Previous Section Home Page

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I will not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), except to say that I am in favour of the maximum possible expenditure on education consistent with the promise of improved standards--which brings me to the point that I want to make, which concerns A levels. I apologise for resorting to Americanese, but in the interests of brevity I shall. The question I want to ask the Government is : are A levels being "dumbed down"? Is it Government policy to allow them to be dumbed down? We have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commend the education system for improving standards by means of the GCSE. I am not an ideological opponent of the GCSE, but I share the doubts of those who have expressed surprise that the number of people gaining top passes in the GCSE has increased by 50 per cent. in two years. This smacks of educational inflation, and I am not alone in taking that view. In this country we have financial inflation and housing inflation, and it seems we now run the risk of educational inflation, too.

Column 934

The educational establishment is urging on the Government the need to bring A levels into line with the GCSE. In the past, I have always been worried by the rather secretive and autonomous nature of the examination councils. I have recently seen evidence that dumbing down is going on in A levels--an extremely serious matter.

A few years ago, the Government decided against the Higginson committee's sensible recommendation that A-levels should be broadened so that pupils would take five instead of three. On reflection, I believe that the Government were right to resist that, because I suspect that they, like me, do not have enough confidence in the educational establishment broadening the A-level syllabus while maintaining standards.

The establishment is getting its own back on the Government because, out of control of the Government and without reference to them, it is going about the business of dumbing down A-levels under the guise of bringing them into line with the GCSE. My evidence springs particularly from one examining board, which is toning down and debasing the content of the English A-level syllabus. For example, it will include not two Shakespearian plays but one ; there will be room for Caribbean poetry, but not for two Shakespearian plays. I could give other details, but for the sake of time I will not do so. If the Government are to raise educational standards, to put more money into the curriculum, as they should, and to talk up the GCSE, they must be honest with themselves and ask the examining councils what they are doing to A levels. Extra expenditure on education will cause educational inflation in the number of certificates given to pupils, who will be told that they have done extremely well, when in fact they have not because the examination has been simplified or, as the Americans say, "dumbed down". That will produce the same results as financial and housing inflation. Foreigners will eventually find us out. We talk about equalising educational diplomas throughout Europe, but it will gradually become apparent that an 18-year-old English child does not attain the same level as an equivalent French child. That will be bad for the reputation of education in this country.

It is imperative that the Government take my question seriously and do not take refuge behind the etiquette of the education system by saying "This is not for us but for the examining councils." I should like a serious reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. The worst possible thing that could happen would be if the pressures from the Government and education interests to expand higher education, of which I approve, were to be founded on a diminishing intellectual base.

The universities should take that point seriously. If by a stroke of fate I were a Treasury Minister--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had this experience some time ago--and the Treasury were asked for more money for higher education ; if I were to be reminded of the importance of not only vocational subjects but the humanities ; and if I had evidence that the intake of universities was based on a debased A-level syllabus, I would laugh in the face of the Secretary of State and refuse him money. What is the point of giving higher education more money if standards are going not up but down?

The question I am asking is crucial. All the good work that the Government have done and all their investment--the Secretary of State made a generally reassuring speech today--will count for nothing if the examination

Column 935

system inflates the currency of education and leaves us with an egalitarian policy, to which the Government are supposed to be opposed.

6.23 pm

Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) : I realised that I had not much time, so I quickly tried to cut my speech.

I should like to reiterate the statement made by the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that morale in the teaching profession has never been lower than it is today. That was an accurate statement. I have visited schools in my constituency, but I have never found teachers so disheartened as they are now. The reason for that is their pay and conditions. They are demoralised and have lost all confidence in the Government.

Teachers' pay is a major issue. I am sure that hon. Members have received dozens of letters from teachers, but I should like to quote from one that I received from a teacher, Jeff Palmer, in my constituency. He says :

"I am the Head of Physics at Washington School. I am 43 years of age and have been teaching for 15 years. Before entering teaching I worked in industry for 10 years. I have a degree in Physics and industrial qualifications. My salary is under £16,000

The morale in the profession has never been lower. Most of my colleagues are sick and tired at having more and more work placed upon them. They, and I, are fed up with Mr. MacGregor and others telling us what a marvellous job we did in implementing GCSE and how we are going to make a success of National Curriculum, and at the same time deny us a reasonable wage."

That letter is similar to dozens of others that I and other hon. Members have received.

The Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1987 became law early in that year. The Government insisted that it would be a temporary measure, but it has now been extended until 1991. In 1988, the Government were condemned by the United Nations International Labour Organisation for denying teachers their negotiating rights. The Secretary of State is refusing to comply with international law. He continues to flout international conventions that have been ratified by the Government. The majority of complaints made by teachers is about their pay and conditions, so let us consider the real statistics. At the present rate of inflation, by March 1990 teachers' pay will have increased by 2.5 per cent. lower than inflation in the period during which the interim advisory committee has been in operation. A teacher at the top of the main professional grade will be £400 a year worse off because of inflation. During the period that the IAC has existed, the pay of teachers at the top of the main professional grade, with an allowance, will have increased by 13.8 per cent. less than the increase in average earnings--a relative loss of £2,100 per year. Is not that the main reason for the shortage of teachers in our schools?

Why does the Secretary of State persist in using selective statistics that amount to misleading propaganda about teachers' pay? He maintains that they have had a 40 per cent. increase since March 1986. He knows that between 1979 and March 1986 teachers' pay increased by 58 per cent., while that of other non-manual workers increased by 76 per cent. The 40 per cent. increase that he claims for teachers since 1986 is merely part of a catching-up exercise. Since 1979, the pay of non-manual

Column 936

workers has increased by 132 per cent., but teachers' pay has increased by only 118 per cent. The Secretary of State should give the full picture, not his partial account.

As the Secretary of State knows, a detailed survey of vacancies carried out by the six teachers' unions--it is not often that they get together to do anything--made it clear that schools currently have about 8,000 vacancies. He knows quite well that insufficient graduates are opting for teaching as a career. Why should they become teachers, with a salary of just £9,390, when they can obtain salaries well in excess of £10,000 elsewhere? Even if the full £600 million that the Secretary of State has allowed for increases this year were distributed entirely to the main scale, it would still give teachers a starting salary of about £10,100 next year. He knows that that money will not be so distributed and that teaching will remain as unattractive as it is at present.

The Government have made numerous promises to disband the IAC, but they have failed to honour their pledges and have made no serious attempt to do so. The truth is that they do not want teachers to have back their negotiating rights. They wish to continue to dictate teachers' pay as part of their policy to control public spending. For three years, teachers have accepted imposed pay and conditions and education reforms such as the national curriculum, which has resulted in a hugely increased work load for them. We congratulate them on making the GCSE a success. But enough is enough. To make matters worse, if that is possible, we now find that the £600 million planned increase for teachers' pay is being allocated on a regional basis. This change undoubtedly underpins the Government's intention to introduce new differentials in teachers' pay.

Without providing any new money and without negotiating with the trade unions, the Government have put in place preferential financial arrangements for employers in the whole of the south-east region. The publication 10 days ago of the revenue support grant settlement for 1990-91 contained these new arrangements in small print in an annex. Teachers in the south-east can therefore be offered bigger pay rises at the expense of their colleagues in the rest of the country. We oppose this arbitrary imposition of regional pay differentials. It is totally unjust that teachers elsewhere in the country should forfeit part of their pay rise, which is bound to be inadequate, in order to generate scarcely more acceptable salary levels for their colleagues in the south-east.

No explanation has been offered by the Secretary of State. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate she will explain why this has happened. In previous years only part of the south-east received extra grant ; now the whole of the south-east will get it.

Teachers are leaving the profession in huge numbers, despite what the Department of Education and Science says. The Guardian of 29 December carried the following report :

"Five times more teachers are leaving the profession than official statistics reveal. A report by researchers at Manchester University's school of education found that 20,000 teachers left the classroom in 1989, compared with the government figure of just 4,000. The report blames the scale of the losses on the effects of the Education Reform Act. Work overload, poor pay and low morale were the main reasons given for leaving."

As I said, I have received dozens of letters from disgruntled teachers. I had intended to quote another, not

Column 937

from a constituent but from someone in Birmingham who had had enough and had written to me, but I shall not do so because another hon. Member wants to speak and I have given a guarantee to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would allow him time.

The teaching force is already disgruntled. Unless the Government take action pretty quickly, the problem will get worse, and more teachers will leave the profession. Our children are losing out. The Government will not be forgiven for the damage that they are doing to the nation.

6.32 pm

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : I share Tuesdays and Thursdays on the Education (Student Loans) Bill with the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), and I am grateful to him for sitting down promptly and allowing me an opportunity to intervene in the debate. He read out a letter from a physics teacher. As an ex-physics teacher, I found that a good way to get my support. Although I do not go along with the general theme of doom and gloom that we have heard from the Opposition Benches, at least I agree with Opposition Members that the nettle of teachers' pay must be grasped. I do not know if they will all share my view that, when we consider teacher shortages and other problems referred to during the debate, we shall have to grasp the nettle of differentials and local pay bargaining and get away from the old scales which operated when I was a teacher and which still, I am afraid, operate today. They were not good for teachers' pay, any more than was the old Burnham committee whose return Opposition Members are always calling for. The Burnham committee was very bad for teachers' pay, so whatever way forward the Secretary of State chooses, I ask him not to go for another Burnham committee.

I welcome the calmer atmosphere in which the education debate is now taking place. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his colleagues for the way in which they have taken a lead in providing that atmosphere in which we can talk about education and its future in a civilised fashion.

I support the aims of the Education Reform Act 1988 and so intend to support the Prime Minister's amendment tonight. In the brief time available to me I simply want to refer to something which will be on the agenda for education in the future--the relationship between national and local government. We have heard a great deal about local government, but no hon. Member has so far spoken about something which is in the minds of Members on both sides of the House : the present unsatisfactory relationship between national and local government when it comes to education.

Under present education policy, more and more the focus is placed on the classroom and the school, but the recent reforms have also strengthened the role and function of the Department of Education and Science. I have no idea if it was the original intention but although, rightly, we are putting more and more power into the hands of governors, teachers, heads and parents, unwittingly perhaps we are putting more power into the hands of the Department. We now have tension between the local authorities and the Department on such matters as the definition of the curriculum and city technology

Column 938

colleges, which I strongly support. Tension also arises on the question of grant-maintained schools--of which I am a strong supporter--and the education support grant.

The role of the local education authority, therefore, has diminished and, probably under any Government, will continue to diminish. This is not to undervalue the good work done by many local education authorities, including my own in Norfolk, but we have also heard this evening about the appalling record of the Inner London education authority, shortly to go, unlamented.

The Government and the local education authorities continually blame each other for the effect of their decisions on, for example, school numbers, the average pay concept and the setting up of budgets in schools. My own view is that the present system is too bureaucratic. Along with many of my colleagues, I prefer a centrally-funded system with a supervision of standards by the Department of Education and Science. There is no time to develop the details of this, but it could be fleshed out if time was available. The great advantage of central funding, particularly relevant to the debates of the past week or so, would be an immediate two-thirds reduction in the community charge.

Mr. Cryer : Good idea.

Mr. Thompson : I am developing a theme and seeing where it leads. The figure of £278 which is presently being quoted would then become something like £200.

I have believed for a long time that education should be funded centrally, before anyone even thought of the community charge, but in view of the time I would like to conclude my arguments without dwelling too long on the community charge itself.

The arguments developed by Ministers against central funding of education are, I think, flawed. If time allowed, I would develop that theme and explain why my suggestion is perfectly feasible. The change that I have suggested could be presented as a major commitment to education and training by the Government. Central funding would mean a small increase in funding by the Exchequer, which would no longer be raised locally. As we are agreed that greater priority should be given to education and training, I can see my suggestion, supported by many of my colleagues, going along with an increased commitment in that regard.

We have heard stories of doom and gloom from the Opposition, but no constructive suggestions. The constructive suggestions have come from Conservative Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept that my argument for a change in the relationship between local authorities and Government is intellectually sound, has much support and should be seriously considered.

6.39 pm

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : This has been a debate about education standards. It has been about the Government's policies on standards and their lack of ambition in terms of raising this country's education standards to the level in western Europe and other parts of the world.

I should like to pick up two points that were made by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), in what I think was his first speech since he became Chairman of the Select Committee on

Column 939

Education, Science and Arts, made an interesting and well-informed speech. I hope that Ministers listened to his comments about local management of schools. Labour and Conservative- controlled authorities throughout the country are afraid that LMS will create a set of unmanageable problems which will damage the delivery of education. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) talked about A-level examinations and the possible need to make reforms along the lines suggested in the Higginson report. He talked himself into a certain state of pessimism. It is possible to achieve a broader examination of students at 18 while maintaining standards. Higginson offered the Government a way in which that could be achieved. When the Labour party is elected to office in a year or two, we will implement the Higginson recommendations and reform the 18-plus examination. The key phrase in the debate was uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), when he said that, as a parent, the key question that he would want to ask was whether the delivery of education satisfied him in relation to his children. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members should ask that question. Would we be satisfied with some conditions that obtain in our education system? The answer is that, if we honestly face those problems in schools to which our children go, we will have difficulty in saying, "Yes, we are totally satisfied."

The Secretary of State often talks about there not being a real teacher shortage problem, but he then admits that there is a problem in London and the south-east. If there is a problem there, I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues whether they would want their children to go to a school in Tower Hamlets. The teacher shortage in that borough is so acute that the local authority is considering recruiting teenagers, not as teachers but as child minders, so that young people do not run around the streets and so that children are not without care during the day. That is not about education ; it is just about child minding.

The Secretary of State said today and in his letter to his parliamentary colleagues that, in addition to the geographical problem, there may be a shortage problem in certain specialist subjects--for example, mathematics, physics, chemistry and modern languages. My hon. Friends should make the calculations and tell us what would be left of the national curriculum if those crucial subjects were taken out. It would mean taking out about 40 per cent. of the national curriculum--yet the Secretary of State is satisfied with saying that there is a shortage of those subjects, in the clear and complacent knowledge that delivery of those subjects will be below the standards that parents expect for their children. The Secretary of State fails to admit a crucial factor--that there is a shortage of qualified teachers in particular subjects. We may get teachers in front of children, but we do not always get teachers with the requisite skills. [Interruption.] It is no good disagreeing with that. The Kingman report on the teaching of English and reports on the teaching of mathematics show the extent of the hidden shortage because we do not have enough properly qualified teachers.

This all points to the need for a highly motivated and properly paid teaching profession. Last year, PA

Column 940

Management Consultants studied a comparable range of graduate professions. After five years in a profession, the average salary in that group two years ago was nearly £18,000 a year ; but after five years' experience, the average salary of graduate teachers is £13, 500. Is it therefore surprising that people will not be attracted into or remain in the teaching profession?

The Secretary of State failed in his remarkably complacent speech to recognise the problems of overload in terms of delivering the Government's education reforms. He should go into any primary or secondary school and ask the head teacher how he or she envisages delivering the national curriculum. He will be told that the head teacher does not know the answer, because the Department of Education and Science does not know it. Those who teach subjects such as arts, music and physical education are worried. Eighteen months after the enactment of legislation, the national curriculum working parties in those subjects have not even been set up. How can a head teacher describe how the national curriculum will look on implementation in a school when the Government have not even set up the appropriate working parties?

There is a problem of overload when teachers are not given accurate or reliable information about how the testing system will work. They do not know about the relationship between testing and the national curriculum. The Minister talked proudly about the technical and vocational education initiative, but when we asked questions in the debates on the Education Reform Bill about the future of TVEI and its relationship to the national curriculum, the Minister of State had no answers. Ministers still do not know how TVEI will fit the national curriculum. All those changes are creating problems of overload. It is about time that the Government recognised that those changes also bring into question the standard and delivery of education. Some Conservative Members dismiss the notion of good schools in a physical sense. They seem to think that the resources available are not important. I shall give some examples to make my point. Queensbury school in Bradford has such bad facilities that there is a lack of laboratory space in which to teach science under the national curriculum. What does that mean for educational opportunities? Faversham street school in Bradford is more than 100 years old and is part of the Victorian legacy to Bradford. I understand that it is a listed building, but everyone who knows anything about that school lists it as unfit for educational purposes. How can we expect children to learn and work in such conditions?

How do the Government expect children in primary schools in Waltham Forest to work in such conditions? There are 61 primary schools--10 are more than 100 years old and 31 are more than 50 years old. Sixteen schools use mobile classrooms, 24 have no gymnasium or sports room, and 30 have no access for young disabled children. All that makes a difference in terms of the facilities available for our children and the school's environment and ability to deliver good-quality education.

This has been a debate about standards. Our argument is simple : without a motivated teacher force, direction, and investment in the physical resources of education, standards cannot be delivered. The Secretary of State made much play of the impact of the GCSE, but it is worth reminding him that the GCSE has worked not because of

Column 941

the way in which the Government have resourced it but because of the commitment made by individual teachers, beyond their contracts, to make it work.

The Secretary of State ought to answer a point that he made in what was claimed to be an exclusive interview in last Friday's Daily Express with Will Stewart, a home affairs correspondent, who is a reliable journalist. The article said that the Secretary of State was concerned about teacher shortage, and that he was going to run a campaign of television commercials to attract people back into the teaching profession. It also said--I quote the Daily Express , not something I do as a habit--

"Mr. MacGregor also asked examiners to take the crisis into account when marking GCSE papers."

Is that not a confession from the Secretary of State that the Government cannot deliver educational standards? It is very much the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham was making : we can get the statistics to look right, but are the Government leaning on examining bodies to ensure that the statistics stand up?

The Secretary of State has made a real confession. For a long time after he became Secretary of State, he tried to hide his talent. Many people thought that he had become the Lord Lucan of the DES, but he emerged eventually. When he did emerge, he made the substantial confession that he has presided over a reduction in standards and in ambition.

The crucial point about the motion is that the Government are presiding over a deterioration in standards and ambition in education. The real indictment of the Government's record is that we have a Secretary of State who is happy to defend the status quo, who has no ambition for the country's education system, and who does not seem to be concerned that the gap between our educational achievements and those of western Europe, the United States and Japan is widening. That is what the CBI said in the autumn. That is the case and the Government continue to preside over the deterioration of education. Above all, they have set low standards and low expectations for children. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the motion.

6.51 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : When I was reflecting earlier today upon what I walikely to be asked to answer in the debate, and upon the points that would be made by Opposition Members, I made a check list for myself. I started by noting that they would talk about lack of resources and the disgraceful state of buildings, and that they would go on about the support that local authorities, central Government and the taxpayers should give to education ; then they would talk about how bad teacher morale was, being negative about it, with not a single positive suggestion ; they would talk too about the pay and conditions of teachers. My check list has been rather good. When I look at the runners for the 2.30 at Wolverhampton or Kempton park, I should like to have the same success that I had this afternoon. Of course, a great deal has been said by Opposition Members about the state of school buildings and the conditions in which children are learning. There is a point to be made--that this year we have contributed 9.6 per cent. more in extra resources for education expenditure.

Column 942

That is not the whole story. As well as the £485 million in capital grant allocated this year, local authorities can spend money of their own.

It must be said that not all school buildings are in the dilapidated state that Opposition Members allege. One would think that every school was about to fall apart at the seams. It is true that some are in better condition than others, but the condition of many primary schools that I go into is relatively good. We must pay tribute to the teachers who spend a great deal of time making such schools attractive places in which to teach children. It is a pity that we did not hear more about the way in which teachers tackle their jobs.

The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that it was not attractive for teachers to enter the teaching profession, yet the starting salary for a good honours graduate is £9,400. That is not bad compared to other professions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows that I was in his constituency yesterday. The point made to me by a head teacher there was that what is needed in the teaching profession is a good career structure. By that he meant incremental pay, incentive allowances for subjects where there were shortages, and local allowances for local difficulties. Those are the very things that my right hon. Friend has put in the remit to the interim advisory committee this year. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned another point, also referred to by the hon. Member for City of Durham, that the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has raised with them, presumably in their capacity as advisers. It arises from a misunderstanding of the allowance described in the revenue support grant distribution report for extra labour costs incurred in London and surrounding areas.

The area cost adjustment for education enhances the standard spending assessment of authorities in and around London to allow for extra labour costs incurred in these areas in respect of all employed in the education service. That adjustment is based on objective evidence derived from the new earnings survey. The variations found in different counties on the edge of the area are dependent on the incidence of extra cost shown by the new earnings survey in the constituent districts. Therefore, it does not imply anything about what teachers ought to be paid in those areas.

I turn to my hon. Friends, whose support I have found most gratifying and whose speeches were excellent. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) raised several points. He and I have known each other for many years because we have been together in local and central Government. He was right to mention 1976. At that time we heard of the draconian cuts that the Labour Government had inflicted upon us.

He also mentioned local management schemes, and referred to the schemes asking the Government to look carefully at the proposals for Conservative counties and Labour counties ; other hon. Members mentioned the same point. It is important to recognise that authorities have prepared their own local management schemes. Authorities have different schemes ; they have used different formulae. Some have gone as far as extending more of their executive rights to the schools, but many local authorities have kept a great deal of money to the centre. There is a transitional period of four years in which the money will go to the schools.

Column 943

It is the intention of Government that as much money as possible should go from the general schools budget to schools to allow governors and schools to make the decisions that are rightfully theirs about how to spend the money. The principle behind local management schemes is that the money follows the pupil. That means inevitably that the schools that are delivering good education to their children will mean more money for the schools. If one grasps that fundamental point, it means that the market for parents to choose the right schools, in their opinion, for their children will increase the amount of money going to the schools.

As we have talked about choice in education, it is important to underpin what my right hon. Friend has said about it. It is important for children to have the opportunity to go to schools like city technology colleges. That partnership between industry and the public sector is most important. It builds on much of what has been established during the past 10 years in the partnership between industry and the state sector of education. It began with the technical and vocational education initiative and continued with compacts--which, I say generously to the Opposition, came as much from the Inner London education authority as from others.

The idea of city technology colleges is of proven worth and they will undoubtedly be a success. Many parents will want to support them. Grant- maintained schools have also been a great success. There are already 20 of them, and they are attracting more pupils and teachers. It is important to recognise that.

Finally, I wish to refer not only to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for whose support I have been most grateful, but to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who raised the extremely important point about standards and, in particular, A levels. It is because of the very fears that he expressed about education standards, especially A levels, that we were anxious about accepting the recommendations of the Higginson report.

We felt that it was dangerous to introduce so many changes at one time--the GCSE, the national curriculum, a new system to govern schools and a new system of funding schools. To introduce changes to the A-level examination would inevitably have led to some diminution of quality and of the high level of standards in our schools. That caution has been more than justified by what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said today. We shall take note of that and draw the attention of the examining bodies to what he said.

The Government's amendment is eminently sensible, and my hon. Friends have clearly shown that it is worth the support of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will join us in the Lobby to support our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :--

The House divided : Ayes 224, Noes 285.

Division No. 45] [7.02 pm


Abbott, Ms Diane

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Column 944

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Beckett, Margaret

Beith, A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bermingham, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Blair, Tony

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Buchan, Norman

Buckley, George J.

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Cartwright, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clay, Bob

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Coleman, Donald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Doran, Frank

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Fisher, Mark

Flannery, Martin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Derek

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Galloway, George

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Hardy, Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Heffer, Eric S.

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Geraint

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Adam

Janner, Greville

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kennedy, Charles

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Kirkwood, Archy

Lambie, David

Lamond, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Leighton, Ron

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry

Litherland, Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

Macdonald, Calum A.

McFall, John

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

McNamara, Kevin

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, William

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Next Section

  Home Page