition victory. She was clearly wrong: we are now discussing not one but two amendments that would allow us to do exactly the same thing. Will she now apologise to my hon. Friend?
Far from apologising, I will make the point that Labour Members are interested in substance rather than stunts. Because of activities of members of the Committee, we missed opportunities to explore issues that should have been explored much more fully with a Government who welcomed the opportunity not to answer questions. The amendments give us a chance to pin the Government down, to ensure that quality assurance is introduced and to return to key issues involving the evaluation of the pilots for the nursery voucher scheme.
Before the Bill was introduced, the Government undertook a consultative exercise. More than 80 per cent. of those consulted opposed their proposals, but the Government still insisted on introducing the legislation. Here is yet more proof that they do not listen. Earlier this afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) had been talking sense all along. I now give him an opportunity to acknowledge that he has also been wrong in regard to the proposals for nursery vouchers, and ask him to reconsider—on behalf of the Government—this wrong-headed proposal for the education of Scotland's pre-fives.
I cannot allow the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) about the Scottish National party's commitment to education to go unremarked. I have taught in Scotland, at different levels, and my commitment—and that of my party—to Scottish education is clearly on record: we are 100 per cent. behind it, and we want it to progress. The hon. Lady explains her behaviour in Committee by the claim that she was exploring the details of what the Government meant, but in practice Labour was simply colluding with the Conservatives to get the measure through as quickly as possible.
I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not mention when the Labour party colluded with the Government over the referendum vote.
My amendment would force the Government to undertake consultation and it would delay implementation of vouchers until the proposed pilot schemes have been properly evaluated and reported to Parliament.
Before moving to the substantive arguments in favour of the various amendments and against the Government's proposals for nursery education, I believe that it is necessary to place this debate in context. This afternoon, Scottish democracy will yet again be sidelined because a majority of Scottish Members will vote for the amendments, but our votes will be ignored and our will overturned by the votes of hon. Members representing a majority of English constituencies—people with no knowledge and even less interest in Scotland's education system. This is the Westminster question and no amount of tartan tokenism, either through the powerless nonsense of a Grand Committee or through returning the Stone of Destiny, will hide the true gesture being made today by the Tory party towards Scotland—two fingers to Scottish opinion, to democracy and to the future of Scottish children's education.
The Government's proposals are opposed not only by a majority of Scottish Members, but by teachers, parents and local authorities, who have highlighted the legislation's many inadequacies, but their views will be ignored today by the Westminster machine. The Bill is proof of the disservice being done to Scotland and to Scottish education by the outdated Union.
The debate should have been used by the hon. Member for Monklands, East to apologise. In many ways the hon. Lady apologised for her hysterical misrepresentations in the Scottish press, following my attempt to oppose the Government on this issue in Committee. The hon. Lady assured us that the amendment introducing a further stage of parliamentary scrutiny, now under discussion as amendments Nos. 3 and 8, could not be debated again. I hope that, for once, she will have the decency to admit her mistake and to apologise for her blatant misrepresentations. She told the Scottish press:
I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government.
She was wrong on both counts: it is back on the Floor of the House and she has little chance of defeating the Government.
The hon. Lady also said:
Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
We shall find out about that when the Division Lobby empties. The record will show that the amendment was again debated and again defeated—if, indeed, Labour Members press the amendment to a vote; their record in that respect is not good, and I had to move some of their amendments in Committee.
Before the history of this topic is falsified, will the hon. Gentleman recall that we were bound to be defeated on that day? That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) wanted to withdraw the amendment. Tonight we have at least a fighting chance. It all depends on the turnout. There was no chance in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
I must put on record the fact that on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) demanded two votes because he had forgotten that he had given a commitment to allow the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), leave to attend to a bereavement in his immediate family.
I fully understand that, and such pairing is fully acceptable, but any apology should be made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who made the mistake of voting the first time and then demanding a second vote. Pairing is acceptable and it should have happened in the normal way, but two votes took place. If the Whip is not up to his job and makes mistakes, that is his problem. [Interruption.] I notice the continuing collusion between the Labour and Tory Front-Bench teams, but anyone who reads the Committee will find out exactly what happened.
From their mailbags, Members should be aware of the many well-expressed concerns of parents, parents' groups, teachers and local government professionals. Again, mainstream opinion in Scotland is lined up against the Government's proposal, but it will be ignored by the massed ranks of Tory Lobby fodder. That is the reality behind the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
The Government claim to favour parental choice, but their actions fly in the face of that. When parents are consulted about nursery education they do not choose these Tory vouchers. By a majority of nine to one they favour free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. That is what Scottish people want and the Government should deliver it.
Perhaps Conservative Members should focus their attention on the parental views that were expressed in the recent Educational Institute of Scotland System 3 survey entitled:
Education in 1996: Scots speaking out".
They should consult that rather than simply following the Whips into the Government Lobby. I recommend that they examine the Scottish National party's fully costed proposals for a free state nursery scheme. They show that a high-quality, universal and free education structure for pre-school children can be created in Scotland. In the first four years of independence, our proposals would create a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wished that provision.
The voucher proposal is political dogma and it will be bad for education in Scotland. As our detailed proposals show, it is not the best way to meet education needs in our country. [Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members laugh. When they are asked for a policy they go out for lunch, and when they are asked to put a price on a policy they simply disappear. Unless they have similarly costed pounds and pence policies, they should not laugh. The standard being set in Scotland is what the electorate wish; unless Labour can match that, it is simply failing in its task.
I know about Labour pledges. I was in the House from 1974 to 1979 and I know how much such pledges are worth.
The voucher scheme should be abandoned, but the system supported by all unionists in the House will mean that, against the wishes of the Scottish people, the voucher scheme will simply be slammed through by English Members who are not now in their places but who will provide the majority.
Amendment No. 2 has my full support. It would get rid of the damaging and divisive voucher proposal, prevent the creeping privatisation of our education system and ensure the maintenance of standards which are threatened by the wild and loose drafting of this part of the legislation.
Amendment No. 8 in my name, and amendment No. 3, would ensure adequate scrutiny of the pilot schemes, which are to be the test bed for the voucher proposal. Surely when the test has been established, its results should be evaluated before proceeding further with the scheme. That straightforward, simple point has been totally denied by the Government. It is eminently sensible and would help to fill the gaps in consultation and consensus which have marked the Government's attempts to steamroller this ideological nonsense through the House.
The amendments will allow hon. Members to assess the quality of nursery provision under the voucher scheme and to judge the impact on the poorest families who may not be able to afford the top-up costs for the local nursery. The amendments would also allow us to assess the administrative efficiency of the scheme and to see whether too much money was being diverted from education by a clumsy administrative system.
I have outlined just some of the concerns expressed by parents and professionals and they should be examined again by the House when we are in a better position to judge the impact of the Government's proposals. Obviously, that means after the pilot schemes have run their course. The Government have made no attempt to accept those eminently sensible arguments, which are supported by majority opinion and have consensus outside the House.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that too much haste at this stage could have a damaging effect on thousands of Scottish children. I suspect that the legislation has been motivated more by political than by educational considerations. That is why we seek to introduce a time-out period which would ensure that the Secretary of State's narrow and destructive ideology did not seriously damage Scottish nursery education.
The principle of nursery vouchers is deeply flawed and I welcome amendment No. 7 as an attempt to improve poor legislation. It raises a number of issues that were discussed at length in Committee. The Government have failed to address the issue of quality assurance both in education terms and with regard to the environment within which education takes place. I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue today, because he certainly did not respond to it adequately in Committee.
Legislation currently covers safety in private nurseries, but there is no provision detailing adequate standards for buildings or fixtures and fittings in those nurseries. While local authorities can ensure the safety of radiators, plugs and sockets under current legislation, they cannot ensure such matters as adequate toilet facilities. That is why amendment No. 7 is important.
The Government's proposals have been shown to be deeply flawed in themselves, but they have been shown to be flawed especially in comparison with the proposals made by the Scottish National party. The House should take the opportunity to remove what is bad, or at least to try to improve it.
The Minister has a chance to respond to those detailed points, and I hope that he will do so before the end of this debate.
This group of amendments goes to the heart of the voucher question because, as hon. Members have already made clear, vouchers do not necessarily represent places. In some local authorities it has been suggested that many places are available for four-year-olds—for up to 90 per cent. of them in some areas—and that the extra money would provide local authorities with elbow-room, with which they could build additional nursery schools. I do not think that that is a particularly well-founded assumption. The cost of building or adapting new premises to the standards that we want would certainly not be possible with the type of figures that are currently being mentioned.
Is it in order for me to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is currently colluding with the Tory Whip to enable this debate to proceed quickly? Indeed, he scurried back to his seat as I said that. Is not that disgraceful hypocrisy by the SNP?
I was bored to tears by all the nonsense that I heard from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—the girning, moaning and greeting that we hear from him in his customary addresses, whether they are about the system that governs the House, its membership or the fact that Scottish National party supporters have been out of sight for decades because they colluded with the Tories to bring down the previous Labour Government. The people of Scotland and hon. Members are left cold by all of it. What is important is that we deal with the matter in hand, which is the voucher system—[Interruption.]
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that I will not give way, and that is it. We want to get on with the today's business, and I do not want to take up too much of the House's time.
Certainly the amendment on quality control and the matters of staff training and premises—[Interruption.]
If this legislation were to be passed—we do not want it to be—we envisage circumstances in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, there is a possibility that hole-in-the-wall, cowboy-type operations will be established. Therefore, we must have standards set down very early on in the proceedings.
We should have hoped that the pilot scheme would have allowed for such a cool and reasoned response. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will clarify the position and tell us whether only financial cost-effectiveness will be examined or whether the possible impact of the voucher scheme on the quality of available provision will be examined, because the two are not the same. That issue has already been raised by hon. Members.
Many hon. Members fear that well-intentioned people with a great commitment to youngsters will open nursery facilities, on the assumption that they will be able to make money and to go the distance, but that they will not have the necessary teaching or nursing staffing levels. We must consider those matters, because they were given scant attention at the Committee stage.
It is important that we pass these amendments to ensure that the Minister has a chance to tell us what will be done to ensure quality control of the play facilities and the course content to which the youngsters will be exposed. We will need far greater assurances that there will be high enough standards of staff training so that the best possible teaching will be provided.
Last but not least, there is the whole question of premises. In Committee, most of us were disturbed by the cavalier disregard of even the most basic questions of the toilet and washing facilities required by children of this age. They need special facilities. They also need special safety provisions such as consideration of the location of plug points, electrical fittings and so on. We need a great deal more clarification of those matters. They should have been dealt with in Committee but they were not because the Minister did not give us the assurances that we required.
Even if the principle were to be lost—I hope that it is not—the amendment is essential to ensure that the youngsters are properly protected and are taught appropriately by suitable and qualified people. The children must be instructed and allowed to play in facilities that are safe and in which most parents would be happy to leave them. It is immaterial whether that assurance comes from amendment No. 10 or amendment No. 7, but the point has been identified and it must be addressed. Until it is included, the legislation will be unwanted. It will be dangerous for the children whom every hon. Member wishes to protect and nurture. As currently drafted, the Bill does not meet that requirement.
In a debate that has so far caused a considerable amount of dispute, I shall begin by saying something that I hope will be agreed on both sides of the House, which is that there is a recognition of the value of pre-school education. Studies in the United States have shown that for every dollar spent on pre-school education, the payback over subsequent years is something like seven times that. Clearly, the investment is well worth it to get our children on to the right path before they go to school.
The problem is the method by which the Government are seeking to honour the pledge given by Baroness Thatcher when she was responsible for education in 1972. She opened up the prospect of nursery education for all.
My hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Government's chosen route of nursery vouchers will not necessarily deliver the expectations. It does not automatically follow that, because a parent has a voucher, there will be a place for the child. In some parts of the country we know that the availability of nursery places is scant. As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said, many parents will not be able to afford the top-up costs. Also, we have not yet had an assessment of the effect that it will have on nursery education currently provided for three-year-olds, which may be stopped in some cases if there has to be expanded provision for four-year-olds. So there are serious drawbacks to the chosen route of nursery vouchers.
The funding that will be made available will do nothing to enable the expansion of the number of properly trained nursery teachers. Anyone who has anything to do with young children recognises the skill, dedication and particular training required by pre-school teachers. None of the debates has mentioned any resources that have been earmarked to allow that expansion of trained teachers. When I raised that matter with the Secretary of State in the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling in January, he seemed to suggest that the provision of well-trained teachers was an ideal to which we might aspire, with the clear implication that it would not always be the case. That is why I particularly welcome amendment No. 7, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment No. 10 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as they seek to import into the voucher scheme some element of quality assurance and quality control.
Will the Minister specifically address the two amendments which seek to impose minimum requirements? It is not unreasonable that parents should have some quality assurance when they are asked to send their children to a particular establishment. I accept that there probably will not be agreement on all the different requirements, so amendment No. 10 allows considerable flexibility as to the range of quality assurance that would be required. Parents will be able to decide where to send their children, if they have that choice, so in some respects, there will be a subjective element of quality. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there must be a floor and minimum standards.
Amendment No. 10 would require that the regulations established by the Secretary of State should include a complaints procedure. If we are to have quality assurance, it is important that there should be a complaints procedure so that parents who believe that the quality of pre-school education to which their children are entitled and have every legitimate right to expect is not being delivered have a relatively simple means of expressing that concern and using the complaints procedure to ensure that any difficulty is addressed as quickly as possible.
It is important that there should be a complaints procedure, particularly in respect of inspection. Although we were told on Second Reading that there would be an increase in the number of inspectors of nursery and pre-school establishments, there remains a widespread belief that it will still be insufficient. If inspection is to be limited, it is even more important that the parents have an opportunity to raise complaints and concerns in a way that will result in action.
Although the point does not need much elaboration, we have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have thus far set their face against basic minimum requirements for those providing nursery education. The Government claim to be the friend of the consumer, so the consumer should expect at least minimum quality control in respect of a vitally important issue such as the education of our young children.
A few days ago when I was opening my mail, I saw an envelope marked, "Important voucher enclosed". I thought that there must have been some mistake, but I discovered that it was from one of those firms that offers a car as a major prize if one enters a prize draw. We are all accustomed to receiving such mail and we are all inclined to condemn it, but it has to be said on behalf of the firms that engage in such enterprises that at least there is a real car to be won by somebody. They do not pretend that if those who have been given the vouchers gather together in one place, someone will make sure that they all win a prize.
The difference between those offers and the Government's scheme is that with the latter, having a voucher does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a place at any particular nursery; it does not even guarantee that there will be a nursery on any given site anywhere in Scotland.
The Government's belief that somehow the market will provide and respond to people waving £1,100 vouchers has still to be demonstrated. Parents in Scotland will be severely disappointed as the Government are leading them to believe that there will be provision, at least for four-year-olds. In some areas, particularly in rural Scotland and the islands, it will be difficult to ensure that there is a nursery school. That is the basic reason why we are so opposed to a voucher scheme and seek a proper guarantee from the Government. I look forward to a Labour Government introducing such a scheme so that children have a real nursery place and not merely a piece of paper saying that there may be a place somewhere at some time.
There are two further specific aspects to which I hope the Minister will respond. We debated special needs of the under-fives at length in Committee. It is true that, in some of the publicity material that the Government put out, reference was made to children with special needs, but key questions remain unanswered. It is still not clear how we can be sure that any provider—especially some Johnny-come-lately who has just started up, happened to read some information on how to run a nursery school and filled in the form correctly—will be able to identify all children who happen to have special needs. Such children are not always readily recognisable. It is important that their needs are recognised and acted on at as early an age as possible, not only to save future costs that could climb rapidly, but for the sake of the children, so that they can be helped to develop to their full capability. We are still awaiting reassurance on that point. I cannot understand how the Minister can be so sensible, open-minded and forthcoming about the Scottish Qualifications Authority when we are talking about relatively adult people, but delay giving us clear guarantees on the under-fives.
If I recall correctly, when Labour Members raised the question in Committee of the value of the voucher and how grossly inadequate it is likely to be in relation to the needs of special needs children, we were told that the pilot scheme, which is being supervised by people who are still at university, would be able to identify the sums concerned. But parents are still waiting for any reassurance that those needs will be met. Substantial sums could be involved.
We could have sold tickets for the Committee at times. At one stage, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and I had a run-in—I wish that he was present today—about why a nursery must have facilities such as toilets, cloakroom accommodation and all sorts of equipment permanently available and not stashed away every night in a church hall or some other adult provision. Is that the level to which we have fallen? It sounds as if hon. Members are so unaccustomed to discussing the needs of the pre-fives that such things need to be spelled out. It was an extraordinary debate. I thought that the message had finally got across and that it was understood why permanent provision for under-fives was essential and why they should not be forced to make do with anything that happens to be available in the way of a hall that is free for a few hours. That is not an adequate way in which to deal with the needs of our under-fives.
I will save the Labour Whip a heart attack by intervening on my hon. Friend rather than making a speech of my own.
To return to the point about special needs, does my hon. Friend agree that where children have been identified as having special needs and they enter mainstream education, there is no question but that they receive special assistance? It is contradiction of the idea that the programme is educational if Ministers persist in saying either that no special assistance for children with special needs will be recognised in the voucher system, or that some pilot project from Stirling university is needed to establish whether special needs provision is required. Everybody knows that special provision and a little extra expenditure is needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no reason why that concession or right should not be granted?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that it is not satisfactory just to accept whatever the people at Stirling university come up with when they comment on the pilot scheme. The Government should have been willing to say something more definitive and give more of a guarantee to parents of children with special needs. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, children at school may get a record of special needs, but, as we all know how, it is sometimes difficult to enforce provision of what that record says that the child requires. It is therefore all the more important that the identification of needs is made at the earliest possible stage by competent people and that the sums involved are guaranteed.
Unless guarantees are given, a system could evolve in which a child with special needs did not receive a place or had less access and choice than children who did not have special needs. Special needs children could be treated less justly through no fault of their own, simply because they have needs that are expensive to provide for. That would be totally unacceptable and unjust, and it is high time the Minister said something more definitive. I hope that he will do so tonight.
I, too, support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends calling for a proper assessment of the pilot schemes before the Government go ahead with full implementation of the voucher scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) gave cogent reasons why that is necessary, and I should like to add a particular concern of mine about why such a proper assessment is required.
My concern relates to the way in which the voucher scheme will impact on the Gaelic-medium sector of pre-school provision and the need to ensure that such an impact is properly assessed when we review the results of the pilot schemes. There is a Gaelic-medium sector in three of the four pilot areas—in east Renfrewshire, in Highland and Argyll, and in Bute, and it is important that the impact on them is considered.
The Gaelic-medium sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in pre-school provision, and the Minister will be aware by now that there is a great deal of concern in the Gaelic community that the voucher system will not cater properly for that sector. Provision in the sector involves greater costs because, obviously, special materials need to be developed. They cannot just be taken off the shelf. Such additional costs cannot be incorporated into a simple voucher scheme that attaches the same amount to every child.
At the same time, there is a historical record of exclusion of Gaelic from education, which we all now recognise and acknowledge. Indeed, it was recognised by the Secretary of State in his speech at Stirling university earlier this year. Given the Government's recognition, we have every right to expect their rhetoric to be put into practice.
There are two specific ways in which the Minister could respond to the concern, and I would be grateful if he could give specific answers to them. First, the remit of the Stirling university team that will be conducting the assessment should include the task of looking specifically at how the pilot scheme has impacted on the Gaelic-medium sector. Has it catered properly for the additional costs involved, has it dampened the rise in the sector's popularity or has it been given a helping hand?
The second specific suggestion has been made to the Minister by representative organisations from the Gaelic community, especially the Gaelic Pre-School Association. It is suggested that someone with experience of the Gaelic-medium sector should be on the advisory research committee—the overall committee that will be considering and supervising the work of the Stirling university team. I know that the Minister has indicated that he wants that advisory team to be more focused on general issues than a particular issue, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that if the Government are concerned about overcoming the historical legacy of the exclusion of Gaelic from mainstream education, they should think very seriously about having someone with experience of Gaelic-medium education on the advisory team. If the Minister insists that there is no place for someone with specific Gaelic experience on the advisory committee, may I further suggest that the advisory committee at least consult Gaelic organisations? The Minister should make it clear to the advisory committee that he will make that requirement in the committee's review. Much attention will be paid to the Minister's response to those suggestions.
The Government have prided themselves on supporting the Gaelic-medium sector in recent years and I acknowledge the support that has been received, but that support has generated an ever-increasing demand. The Government cannot just rest on what has been achieved: they must keep pace with the demand. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the need to include the Gaelic-medium sector in the research to be undertaken by the Stirling university team and the work of the advisory research committee.
I was very interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe); she could have sold tickets for the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a bizarre notion that anyone would part with good money to listen to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), although they might part with good money not to have to listen to him.
Even more bizarre was the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). The Scottish National party allegedly holds this Parliament in contempt, yet he spent the latter part of his speech picking over the arcane rules of the Westminster Parliament. Indeed, he boasted of the SNP's prowess in manipulating those rules better than any other Scottish party; so if people want to vote for the true Westminster party at the next election in Scotland, I suppose that they should vote SNP.
The substance of the debate is far more important than the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East. I wish to support everything that my hon. Friends have said. Conservative Members' claims about nursery vouchers are entirely bogus. A few moments ago, when the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was in the Chamber, he made it sound as though, if people vote for the Tories at the next general election, they will receive in the post a cheque for £1,100 with which they can buy a nursery place for their child. That is entirely wrong, because no such thing can happen. A nursery voucher is just a piece of paper which guarantees no one a nursery place in any school anywhere in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, the vouchers are socially divisive, because some people can top up that £1,100 and use the state money and their own private money to guarantee that their child has access to quality nursery education, while others cannot top up the £1,100 and will be prey to cowboy operators and other Johnny-come-lately operators who will appear on the scene with the support of the Tories to make a quick buck at the expense of three and four-year-olds.
The Minister cannot simply brush the amendments aside, because they are about quality and standards in nursery schools throughout Scotland. We shall achieve quality and high standards only if we are prepared to pay for them, but the Government are not prepared to do so. The amendments are about the standard and safety of buildings and the quality of the teachers and helpers who run nursery schools. In the wake of the recent tragic incidents involving young children in schools, we cannot afford not to invest the maximum amount of public money in school provision, including nursery education.
Ultimately, this country's future will turn on our education system and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the earlier we intervene in education, the more beneficial will be the reward to society as a whole. Society must make it clear that it is prepared to invest whatever is required to ensure that our children have access to the best possible education.
I support all the amendments in this group. Some have been tabled by my hon. Friends who represent the Scottish Labour party and others have been tabled by Scottish National party members and Scottish Liberal Democrats. Taken together, those three Scottish parties represent 62 of the 72 Scottish constituencies, and we can be sure that all three will vote for the amendments when Divisions are called. However, it is also guaranteed that they will be defeated.
Conservative Members ask me, "What could a Scottish Parliament do that a Scottish Committee of this House cannot do?" I shall tell them what it could do: defeat this Government. It could defeat the proposal for nursery vouchers; and it could carry these amendments and guarantee that quality nursery education was available to three and four-year-olds throughout Scotland. The House is not prepared to do that because, essentially, it is not interested in what happens in Scotland.
Amendment No. 3 is similar to an amendment that was carried in the House of Lords and caused the Government some concern. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment in England and Wales described it as a wrecking amendment. I have a copy of her letter, in which she deals with the Government's defeat in the Lords. She says:
Addressing the issue in the Lords is preferable to waiting until Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We may experience greater difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons.
The Government would experience greater difficulty overturning that wrecking amendment in the Commons, because hon. Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales, who are not present tonight, would be here and would fight for their constituents. They would thus help to defeat the Government. But that is not the case with this amendment, because even Scottish Conservative Back Benchers are not concerned to be here. They are so supine that they will lie down and do whatever the Government ask them to do. English Conservative Back Benchers will vote down anything that Scotland wants, because it does not matter to them.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has rebelled against the Government in the past and has been admired for doing so, but is he prepared to vote for the amendments? Do they contain anything to which he objects? Does he not think that Parliament should look again at the pilot scheme and ensure that Scottish kids have access to good-quality education?
The right hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. I am not the only person who supports the amendments. All the Scottish Members of Parliament do so; public opinion in Scotland and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents say the same as us. They do not want to proceed at breakneck speed with a voucher scheme which may ultimately destroy the basis of nursery education. They want Parliament to take its time to ensure that it gets it right and that enough money is invested in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that, it is just as well for him that he will retire at the next general election. Whoever his Tory successor is, he will come neither here nor to any other Parliament once it is established in Scotland.
Did my hon. Friend notice that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has just gone on record saying that he does not think that it is necessary to have
appropriate criteria for the quality assurance of the service provided"?
I should have thought that that amendment and the others before us were common sense.
Every Opposition Member thinks that they are plain common sense, but the right hon. Gentleman probably has not even read the amendments that he is prepared to vote down. If he does so, I am sure that he will vote for them, because he is a man of honour.
Anyone with a genuine interest in nursery education should support the amendments. If people vote against them, they do so for political reasons: because they have been told to do so by their Whips; and because they are interested in cutting public spending but not in public services and ordinary people. They are interested only in the big City financiers who worry about the size of the public debt and public spending, and want a bigger share of gross domestic product for their own private profit rather than to spend it on public services. They are the masters whom Conservative Members serve, but they are not served by the Opposition.
We are in favour of quality education and we will vote in support of the amendments. When we get into power, we will ensure that Scottish children get the best—not the second best, which is offered by the Government.
At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—I do not want to pick a fight with him, because he is in enough trouble with his own party—I shall start on the subject of procedures. Knowing the procedures of the House of Commons is not a symptom of being Westminsterised; it is a symptom of competence.
Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and drew her attention to remarks that she had made in Committee when the amendments were discussed. She said clearly in several newspapers and on television that this precluded discussion of the same amendments on Report. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Lady does not look enthusiastically in agreement with that, so I checked the record. Here is The Herald of 21 June 1996. Stephen McGregor, the parliamentary correspondent, quotes her as saying—
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about the amendments that we dealt with in Committee, about the previous set of amendments or about the group of amendments before us?
Yes, we are discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 8—the very amendments that the hon. Member for Monklands, East said could not possibly be discussed on Report. I quote from The Herald newspaper:
I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government … Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
I do not so much mind the fact that the hon. Lady did not understand that aspect of procedure—she has been in the House for two years. I do mind the fact that, having made that major attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in the Scottish press and elsewhere, she does not have the elementary courtesy to come to the Dispatch Box—
I will let the hon. Lady in in a second or two. She need not concern herself about that.
It is interesting that the hon. Lady took the position that these amendments could not come back on Report, so why on earth does her name appear on an amendment that does exactly that on Report?
We are witnessing another example of how, because we are discussing nursery vouchers, the hon. Gentleman is determined to behave with nursery antics. He well knows that, if we have a vote in Committee on a subject, it places in jeopardy the possibility of a vote on the Floor of the House. It also put us in the position where our tactics were apparent and, frankly, it was a stunt by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) to cover up his own limitations in Committee.
That is not what the hon. Lady said in the Scottish press. She said that it precluded a vote and a discussion on the Floor of the House. Obviously, that is untrue. We have two amendments before us that do exactly the same thing as the amendment that was voted on in Committee. The hon. Lady would do herself a lot of good if she would admit her mistakes, show a little humility—
I am extremely glad that we are debating amendments Nos. 3 and 8 on the Floor of the House tonight.
I am told that the second aspect of what the hon. Member for Monklands, East said was that there was some chance of the amendments being defeated on Report. If they are defeated, it certainly will not be because of my eloquence or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) or any Labour Member, for, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East so astutely pointed out, hardly any Conservative Members are present, and most of the eight or nine who are present are on the payroll vote, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Dumfries.
The sole exception is the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—I beg his pardon—to whom we should presumably direct all our attention, because we must convince him to be the Conservative rebellion on amendments Nos. 3 and 8.
That betrays the folly of an argument that I have heard many times on the Floor of the House; it was used by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) during the passage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1994. We read in the Scottish papers that there would be a Conservative rebellion and that, if the arguments were put in the right way, the 1994 Act would be disabled. After 120 consecutive defeats in Committee, the hon. Gentleman clung to the same argument we have heard today on nursery education.
How on earth, even if we could appeal to the better nature of Members from English constituencies on these aspects, can we appeal to their better nature when they are not even here to listen to the substance of the argument? They will not even do us the elementary courtesy of listening to our arguments before rejecting them.
Some hon. Members know that I have known the Secretary of State for Scotland for a long time. I remember clearly that, at St. Andrews university, he argued for vouchers, not for nursery education but for primary education, for secondary education, for tertiary education—throughout the education system.
That puts this measure into context. This is the foot in the door to the general changing of the education system in Scotland from universal provision at primary, secondary and tertiary level. The Government want to get a nursery voucher system in as a foot in the door for a voucher system where education can be bought and sold, like any other commodity in the marketplace.
On Monday, the Secretary of State said that he would launch a petition in Scotland to harness the will of the Scottish people on the issue of the constitution. However, in the consultation document on these provisions, 80 per cent. of Scottish opinion was against the voucher system. If the Conservative party will appeal to Scottish opinion on one measure, why is it not prepared to listen to the clearly enunciated Scottish opinion on the issue of vouchers?
The hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly mentioned social divisiveness. I do not know whether I will get him into more trouble by agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but he made a profound point about the socially divisive nature of a scheme in which better-off families will be able to top up the voucher value—an option that is not available to many families in Scotland. If a comprehensive national system of education in Scotland has meant anything—it has meant a great deal to many of us in increasing our life opportunities—it has meant the availability of the best education to every child in Scotland, regardless of parental background, income or social stratum.
It comes ill, especially from Ministers such as the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who have benefited from that opportunity, to start introducing into our education system a voucher system that can only undermine and disable the national and comprehensive characteristic that makes education available to all, regardless of background.
That is why it is vital that we press amendments at every opportunity, whether it be in Committee or now, on the Floor of the House, because what is at stake is not only a measure on nursery education. This measure in the Bill and the ideology that lies behind it represent a frontal attack on the essence of Scottish education.
There was certainly no collusion; if there had been collusion, I should not be speaking. I intend to speak on the amendment. Had the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) spoken to me beforehand, we might have reached an agreement on this matter.
The curse of parts of Scotland is poverty and deprivation, and one of the ways in which many of our people can be helped to break out of that cycle of poverty and deprivation is by spending on pre-five services. Neither the Government nor, regrettably, my party takes this matter sufficiently seriously. We should say clearly and emphatically that much more money should be spent on children from birth to age five, especially those in areas of poverty and deprivation.
There is a connection with the earlier debate about surplus school places. Often, surplus school places have emerged in the areas of greatest deprivation. We have the buildings there and we have the need there. Relatively small cost would be involved in providing the staffing to provide services for the pre-five children in areas of greatest need. That should be the focus of our provision and of our spending.
It is also important that we consider the needs of single parents who want to return to employment. Pre-five provision is important, not only for the children who receive it but for the members of their family.
Regrettably, the existing pattern of pre-school education is not family friendly or designed to help parents, particularly single parents, find employment—the hours are short and the holidays are long. Pre-five provision should be family friendly, should be longer, should be flexible and should have a longer operating year. People seeking employment should be assisted, but again, it costs money. The Labour party would be prepared to spend the necessary amount of money to ensure that children in areas of deprivation are able to get a first-class education and that their families are able to find jobs.
Finally, I reiterate the fact that the Scots do not want the measure—they have rejected it up and down the country. It has come about only because of the present practice of unionism—the way in which it is operated by the Government. I can think of few measures more designed to drive support away from the Union than the way in which the Government intend to drive the measure through the House today.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) was a bit like watching summer television: repeat after repeat after repeat. There was no need for the hon. Lady to give the House edited highlights of her pretty press releases. I was flattered that she used some of my best lines when responding to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
As hon. Members know, the evaluation of the pilot year will be carried out by an independent team from Stirling university. As I have explained, its remit is extensive and it is available for all hon. Members to see. Since my first public comments about the evaluation—at the evidence-gathering sitting of a Select Committee of another place in Glasgow—I have stressed the importance that my colleagues and I put on the evaluation. We are determined that the voucher system should deliver the maximum benefits for its ultimate consumers—pre-school children—and the evaluation will be a crucial tool in ensuring that that happens.
The Opposition have consistently attempted to convince the watching world that the results of the evaluation will arrive all in one go and without much prior warning. The results of the evaluation of the pre-school voucher pilot will not emerge suddenly and from nowhere; they will emerge steadily over the pilot year. In addition, many of the key findings—especially vital results relating to operational aspects of the system—will be known early on. Moreover, we will share the results widely.
We have arranged with the Stirling university team that it will provide not just a final report but interim reports—and not just interim reports but dissemination events at which the emerging findings can be reported and discussed. Moreover, Stirling university will not be conducting the evaluation in isolation; it will do so with local evaluations conducted by each of the pilot authorities.
In addition, the team will conduct the evaluation with the advice of the evaluation advisory committee. The committee will include individuals nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Hon. Members are already aware that a survey of parental views is part of the remit of the research team. I am confident that the broad range of views available will prove useful to the research team. I hope that its make-up will satisfy the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who referred to consultation at the end of his amendment No. 8.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said and I shall write to him. The research commissioned by the Scottish Office is generally published, and this evaluation will be no exception. I shall be happy to lay before Parliament copies of the final report of the Stirling team.
Amendment No. 7, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred, seeks to place a requirement on providing centres in relation to the level of qualifications and the training of staff. This matter is capable of being regulated, where necessary, by local authorities under legislation. All authorities require that persons dealing with children in establishments registered under legislation are fit and proper people for such a position. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools makes judgments on the quality of education provision in a centre.
All the amendments that we have debated seek to destroy the Government's pre-school education initiative in Scotland. I am confident that the House will support my determination not to let that happen.
No, I wish to make some progress. The results of the pre-school voucher initiative are becoming clear, and the verdict is good. More than 3,200 parents have applied for vouchers and received them. Moreover, there has been a massive expansion of provision in the pilot areas.
There were once only 20 local authority nursery schools and classes—next year, there will be more than 60. In addition, more than 70 centres in the voluntary and private sectors will be educationally accredited for the first time, having satisfied Her Majesty's inspectorate of the quality of the education that they have to offer. For the first time, from August, every child in the pre-school year will be guaranteed a place in a quality, accredited pre-school centre. The latest report is that there will be a surplus of places—that is a remarkable achievement, which the Labour party seeks to diminish.
The amendments cannot be accepted—the future of young children in Scotland would be blighted if they were. Hon. Members must oppose the amendments and approve the Government's far-sighted strategy as set out in the Bill.
I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendments. They were placed on the amendment paper to seek an improvement in the quality of pre-five education in Scotland. Instead of addressing the significant issues that the amendments raise, certain hon. Members have chosen to go down the route of posing and posturing. The issues are important to the people of Scotland. It is regrettable that hon. Members who represent a party that has Scotland in its name should try to duck the issues of great importance. We have heard the smug and patronising tones of hon. Members who wish to cover up the fact that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) made limited contributions on these issues in Committee.
I refer to the amendments in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The Minister has not addressed some significant issues. Quality assurance is an important element of our pre-five provision—that is recognised by people in Scotland who support the Labour party and by those who do not. The Government have ducked the issue. The Government do not have sufficient confidence in their proposals to allow hon. Members to debate the evaluation of the pilot scheme.
I believe that amendment No. 3 is the most significant amendment on the amendment paper. I shall put it to the vote, because it is very important that hon. Members have the opportunity to evaluate a proposal that will have a fundamental impact on the provision of pre-five education in Scotland.
My hon. Friends made important points, not least of which was that made repeatedly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), about special needs. The Government have not responded to her points. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Gaelic-medium sector.
I make no apology for repeating again and again that a nursery voucher is not a guarantee of a nursery place—it will flaw the provision of pre-five education in Scotland. The Government have not answered the points that were made in Committee and on Report. It is regrettable that the Government are seeking to introduce such a measure when it is against the will of hon. Members and the people of Scotland.
|Division No. 184]||[5.39 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Alton, David|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)|
|Ainger, Nick||Ashton, Joe|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Austin-Walker, John|
|Allen, Graham||Banks, Tony (Newham NW)|
|Barron, Kevin||Galbraith, Sam|
|Battle, John||Galloway, George|
|Bayley, Hugh||Gapes, Mike|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret||Garrett, John|
|Bell, Stuart||George, Bruce|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Gerrard, Neil|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Benton, Joe||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Godsiff, Roger|
|Berry, Roger||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Betts, Clive||Gordon, Mildred|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Graham, Thomas|
|Blunkett, David||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Boateng, Paul||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Bradley, Keith||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Grocott, Bruce|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Gunnell, John|
|Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Hain, Peter|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Hall, Mike|
|Byers, Stephen||Hanson, David|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hardy, Peter|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Harvey, Nick|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Heppell, John|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hinchliffe, David|
|Cann, Jamie||Hodge, Margaret|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||Hoey, Kate|
|Chidgey, David||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Home Robertson, John|
|Church, Judith||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clapham, Michael||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Howarth, George (Knowsley North)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Clelland, David||Hoyle, Doug|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hutton, John|
|Corbett, Robin||Illsley, Eric|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Ingram, Adam|
|Corston, Jean||Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)|
|Cousins, Jim||Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)|
|Cox, Tom||Jamieson, David|
|Cummings, John||Janner, Greville|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Cunningham, Roseanna||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)|
|Darling, Alistair||Jowell, Tessa|
|Davidson, Ian||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)||Keen, Alan|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Khabra, Piara S|
|Denham, John||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Dewar, Donald||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Dixon, Don||Lewis, Terry|
|Dobson, Frank||Liddell, Mrs Helen|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Litherland, Robert|
|Dowd, Jim||Livingstone, Ken|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Eastham, Ken||Loyden, Eddie|
|Etherington, Bill||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||McAllion, John|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Fatehett, Derek||McCartney, Ian|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Macdonald, Calum|
|Fisher, Mark||McFall, John|
|Flynn, Paul||McKelvey, William|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||McLeish, Henry|
|Foulkes, George||Maclennan, Robert|
|Fyfe, Maria||McNamara, Kevin|
|MacShane, Denis||Rooney, Terry|
|McWilliam, John||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Madden, Max||Rowlands, Ted|
|Maddock, Diana||Salmond, Alex|
|Mahon, Alice||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Mandelson, Peter||Sheerman, Barry|
|Marek, Dr John||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Martin, Michael J (Springburn)||Short, Clare|
|Martlew, Eric||Simpson, Alan|
|Meacher, Michael||Skinner, Dennis|
|Meale, Alan||Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Michael, Alun||Soley, Clive|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Spellar, John|
|Milburn, Alan||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Miller, Andrew||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Stevenson, George|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Stott, Roger|
|Morley, Elliot||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)||Straw, Jack|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Mudie, George||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Mullin, Chris||Timms, Stephen|
|Murphy, Paul||Tipping, Paddy|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Touhig, Don|
|O'Hara, Edward||Trickett, Jon|
|Olner, Bill||Turner, Dennis|
|O'Neill, Martin||Tyler, Paul|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Pearson, Ian||Wallace, James|
|Pendry, Tom||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Pickthall, Colin||Wareing, Robert N|
|Pike, Peter L||Watson, Mike|
|Pope, Greg||Welsh, Andrew|
|Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Purchase, Ken||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Quin, Ms Joyce||Wilson, Brian|
|Radice, Giles||Winnick, David|
|Randall, Stuart||Wise, Audrey|
|Raynsford, Nick||Worthington, Tony|
|Reid, Dr John||Wray, Jimmy|
|Rendel, David||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Robertson, George (Hamilton)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rogers, Allan||Mrs. Bridget Prentice and|
|Rooker, Jeff||Ms Ann Coffey.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Booth, Hartley|
|Alexander, Richard||Boswell, Tim|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)|
|Allason, Rupert||Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bowden, Sir Andrew|
|Arnold, Jacques||Bowis, John|
|Ashby, David||Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Brandreth, Gyles|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Brazier, Julian|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Bright, Sir Graham|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)|
|Bates, Michael||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Batiste, Spencer||Burns, Simon|
|Beggs, Roy||Burt, Alistair|
|Bellingham, Henry||Butcher, John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Butler, Peter|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Butterfill, John|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Carlisle, John (Luton North)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Carrington, Matthew|
|Carttiss, Michael||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Cash, William||Hendry, Charles|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Churchill, Mr||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence|
|Clappison, James||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)||Horam, John|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Coe, Sebastian||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Congdon, David||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Hunter, Andrew|
|Couchman, James||Jack, Michael|
|Cran, James||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Jessel, Toby|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Day, Stephen||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Devlin, Tim||Key, Robert|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Dover, Den||Knapman, Roger|
|Duncan, Alan||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knox, Sir David|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Elletson, Harold||Legg, Barry|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Leigh, Edward|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)|
|Evennett, David||Lidington, David|
|Faber, David||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lord, Michael|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Luff, Peter|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Fishburn, Dudley||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Forman, Nigel||MacKay, Andrew|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Forth, Eric||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Madel, Sir David|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Maitland, Lady Olga|
|Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Malone, Gerald|
|French, Douglas||Mans, Keith|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Marland, Paul|
|Gale, Roger||Marlow, Tony|
|Gallie, Phil||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)|
|Garnier, Edward||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gill, Christopher||Mates, Michael|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair||Mellor, Rt Hon David|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Merchant, Piers|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Mills, Iain|
|Gorst, Sir John||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)||Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Grylls, Sir Michael||Moss, Malcolm|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Needham, Rt Hon Richard|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hannam, Sir John||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hargreaves, Andrew||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Haselhurst, Sir Alan||Norris, Steve|
|Hawkins, Nick||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hawksley, Warren||Ottaway, Richard|
|Heald, Oliver||Page, Richard|
|Paice, James||Stephen, Michael|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Stern, Michael|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Stewart, Allan|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Streeter, Gary|
|Pawsey, James||Sumberg, David|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Sweeney, Walter|
|Pickles, Eric||Sykes, John|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Richards, Rod||Thomason, Roy|
|Riddick, Graham||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Robathan, Andrew||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Tredinnick, David|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Trend, Michael|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Trotter, Neville|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Twinn Dr Ian|
|Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Sackville, Tom||Viggers, Peter|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Walden, George|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Waller, Gary|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Ward John|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Waterson, Nigel|
|Shersby, Sir Michael||Watts, John|
|Sims, Sir Roger||Whitney, Ray|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Whittingdale, John|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Smyth, The Reverend Martin||Wilkinson, John|
|Soames, Nicholas||Willetts, David|
|Speed, Sir Keith||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Spencer, Sir Derek||Wolfson, Mark|
|Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)||Wood, Timothy|
|Spink, Dr Robert||Yeo, Tim|
|Spring, Richard||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.|
'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]
|Division No. 185]||[5.52 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Banks, Tony (Newham NW)|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Barron, Kevin|
|Ainger, Nick||Battle, John|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Bayley, Hugh|
|Allen, Graham||Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Alton, David||Beggs, Roy|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Bell, Stuart|
|Ashton, Joe||Benn, Rt Hon Tony|
|Austin-Walker, John||Bennett, Andrew F|
|Benton, Joe||Gerrard, Neil|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Berry, Roger||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Betts, Clive||Godsiff, Roger|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Blunkett, David||Gordon, Mildred|
|Boateng, Paul||Graham, Thomas|
|Bradley, Keith||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Gunnell, John|
|Byers, Stephen||Hain, Peter|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hall, Mike|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hanson, David|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Hardy, Peter|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Harvey, Nick|
|Canavan, Dennis||Heppell, John|
|Cann, Jamie||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Chidgey, David||Hodge, Margaret|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hoey, Kate|
|Church, Judith||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Clapham, Michael||Home Robertson, John|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Clelland, David||Howarth, George (Knowsley North)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hoyle, Doug|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hutton, John|
|Corston, Jean||Illsley, Eric|
|Cousins, Jim||Ingram, Adam|
|Cox, Tom||Jackson, Gtenda (H'stead)|
|Cummings, John||Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jamieson, David|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Janner, Greville|
|Cunningham, Roseanna||Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Darling, Alistair||Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)|
|Davidson, Ian||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)|
|Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Keen, Alan|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)|
|Denham, John||Khabra, Piara S|
|Dewar, Donald||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Dixon, Don||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Dobson, Frank||Lewis, Terry|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Uddell, Mrs Helen|
|Dowd, Jim||Litherland, Robert|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Livingstone, Ken|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Eastham, Ken||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Etherington, Bill||Loyden, Eddie|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||McAllion, John|
|Fatchett, Derek||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Faulds, Andrew||McCartney, Ian|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Macdonald, Calum|
|Fisher, Mark||McFall, John|
|Flynn, Paul||McKelvey, William|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||McLeish, Henry|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Foulkes, George||McNamara, Kevin|
|Fyfe, Maria||MacShane, Denis|
|Galbraith, Sam||McWilliam, John|
|Galloway, George||Madden, Max|
|Gapes, Mike||Maddock, Diana|
|Garrett, John||Mahon, Alice|
|George, Bruce||Mandelson, Peter|
|Marek, Dr John||Salmond, Alex|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Martin, Michael J (Springburn)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Marttew, Eric||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Meacher, Michael||Short, Clare|
|Meale, Alan||Simpson, Alan|
|Michael, Alun||Skinner, Dennis|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Soley, Clive|
|Milburn, Alan||Spearing, Nigel|
|Miller, Andrew||Spellar, John|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Stevenson, George|
|Morley, Elliot||Stott, Roger|
|Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Straw, Jack|
|Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Mudie, George||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Mullin, Chris||Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)|
|Murphy, Paul||Tayior, Matthew (Truro)|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|O'Hara, Edward||Timms, Stephen|
|Olner, Bill||Tipping, Paddy|
|O'Neill, Martin||Touhig, Don|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Trickett, Jon|
|Pearson, Ian||Turner, Dennis|
|Pendry, Tom||Tyler, Paul|
|Pickthall, Colin||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Pike, Peter L||Wallace, James|
|Pope, Greg||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Watson, Mike|
|Purchase, Ken||Welsh, Andrew|
|Quin, Ms Joyce||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Radice, Giles||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Randall, Stuart||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Raynsford, Nick||Wilson, Brian|
|Reid, Dr John||Winnick, David|
|Rendel, David||Wise, Audrey|
|Robertson, George (Hamilton)||Worthington, Tony|
|Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)||Wray, Jimmy|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Rogers, Allan||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Rooney, Terry||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Ann Coffey.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)|
|Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan||Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia|
|Alexander, Richard||Bowden, Sir Andrew|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Bowis, John|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes|
|Amess, David||Brandreth, Gyles|
|Arbuthnot, James||Brazier, Julian|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Bright, Sir Graham|
|Ashby, David||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Burns, Simon|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Burt, Alistair|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Butler, Peter|
|Bates, Michael||Butterfill, John|
|Batiste, Spencer||Carlisle, John (Luton North)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Carrington, Matthew|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Carttiss, Michael|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Cash, William|
|Body, Sir Richard||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Chapman, Sir Sydney|
|Booth, Hartley||Churchill, Mr|
|Boswell, Tim||Clappison, James|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)||Horam, John|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Coe, Sebastian||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)|
|Congdon, David||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Hunter, Andrew|
|Couchman, James||Jack, Michael|
|Cran, James||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jessel, Toby|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Day, Stephen||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Devlin, Tim||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Key, Robert|
|Dover, Den||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Duncan, Alan||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Knapman, Roger|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Knox, Sir David|
|Elletson, Harold||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evennett, David||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Faber, David||Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lidington, David|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lord, Michael|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Luff, Peter|
|Forman, Nigel||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Forth, Eric||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||MacKay, Andrew|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)||McNair-Wlson, Sir Patrick|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Madel, Sir David|
|French, Douglas||Maitland, Lady Olga|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Gale, Roger||Malone, Gerald|
|Gallie, Phil||Mans, Keith|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Marland, Paul|
|Garnier, Edward||Marlow, Tony|
|Gill, Christopher||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Mates, Michael|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian|
|Gorst, Sir John||Mellor, Rt Hon David|
|Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)||Merchant, Piers|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Mills, Iain|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Grylls, Sir Michael||Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald||Needham, Rt Hon Richard|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Hannam, Sir John||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hargreaves, Andrew||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Haselhurst, Sir Alan||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hawkins, Nick||Norris, Steve|
|Hawksley, Warren||Ottaway, Richard|
|Heald, Oliver||Page, Richard|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Paice, James|
|Hendry, Charles||Patnick, Sir Irvine|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Hicks, Sir Robert||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence||Pawsey, James|
|Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Pickles, Eric||Sweeney, Walter|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Sykes, John|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Taylor, Sr Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Richards, Rod||Thomason, Roy|
|Riddick, Graham||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Robathan, Andrew||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Tracey, Richard|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Tredinnick, David|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Trend, Michael|
|Ryder, Rt Hon Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Viggers, Peter|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Walden, George|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Waller, Gary|
|Shersby, Sir Michael||Ward, John|
|Sims, Sir Roger||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Waterson, Nigel|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Watts, John|
|Smith, Tm (Beaconsfield)||Wells, Bowen|
|Soames, Nicholas||Whitney, Ray|
|Speed, Sir Keith||Whittingdale, John|
|Spencer, Sir Derek||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Spink, Dr Robert||Wilkinson, John|
|Spring, Richard||Willetts, David|
|Sproat, Iain||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Wood, Timothy|
|Steen, Anthony||Yeo, Tim|
|Stephen, Michael||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Stewart, Allan||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Streeter, Gary||Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.|