CONTROL OF DISPOSALS OF LAND

HC Deb 30 July 1984 vol 65 cc146-80

Lords amendment: No. 10, after clause 8, and after the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause:—

Amendment (e), in line 8, at end insert: 'and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by the reasons for his decision. '

Amendment (f), in line 12, leave out 'be in addition to' and insert 'replace'.

Amendment (g), in line 26, at end, add— '() Any costs or charges following upon the council in question, or upon the person to whom the land is to be disposed, arising as a result of—

1. (a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
2. (b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
3. (c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section

; shall be re-imbursed by the Secretary of State.'.

Lords amendment No. 11, after clause 8, insert the following new clause—Control of contracts—

5	". — (1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into a contract which (with or without other matters) provides for—
	(a) the carrying out by or for the council of building or engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £250,000;
10	(b) the carrying out by or for the council of maintenance works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;
	(c) the supply by or to the council of goods in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;
15	(d) the provision by or to the council of administrative, - professional or technical services in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000; or
20	(e) the use by another person of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of the council, or the use by the council of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of another person, in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000.
	(2) Where the consideration or any of the consideration. under a contract is not in money, the limits specified in subsection (1) above shall apply to the value of the consideration; and any necessary apportionment shall be made of consideration which is
25	referable to two or more of the matters mentioned in that subsection or to any of them and other matters.
30	(3) For the purpose of determining whether a limit specified in subsection (1) above is exceeded in the case of any contract, there shall be taken into account the consideration under any other contract or contracts entered into by the council in the previous twelve months (but not earlier than the passing of this Act) so far as relating, in a case within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to works of the same or a similar description to be carried out on the same or adjacent land or, in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of that subsection, to goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description.
35
40	(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular contract or in respect of contracts of any case or description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
45	(5) A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into a contravention of this section and a person entering into a contract with a council to which this section applies shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.
50	(6) In this section— "building or engineering works" includes any work involved in the laying out of land, the improvement of land or buildings, the construction or improvement of a highway and any work of demolition;
	"maintenance works" includes work for the maintenance or repair of land, buildings or highways, the gritting of a highway and the clearing of snow from a highway."

And the following amendments to the Lords amendment:

(e), in line 8, leave out '£250,000' and insert `£1,000,000'.

(f), in line 11, leave out '£100,000' and insert `£000,000'.

(g), in line 13, leave out '£100,000' and insert '£500,000'.

(h), in line 16, leave out '£100,000' and insert `£500,000'.

(i), in line 20, leave out '£100,000', and insert `£500,000'.

(j), in line 40, at end insert `and such consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, and shall in any event be extended to such contracts a clear intention to enter into which was evident prior to 13th July 1984.'.

(k), in line 40, at end insert `and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by the reasons for his decision.'.

(b), in line 40, at end insert— `(4A) Before granting or refusing his consent under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult bodies representative of staff employed by the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. '

(c), in line 40, at end insert— '(4B) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent; and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by reasons for his decision'.

(1), in line 53, at end add— '() Nothing in this section shall apply to the Greater London Council when acting as an education authority for the Inner London area pursuant to section 30 of the London Government Act 1963. '.

(m), in line 53, at end, add— '(7) Any costs or charges falling upon the council in question, or upon the person with whom the contract was to be placed, arising as a result of

1. (a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
2. (b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
3. (c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section

shall be reimbursed by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Fraser

If the struggle between the Department of the Environment and the metropolitan counties is a gladiatorial one, the Secretary of State has chosen to use nets and toils in the way in which he intends to control the activities of the metropolitan counties. The Secretary of State is introducing controls over land sales which are obsessive, splenetic and completely unnecessary. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman bothered to introduce those measures, unless he simply wanted to take it out on local authorities because he suffered a defeat in the other place over the election of councillors to the metropolitan counties.

Under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities may dispose of land only for the best consideration that can be reasonably obtained. If they attempt to dispose of land in any other way, they would require the consent of the Secretary of State. As the law stands, it is impossible for any local authority to make a gift of land or to sell it under value to any other local authority or any other body. If any councillor or council officer attempts to do so, he is liable to a surcharge. Caution is already shown by valuers and council officers in disposing of land, lest the disposal is under value, which might attract the attention of the district valuer. Many local authorities possess far too little imagination in disposing of their land, and that is why sometimes land remains vacant and lost to the public purse.

The new controls are not just over the transfer of freehold land. They would cover, for instance, the selling and leasing of industrial land. I understand that the GLC and the metropolitan counties possess a number of sites which they would want to lease for a short period, perhaps even on a licence, for industrial regeneration to ensure that the land does not lie vacant and that wherever possible it is available to provide jobs. Even the arrangement of licensing land for a short period is caught by the new clause.

I shall give an example of the way in which the GLC is disposing of land. Those disposals will be caught by the new clause. The GLC is selling 36 sites of industrial property, mainly to those who occupy them. The GLC—this point should please the Poujadists on the Tory Benches — is selling 34 freehold reversions to shopkeepers. I should have thought that nothing would have pleased the Government more than to see the shopkeeper exercising the same kind of rights that the householder exercises under the right-to-buy provisions.

The extraordinary thing about the legislation is that it makes illegal the jewel in the Government's crown. Under this legislation the Secretary of State will have to grant general consent to enable a local authority to sell a house under the Housing Act 1980 because, unless he gives general consent, he will prevent the operation of that Act. In other cases, the position becomes plainly ludicrous—for example, one of the Yorkshire authorities disposes of land by way of 500 grazing rights per year. That means that the cows and sheep of Yorkshire will have to wait for the Yorkshire authorities to go to the Department of the Environment to seek consent in letting grazing rights. I could give many other examples.

These provisions are not needed. The disposal of land is adequately covered by existing law. The useful and economic disposal of land will be delayed or even aborted because purchasers, lessees or licensees of land will not be able to hang around. The only reason why the Secretary of State is introducing this measure is to punish local authorities because of the loss of certain clauses in the other place. The Secretary of State will send his civil servants crawling over the transactions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils rather like the South American ants that invade a body before it has even become a carcase. This whole idea is a crazy bureaucratic exercise.

12.30 am

Amendment (a) at least mitigates the idiotic, dilatory and unnecessary clauses by making the Secretary of State first set out the criteria upon which he intends to exercise his powers of control and, secondly, when he has exercised his powers of control he will be obliged to give reasons for the decision to which he has come. Perhaps that almost sums up in a few word the speeches which we are to hear from Liberal Members. I see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) looking in my direction. The hon. Gentleman is doing for the reputation of speech-making what tower blocks did for the reputation of architecture. But I think that I have put in a few words what the opposition from both the minority parties amounts to.

The same arguments apply to the proposed controls of the Secretary of State over the granting of contracts. Looking through the list of contracts in respect of which he intends to take control from the Greater London council, we see that they involve perfectly acceptable works. Very few of them represent more than £100,000. Again it is quite unnecessary for the Secretary of State to take these powers, and there is no evidence of abuse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) tabled a series of questions recently to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, each of which began by asking what knowledge the Secretary of State had of the number of contracts entered into and then continued in five different ways. The Minister replied that he had very little information. In fact, he had no information which justified this provision.

I give some examples of the types of contracts which will be delayed and controlled by the Secretary of State. There are security contracts for solid waste transfer stations. They will be controlled, as will transport contracts for civil amenity sites, emergency hire of transport for waste haulage, the provision of play areas at Burgess park and Finsbury park, and tar-paving contracts in parks generally. It is quite unnecessary to adopt these powers where the law is already adequate to control the way in which local authorities dispose of both their money and their property.

Disraeli once said that if a stranger had been told that the Leader of the House was Lord John Russell, he would have understood why the Egyptians worshipped insects. He could say the same today about the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is acting like a spider. He is spinning this malevolent and bureaucratic web around local authorities, and the result of the new clauses, which we oppose, will be delay, cost and waste for the ratepayers —the very opposite of which he proposes to achieve.

Mr. Stuart Holland

If the Secretary of State intends to take away these powers front local authorities, perhaps it is appropriate to remind the House of an occasion on which his predecessor did precisely that. It was in my constituency, and it concerned the Esso and Effra sites on each side of Vauxhall bridge. The Secretary of State chose to make a special development order to take from local authorities their rights to dispose of those sites as they saw fit.

In the debate in the House which ensued, which was on a negative order so that we had to exercise ourselves to oppose it, we argued that the Secretary of State did not know the local circumstances as well as the local councils which opposed this move, and that the Secretary of State should not have confidence in the developer on behalf of the property company concerned at that time, a certain Mr. Ronnie Lyons, whose previous track record was to go bankrupt owing his creditors some £54 million. We also argued that it was as clear as could be that it was possible, if not probable, that Mr. Ronnie Lyons would go bankrupt yet again.

At that time, the Secretary of State told right hon. and hon. Members that their fears were exaggerated and that if only they would pay attention to what he was about to say—and this Secretary of State is skilled in reminding us that he is about to say something—they would be reassured about the disposal of those sites.

The record shows that Mr. Ronnie Lyons has gone bankrupt yet again. The sites are not being developed. The haste has not got rid of the waste or of the failure to use those sites. The haste and the concern of this Government to come down from above to exercise what amount to authoritarian powers, riding roughshod over local councils, has resulted in further planning blight.

I now ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that in the case of the Coin street sites — where, recently, land disposal was made to a community development on behalf of the Association of Waterloo Groups for housing rather than office development—he will in no way seek to exercise retrospectively the powers in the Bill to take those sites away from the community. For the first time since the South Bank exhibition in 1951, housing will be restored to those sites, and that has been promised for 35 years.

In these two specific, concrete cases in my constituency we have evidence of the better judgment of local elected councils which are closer to the community, closer to the people and have better knowledge of commercial enterprises and prospects than Secretaries of State.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to avoid emulating his predecessor, I urge him seriously to reconsider the proposals from another place.

Mr. Simon Hughes

May I first seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You called a debate on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 10. Do you propose that this should be a comprehensive debate dealing with the other amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 and with Lords amendment No. 11 and the amendments thereto?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes, as I indicated we shall have a general debate on all the amendments on the selection list.

Mr. Hughes

My right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled some of the amendments that we are now discussing. In effect, they relate to the Secretary of State's planning powers. They come before the House against a background of increasing discontent over the Secretary of State's exercise of his existing planning powers.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I did not intend to intervene quite so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I assure him that nothing in this clause or in any of the amendments has anything to do with my planning powers.

Mr. Hughes

Consent to disposals of land is as near to planning decisions as any decisions which the right hon. Gentleman is already empowered to make.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred to the Coin street site, the large bulk of which is in his constituency and the smaller part of which is in mine. If that site is the subject of an application and there is a requirement to dispose of it to community groups for housing purposes, the Secretary of State will, if the amendment is passed, be able to refuse his consent to that disposal. That allows intervention in the decision-making powers of local authorities in respect of land, which is exactly similar to all the interventionist powers which the Secretary of State now has in respect of buildings.

Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some specific and recent examples which make it quite clear that there is a parallel. Both the London borough of Southwark and the GLC have reached a view about the development of the St. Mary Overy's wharf. That went to a public inquiry, and the inspector recommended that one of the proposals for its development be refused and another be acceded to. In a specific part of his recommendation, the inspector said that there should not be demolition of one of the best buildings of its type on the London riverside —the St. Mary Overy's wharf. However, the Secretary of State overrode the views of the local authorities as reinforced and supported by the inspector.

The same thing has happened recently in relation to Free Trade wharf on the other side of the river. It happens regularly through the powers of the docklands corporation in London, which is the one that I know best, and also on Merseyside. The corporation has powers to intervene in a way that negatives local authority decisions about passing ownership of land.

The Lords amendment deals with consent to the disposal of land and is the reverse of the power which the Secretary of State has already taken to himself in relation to, say, the powers granted to the dockland corporations under the 1980 Act. The corporations are supposedly equally accountable to the electorate through the House, but are not accountable to the local electorate in the same way when land is vested and taken from the ownership of an authority and handed to another.

Various orders have been put before the House for the purpose of taking land from the ownership of the GLC, from the London borough of Southwark and other boroughs, to be handed to the London Dockland Development Corporation, for development by that corporation. The clause exactly reverses that position and adds to the powers that have been vested in the Secretary of State for the past four years.

The clause adds to the powers of the Secretary of State by now charging him with consideration of any disposals of land that come within the definition before us. That is a further measure of interference by the Secretary of State with the rights, responsibilities and traditional duties of local government. It is not in the pattern of British municipal life that decisions about land are dealt with by Secretaries of States, unless that land is owned by the Government. The land in question is not owned by the Government but is owned by and planned for by local government. Nothing in the metropolitan areas and the GLC area differentiates land held there from land that is held by any other authority.

The first objection of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the measure is clearly selective, but not because of a well-thought-out plan. It was not part of the Secretary of State's proposal when the Bill was first laid before Parliament. It was thought of only at the last moment because it seemed that the seven authorities might take decisions which the Secretary of State did not like, and in which he wished to intervene.

The subsections of Lords amendment No. 10, which I shall not deal with at length, raise the same fundamental objection as the similar clauses which we debated earlier in respect of the 2p rate. The Secretary of State told the House—I did not intervene in that debate because I knew that the matter could be raised here — that he would at some stage, perhaps tomorrow for all we know, tell us what classes or descriptions of land he will specify for deciding how various disposals will be dealt with. He did not lay before us tonight any specific proposals, nor did he tell us how large or how valuable are the parcels of land, or of what type they are.

The right hon. Gentleman is effectively writing himself a blank cheque. He is taking the absolute power to be able to say, without further control by the House or by anybody —there is no suggestion of a mechanism by which the House can debate further legislation of this type—what categories of land he can dispose of. There will be no opportunity of review other than because of his extreme abuse of that power.

Subsection (2) of Lords amendment No. 10 clearly says that the Secretary of State can give consent in respect of a particular disposal"— it might be a controversial site such as Coin street, or a site elsewhere along the London riverside—or he may give or withhold his consent in relation to a class of disposals. We are not told what the criteria will be. Alliance Members will support the amendment that was proposed by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). People should know in advance the implications of any decisions. As amendment (a) suggests, the Secretary of State should specify the matters he is to take into consideration so that the local authorities know whether they are likely to fall within the ambit of the new clause when they contemplate how to deal with their land.

12.45 am

Amendments have been tabled to subsection (3), which gives the Secretary of State an additional power. One of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me—amendment (f)—seeks to give him that power if he wishes to exercise it, but not an additional power. The amendment suggests that the power that the Secretary of State has should "replace" and not "be in addition to" any consent that is already required of him by section 123 of the principal Local Government Act. Some of us try, by debating these matters, to elicit reasons from the Secretary of State, but one of the tragedies is that often we find ourselves sent away empty handed. There has been no prepared and justified rationale behind all these consequential and other amendments. We have heard no reason why the Secretary of State believes that the powers that he now seeks are necessary in addition to those that he already has under section 123.

Subsection (5) makes it clear how wide the amendment goes. It refers to all the types of dealing in land that anybody who has had any experience of it will know about. For example, it deals implicitly—they are not excluded—with easements and rights of way. Included are very small rights of access to and from substantial areas of property, which, elsewhere, are subject to the Secretary of State's decision. The Secretary of State needs to come to the House, if he is to justify any support that he receives at the end of the debate, and persuade us why he requires such comprehensive rights over all contracts in relation to disposals of land.

One of the reasons which the Secretary of State has advanced over the past few clays, and which his colleague in the other place advanced only earlier this month when the new amendments were introduced, was that he anticipated that there would be abuse of powers under existing legislation by present local authorities — the seven metropolitan counties. Why can he not accept an amendment such as amendment (d), which we have tabled? I ask him to consider it again. We ask that he should be subject to administrative law that puts a restraint on the Executive. Many of us make the great complaint about the legal system that the Executive is so unanswerable to the courts.

The proposal is that the Secretary of State's consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, and shall in any event be extended to the disposal of such land a clear intention to dispose of which was evident prior to 13th July 1984. Long before the proposals were laid before Parliament, any metropolitan county or the GLC might have charged its officers to contemplate disposing of some land. It often would be a disposal between the county authority and a borough or district authority, so it would not mean any lessening of the public control of an asset in land, but only a transfer from one authority to another. Why should they not be allowed to justify, through their documentation, that they properly intended to dispose of that land before the Secretary of State suddenly threatened to bring down his guillotine?

There are proper parallels for that. After a divorce, one party might have got rid of a substantial asset explicitly to avoid the other party having his or her rightful dues in the post-marriage settlement. Under section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court can direct that that money be brought back into the kitty so that it can be reallocated. It looks at the documents. We are asking for the same fair and traditional principle to be applied here. Where it is clear that the intention to dispose of an asset was not to prohibit the Secretary of State from exercising a legislative power, the Secretary of State must take that into account, and that must restrict the powers that he would otherwise have.

It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that he will give reasons for his decision, but then to say that he will not accept an amendment that requires him to give reasons. One of the most unsatisfactory things about any power taken by any Secretary of State in any Department is when he does not have to justify what he does. Those who have looked at decisions made by Secretaries of State for the Environment will know that when comprehensive investigations have been carried out by an inspector, leading to conclusions, the Secretary of State can blandly, quickly and abruptly say that he has read the submissions, the report of the public inquiry and the inspector's report, and seen the conclusions, but still believes that it will be of economic advantage to the area that the development should take place, and so he ignores what has been said.

The Secretary of State should give reasons for his decisions. How can anyone challenge, if he wishes to do so, the propriety of actions in law, in a country with no constitutional court and no adequate way to deal with the Executive, unless the reasons are specified and set out?

Other amendments have been tabled because they are important, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider them for that reason. In particular, amendment (g) deals with the costs or charges that result from decisions made by the Secretary of State. As a result, the councils and the people in their areas have to pay more. As the Secretary of State reminds us all the time, it is not the councils which have the money, just as the money with which the Government play is not their money, but money which they hold on behalf of the people of the country. The councils hold money on behalf of the people who elected them, and that is why we are so opposed to the idea of suddenly getting rid of elections, without there being any proper responsibility in the exercise of powers to spend money.

The Secretary of State, if he adheres to the principle which it appears has motivated him for so long in pushing this legislation so hard through the House, must say something about the costs or charges that follow as a result of the disposal of land. For example, delays may incur extra interest charges, or a local authority may be bound by contractural obligations, having entered into an agreement to dispose by a certain date of land, which it does not fulfil. As a result it could incur charges that could run into thousands of pounds a week. Why should the Secretary of State not be willing to say that if he takes the power to delay a decision he will at least reimburse to local authorities the costs arising out of what he is doing?

The Secretary of State, his Department and his legislation have regularly eaten into the coffers of local authorities. The net result of all these amendments would be that the local authorities would not have the financial reserves which they had at the beginning eaten away by an additional demand from the Secretary of State which is not of their choosing or making, and is not in their control.

The Secretary of State might impose conditions in granting consent. He might say that a further search needs to be made, or that there must be a period for bids to be put in, or some other eventuality which he foresees as necessary. In that case, it is fair, equitable and only just to the people in the authority in question that his Department, out of central taxpayers' money should reimburse the money that local authorities have to spend.

Two substantial new clauses are being discussed, although in some ways the debate rightly links them. They deal with the Secretary of State's power to intervene in contracts that are entered into by local authorities. The idea has apparently again come rather late in the day from the Secretary of State and his Department. He seems to fear that contracts may be entered into tomorrow or, say, next week by the seven metropolitan counties. He also seems to fear that they will be able to enter into large contracts, so in the amendments approved by the other place he has set down a series of figures above which a contract must go to him for decision.

Why on earth were those figures chosen? They do not seem to come from anywhere. They are totally arbitrary and, as has been said, are probably the first ones that the Secretary of State thought of. They are nice, round figures.

Lords amendment No. 11 shows that the Secretary of State has plucked out a figure to apply to each category of contract. The figure for contracts involving building or engineering works is £250,000; for maintenance work, £100,000; for the supply of goods, £100,000; for administrative services, £100,000, and in relation to the use or purchase of plant or material it is also £100,000.

Those figures are totally arbitrary. Unless the Secretary of State can justify them, he must accept that our amendments to Lords amendment No. 11 are equally valid. They at least have the merit of increasing the amounts involved and thus of reducing the amount of interference by the Secretary of State. There is also an argument of practicality. The GLC's budget is larger than the budgets of 18 sovereign states, so we cannot complain if it often and quite properly enters into such six-figure contracts. It would therefore seem sensible for the right hon. Gentleman to have fewer contracts to scrutinise so that he can deal more closely with those which he does consider.

Conservative Back Benchers are here in such amazing numbers that I can see only one apart from the PPS, the Whip and the junior Minister. Even the Conservative Member present is beyond the Bar of the House and so presumably does not intend to speak. If the amendment is so necessary, why does the Secretary of State not tell us how many extra people will be needed by his Department to process the work?

This Bill, and the Bill which we gather is to come later, are designed primarily, apparently, to save money. The Government said that they wanted to get rid of a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We know that no figures have yet been produced, and they say that as yet figures cannot be produced, but the Secretary of State is now giving his Department many new responsibilities which will have to be dealt with by somebody. I hope that he will explain that soon. If he is saying to local authorities and their officers that they are less competent to deal with these matters than are people in his Department, we need to know who they are and at what cost they will be dealt with.

If the new limit were raised, as our amendment suggests, many routine contracts would immediately be exempted. I gather that there are 20 health and safety contracts at the moment, of which 13 would be exempted by raising the limits by the figures suggested. Half of all housing renovations would be exempted. The Secretary of State may say that health and safety contracts or housing renovation contracts will come within the category that he will designate as exempt in any event. He may be able to give us some illumination on what his proposals will be. He may give us, for example, a trailer for the statement that he intends to make later. But we should know why recurrent contracts which it has been the practice of Secretaries of State to keep out of, while the GLC and its predecessor the London county council has got on with them — routine and necessary matters to do with drainage and housing that arise every year — are suddenly required to be dealt with by the Secretary of State.

Some of the subjects that we are dealing with are unexciting. [Interruption.] —— Some are unexciting, no matter who is trying to deal with them. Even the hon Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) could not entertain the House for long on a subject such as waste disposal. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) did a good job in raising the quality and humour of the debate earlier.

Recurrent contracts for matters such as the transport of solid waste are bound to be included. Taking solid waste from central London has to be done on a massive scale every year. Such contracts should not have to be the subject of the Secretary of State's intervention. The contracts need to be entered into without delay. Every time there is a delay, either the contractor might increase the amount to the local authority or extra costs will be incurred because interim arrangements will have to be entered into which previously were not necessary because from year to year a recurrent contract was permissible.

The police and fire service in London want a new procedure so that they can purchase equipment, but we understand that under the new procedure the Secretary of State will want to consider whether new fire engines are needed. Those are matters of which there has been no complaint by the Secretary of State or his predecessors at any stage. Most of the departments with which the seven metropolitan counties deal have not been the subject of criticism at all.

The opposition have put to the Secretary of State and his colleagues, particularly the Under -Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), that the desperate crisis that we face needs every possible committed expenditure. For example, there is the housing crisis. Only a year ago the Secretary of State's Department was urging local authorities to spend capital sums on the renovation and improvement of housing stock in the cities. The Secretary of State now wants the right to intervene in that. That has not been and should not be his business.

The problem associated with the ILEA is specific to London. The ILEA's financial commitments are considerable. The Secretary of State will now have power to intervene in contracts that are regularly placed with it. Why is he not satisfied with the Secretary of State for Education and Science's right to intervene? He is best equipped to deal with the ILEA's contracts. There is no logic in the Secretary of State for the Environment being able to control a body that is not to be abolished. Having accepted that the ILEA should continue, there is no reason why it should be subject to the same constraints as the metropolitan counties and the GLC.

What is the Government's estimate of the extra costs that will be incurred by matters being referred to the Department of the Environment? If the Secretary of State refuses a contract, or if unreasonable conditions are imposed, a contractor will lose much time and money. In legal terms, there will be direct and indirect damages. It is important that the Goverment should quantify that cost and make plans to deal with any such loss. Much preparation time is spent on architecture in a contract for any form of local authority. The Secretary of State must say how he will remiburse the person hours that are spent on a contract that is aborted.

Extra documents might be produced and extra staff might have to be recruited to deal with proposed contracts. That means extra cost and local authorities will be under greater constraints because of rate-capping or other means of reducing rate support grant. If the Secretary of State does not specify the criteria by which he will make decisions, many contractors might not be able to make proper business decisions. That might have an effect on money and jobs. Does the Secretary of State claim that he will be able to categorise the decisions that must be made each year by the metropolitan councils and the GLC? If he does, he will find that, like all similar claims, it 'will be disproved.

Will the Secretary of State be able to force those different types of commercial contracts into rigid groups? If Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire decided to purchase a fleet of police cars, would that be governed by general consent? What would happen if the price of the cars increased while the Secretary of State had called the contract in? The citizens of Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire or South Yorkshire may believe that those cars are necessary for the police to go about their business and keep down the incidence of law breaking, such as burglary and mugging, which happen everywhere.

If the metropolitan councils and the GLC, which often purchase for their district and borough authorities, were told that they could not do that and must rein in that decision because the Secretary of State wants to consider it, the work of the second tier of local government, which the Secretary of State claims he wishes to help through this legislation, will be hindered. It is ironic that the Secretary of State alleges that he wants to bring local government to that lower level, yet will hinder its work by these interventionist measures.

I have dealt with a long and important list of amendments, each of which deserves better attention from the Secretary of State than he has given so far. Does the Secretary of State accept that the only reason why his and his colleagues' proposals will be resisted tonight is that he is determined, whatever the merits, the practicability and workability of the legislation, and whatever its implications for local authorities' staffs, their workloads and the people in the seven areas involved, to get the legislation through Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman will not be responsible for the cost. It will not come from his or his Department's pockets. The financial cost will be born by the ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman abolishes the GLC, or if his Department manages to steamroller the cities, as is expected, the local boroughs and districts will have to pick up the tabs. All the delays and additional costs will be passed on to them in the transitional proposals, about which we shall no doubt hear next Session. That is not satisfactory, because these proposals have not been properly argued. They were introduced into the Bill at the last minute when it went to the other place and the Government realised that it was unpopular.

Later, the Secretary of State will ask the House to amend the long title of the Bill so that the Bill can contain these proposals. His final amendment tonight seeks to change the purpose of the original Bill. That is a ludicrous proposition. Such amendments show how shallow, unjustified and prejudiced the Secretary of State's arguments are. They show how amazingly paranoid he and his colleagues have become. They are unwilling to face the electors at the ballot box in the counties in question and. to rely on the legislation that they have piloted through the House. They will not rely on the legislation which set up the GLC and the MCCs, the Local Government Act 1972 which deals with section 137 and local authorities' contracts, or the 1980 legislation, which dealt with those matters.

The Government are not even willing to rely on their Tory colleagues in the councils in question, who, as has been shown in the past few days, have the right and the power, if they believe the law is being broken, to go to court. They do not believe that the judges will be on their side, and they do not believe that they can rely on the integrity of the people who support their party in local government. They do not believe that they can rely on all the experience of the officers in local government until now, or on the Audit Commission and the other bodies set up by the Secretary of State to ensure that local government is accountable and does not waste money.

1.15 am

We gather that in the middle of August — the Secretary of State denies that it is anything but a first draft —when, of course, no one will be here to protest, we shall have a report from the Audit Commission saying that all these proposals cost the ratepayer nothing except for £1.5 million extra, because what the Secretary of State believes is waste by local authorities is waste by central l Government. The balance of the argument has not been made out.

The only recourse open to us is to say that it is not good enough for the Government, two days before the end of a Session and having just put those proposals before the House for debate for the first time, to expect to get them through tonight. I understand that the only procedure open to us is to say that the matters should be adjourned until they can be considered properly. As I understand the Standing Orders of the House and "Erskine May", it is open to me to move that the House do now adjourn.

As I understand the procedures of what "Erskine May" calls dilatory motions, where a new matter comes before the House that was not contemplated in the Bill as originally proposed, nor in the long title of the Bill, and clearly—as was admitted by Lord Bellwin in another place—was a last-minute reaction and simply something thought up by the Government — [Interruption.] It appears that the Government are making last-minute contingency plans of a different sort to try to get some hon. Members into the Chamber to deal with something of which they had not thought.

It must be right that the House has the opportunity to decide whether it should debate this matter further tonight. The proposals before us should not be in the Bill. If they should have been in any Bill, it was the Rates Bill, which is now the Rates Act 1984. If they had to be in this Bill, they should have been introduced at the beginning when the Government had plans for controlling local authority expenditure, because they knew from the beginning that they wanted to save money. They have now decided that their original proposals are ineffective, so they have dreamt up some other unsupported proposals.

I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a motion, That this House do now adjourn. The Bill before us is not the Bill presented to us at the beginning. The matter is not properly constitutionally before us. The Standing Orders permit the House to vote on this matter, and I am sure that your learned Clerk will advise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that "Erskine May" states that it is perfectly proper for such a motion to be made by someone who is called to speak, although it need not be tabled, and must be put at the end of his remarks to the House.

On behalf of all of us in the House who despise the Government for trying to steamroller local government late in the day and in the night, without reasons and simply for spite and malice, I ask that the House adjourns now and that we consider this matter in the next Session of this Parliament when we and the Government have had an opportunity to think about, work out and plan properly the proposals before the House.

I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 29, I am not prepared to entertain his motion.

Mr. Tony Banks

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave a characteristically thoughtful speech, with a little gimmickry at the end, which did not work out—but nine out of 10 for trying. He pleaded with the Conservative Benches, which look packed now in contrast with his earlier remarks; I would not wish to detain Conservative Members if they have other places to go.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he hoped to appeal to the Secretary of State with cool and quiet reason. Quite frankly, he must believe in Father Christmas if he believes that he will convince this Secretary of State that he has it wrong. The evidence that the right hon. Gentleman has it wrong can be seen from the empty Conservative Benches—only half a dozen Members have supported the Government Front Bench during the debate on this amendment. Given the significance of the amendment and what it is proposed to do to locally democratically-elected councillors, Conservative Members should surely show more concern. Of course, they do not want to know; they do not want to hear any of the arguments; their ears are stopped, their orders have come from the bunker at No. 10. They will do what they are told to do, in good, zombie-like tradition. The hon. Gentleman, trying to appeal to reason, might as well whistle in the wind, because he will get nothing at all.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the amendment is all about — it is about trying to catch the GLC's advertising contracts. The Secretary of State missed the boat on the last amendment; he has missed it again on this. The GLC anticipated this a mile off and the money has been safely moved out. The campaign will continue and the right hon. Gentleman will see the morning advertisements, and the feeling of Londoners will continue strongly to support the GLC.

The Minister was trying to catch out the GLC, but he has failed. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked why the Secretary of State has taken these powers. I can tell him that it is because it allows him to assume control of the GLC eight months before the present period of office expires in May 1985. For a Government who once said that they intended to take central Government off the backs of local government, what a U-turn, what a volte-face, it is. I have never seen anything like it. They now propose to take over a democratically elected local authority. The mandate of the GLC is at least as valid as that of the Secretary of State. Conservative Members may say, "Ah, but our mandate is bigger; we are Parliament and we can overrule your mandate," but that is a funny argument for democrats, if that is what the Government purport to be. Why should the Secretary of State believe that, by his decisions, the electors of London and the decisions that they made at the ballot box in May 1981 can be brushed to one side and that he can take over the running of the GLC? The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to do that. We are still at least two steps in front of him. We intend to remain there.

When I asked my series of questions, I was trying to find out whether the Secretary of State had an explanation for the number of contracts that the GLC was negotiating. I asked him what knowledge he had of contracts entered into by the GLC and the metropolitan councils in the past 12 months for the same or similar engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeded £250,000. The answer was given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) who was once tipped by Vogue magazine as one of the 12 most likely people to be running the cosmos— or something. Perhaps it was Time magazine, or even Peter Jay—and we know what happened to him. The information available to Time magazine was probably as authentic as the information available to civil servants at Marsham street who got it just as wrong. The Under-Secretary said that he had little information and that it was irrelevant to the justification for such minimum controls over authorities.

I asked how many civil servants would be employed on work associated with processing transactions worth over £100,000. The answer was "Enough". That was amusing and much to the point, but Ministers are doing nothing more than glory in their own stupidity and ignorance. They do not know what is involved. They have not the faintest idea. Their civil servants have not the faintest idea. Instead of saying that they are trying to obtain the information, Ministers have decided to try to brazen it out and to glory in their ignorance.

Does the Secretary of State believe that it will instil confidence in the loyal workers and officers at County hall to know that the right hon. Gentleman is assuming powers over contracts about which he has no information? Let me be allowed to assist the Secretary of State in his usual state of woeful ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman might have taken time to read the Financial Times of Thursday 12 July which reported that the GLC was top of the list of local authorities which run the most efficient purchasing divisions, according to the audit commissioners.

The Secretary of State should read the report by the GLC's supplies department and pass it to his civil servants. It tells about an organisation with a turnover of £186 million a year in supplying goods and services. It is interesting that the London boroughs which purchased the most from the GLC supplies department are Croydon, Barnet, Bexley, Waltham Forest and Ealing—all Tory controlled. They go to the GLC supplies department because they know that it gives the value for money and is efficient. What greater efficiency does the Minister believe exists among his civil servants? What greater expertise can he produce?

The GLC supplies department deals with about 250 contracts a week. That information is relatively freely available. Does the Secretary of State think that he has the expertise or manpower in his Department to deal with that amount of business? I do not think that he has. He will not convince us that his proposal will add anything to the efficiency of contractual arrangements for supplies to the London boroughs, the polytechnics, or others. The right hon. Gentleman should think again.

1.30 am

Mr. Chris Smith

Let us remind ourselves of the context in which the Bill comes before us. We have as yet no published main abolition legislation. We do not even have the Government's revised proposals. They, we gather, are due to come before the House later in the day. The Bill therefore contains a vacuum.

The powers that the Secretary of State wishes to take in regard to disposals of land and the allocation of contracts are draconian, for under them he will impose his will on local authorities throughout the country. Yet, Parliament has not been given the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for taking that step.

I have two points to make, the first of which was dealt with eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). How can the Secretary of State and his officials take on the large and detailed job of guiding and approving every contract of the size specified in the amendment that ILEA and the GLC issue?

Before approving ILEA's contracts each year, will the right hon. Gentleman examine in detail contracts for fireproof curtains, photocopying facilities, the purchase of school desks, vehicles, crockery, computers, window cleaning and the hire of transport? All of those contracts are over the limit specified in the amendment. Considering the detailed work involved, the job is far too big for him and his officials.

Secondly, under the heading of building contracts are many valuable and expected contracts to be carried out in ILEA schools and in respect of housing and other capital works by the GLC. What guarantee can I give my constituents that maintenance work costing over £100,000, which is planned for the North London college in Camden road, will go ahead as planned after the Secretary of State adopts these powers?

What guarantee do I have that new building work planned and due to cost over £200,000 at Islington Green school will go ahead in the way in which ILEA has described to the governors of the school, parents and the local community? What guarantee can I give my constituents that the Secretary of State knows or cares anything about works which are desperately needed, but which the Bill will potentially put at risk?

If the right hon. Gentleman can put my mind at rest on those points, I may feel happier. As things stand, considering the powers that he is taking, I fear for the work which is scheduled and for the needs of my constituents.

Mr. Dubs

There can be no justification for the proposed financial controls over the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That means that there is even less justification for such controls to be imposed on the Inner London education authority. 'The ILEA will continue to exist, perhaps with the same form of elected councillors, but that depends on legislation which is to be introduced in the next Session. I do not understand why the Secretary of State wishes to have these powers of control over the ILEA when it is to continue in its present form, despite the various turmoils in other areas of local government. In the Government's hurry to get amendments through the other place, they probably did not pause to consider the consequences. When I referred to the ILEA in an earlier debate the Minister who replied did not even comment on it. The Secretary of State owes it to us to explain why he needs such powers over the ILEA.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I shall try to deal with the several issues which have been raised during the debate. I do not think that I need go at length into the justification for Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11, except to say that they are similar to Lords amendment No. 9. We believe that to prevent the saddling of the successor authorities with onerous burdens or the loss of assets, especially the loss of land, which could devolve upon the authorities, it is necessary to introduce new clauses. The Lords amendments are necessary to protect the successor authorities and the ratepayers of the counties and of the GLC.

We read in the press almost every day of new attempts to forestall this legislation and to get transactions through to avoid the effect of its provisions. It has been made clear that there is ample scope for mischief. Once again, the GLC stands condemned out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made it clear that it is his intention and that of his colleagues on the GLC to keep just two jumps ahead of the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Tony Banks

Is that a crime?

Mr. Jenkin

No, it is not a crime, but it provides a perfect justification for the legislation that we are seeking to enact. With the acceptance of Lords amendment No. 2 and the continuation in office of the councils, the opportunity for making mischief is much greater than it was. That is why it became necessary to introduce the new clauses in another place.

Mr. John Fraser

We know that the Secretary of State dislikes the GLC advertising campaign as much as he likes that of the National Coal Board. Can he give us one example of an abuse involving the sale of land for which the local authority has to get the best possible consideration?

Mr. Jenkin

I can understand that the local authority has to get the best possible consideration. I am turning to this issue under section 123. Is it not conceivable that a metropolitan county council may find that it has a good offer for a site for refuse disposal? It may well say, "We shall not have to deal with that. That responsibility will be for the successor authorities, so let us sell off the land and get good value." That causes great concern to the successor authorities, which will continue to have to perform certain functions after 1 April.

Mr. Tony Banks

What should the authorities do with the money?

Mr. Jenkin

That is another matter. The successor authorities could be placed in the position of having to buy back the site. The hon. Gentleman asked me for an example, and I have given him one.

Amendment (d) to Lords amendment No. 10. and amendment (j) to Lords amendment No. 11 provide that consent should not be unreasonably withheld and that consent must be given where a clear intention to dispose had been evidenced before the Lords amendment was tabled on 13 July 1984. I point out to the hon. Member of Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the requirement to exercise statutory powers reasonably is already a well-established principle of public law. There is no need to spell that out in the Bill. That action would only invite spurious legal challenge.

The point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about a clear intention to dispose is unworkable. What would constitute adequate evidence of a clear intention? Even if there were simple answers to those two questions—I suspect that there are no such simple answers—what would be the purpose of having such a condition? If the disposal or contract is reasonable, it will obtain consent. The amendment would give endless opportunities for challenges in court about intention and evidence of intention, and the hon. Gentleman's point about the effectiveness of delay might become valid.

Amendment (e) to Lords amendment No. 10 requiring reasons for a consent or refusal to be given, is the same as amendment (k) to Lords amendment No. 11. The grounds for a decision will, as a matter of course, be given with that decision. That is normal practice, and I assure the House that that will be the case for disposals and contracts. To put that provision in the Bill is an invitation to make a challenge in the courts. It is easy to imagine an abolition authority—[Interruption.] It will, of course, be justiciable. The Wednesbury case is a case in point that established the principle that powers must be used reasonably. To duplicate that principle of public law by an express statutory provision would give rise to doubt and litigation which might not otherwise happen. I am grateful to have my hon. Friends' support for that proposition.

Mr. John Fraser

That is absolute rubbish. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, where a landlord can withhold or grant consent to a licence to assign, it is stated—as it is in many other statutes involving private transactions in land —that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld? If that is good enough for the private sector, why is it not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Jenkin

There is no such presumption about a private contract. Some years ago, in an earlier life, I advised on precisely that point where no such provision appeared in the lease. The question was: did the common law import an obligation not unreasonably to withhold consent? My recollection is that it did not. We are talking about public law, where the courts have well established the proposition that powers must be exercised reasonably. It would be unnecessary to import that idea specifically and expressly into the legislation.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 10, which was moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), is similar in form to amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 11. The amendment would require me to specify the matters that I should have to consider before exercising my power. That power has been spoken of as "my" power; but, of course, in any statute the "Secretary of State" means the appropriate Secretary of State. When dealing with an education power, that means my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. A fire power — for instance, the purchase of fire engines, as was mentioned in the debate—would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

1.45 am

The question here relates to the matters that I should take into consideration. I mentioned this briefly when we discussed the last group of amendments. It is not clear from the terms of the amendment whether I would have to specify the matters in each and every case or whether it would be sufficient for me to do so in general terms. It is not clear for what purpose this would be done or to whom I should make the matters known.

Amendments couched in this form are unnecessary and unworkable. I assure the House that every application for specific consent will be considered carefully on its merits, and the reasons for the decision will be given. But because of the great variety of disposals and contracts which might come forward for consent, it is impossible to specify at this stage all the matters which it would be right for the Secretary of State to take into consideration.

What would be much more helpful, rather than trying to spell out some general principles, are the types of disposals and contracts for which there would be general consents. Those are contracts which would be acceptable and could be undertaken without the need for specific consent. If any abolition authority is in any doubt about this power, all the guidance that it needs is that it should behave reasonably and responsibly and have regard not only to ratepayers' present interests, but to their future interests.

I was asked what were the matters that might be the subject of general consents. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) recognises and acknow-ledges, we are currently, as a matter of urgency, consulting the authorities concerned about what would be appropriate for general consents to take effect either on Royal Assent or as soon after as possible.

We would suggest contracts let for building work pursuant to approvals under section 14 of the Education Act 1980 or regulation 7 of the Education Act (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981; secondly, schemes of more than £1 million named in transport supplementary grant decision letters and singled out for TSG support by Ministers in other correspondence and schemes accepted for specific grants—obviously these are contracts which are subject to specific consents by Government Departments; thirdly, schemes approved under the derelict land grant procedures; fourthly, schemes which receive grant approvals issued by the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969—that is, grants under the urban programme and the GLC housing renovation programmes required by the transferred housing stock orders. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the right to buy. Under housing we certainly envisage that the right-to-buy provisions and voluntary disposal of housing held under part V, in so far as they are sales to tenants or individual owner-occupiers, will be the subject of general consents.

Perhaps I do not need to go through the whole list—it is at the moment out for consultation with the local authorities—but I have said enough to demonstrate that we envisage a wide measure of general consents for transactions that are part and parcel of the normal activities of local authorities.

Dr. Cunningham

Given the list that the Secretary of State has just read into the record, will he say which of those consents he could legally refuse as matters stand?

Mr. Jenkin

When the Bill becomes law, consent will be subject only to the specific statutory provisions; but I could equally well withhold consent under the clause that we are discussing. However, I should have to act reasonably. I am seeking to show to the House that the Government are approaching this necessary power in a reasonable way, and a way which is intended to minimise the additional work which will fall upon local authorities and Government Departments.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned amendment (g) to Lords amendment No. 10, which is similar to amendment (m) to Lords amendment No. 11. He seeks to make the Government responsible for any costs or charges arising out of a refusal or conditional consent or from any delay. We cannot accept that. We intend to try to operate these powers with the minimum of delay and expense. If authorities come forward at the earliest opportunity—when a project nears the point of decision—and seeks consent, there need be no extra cost and very little delay. If there is, there is ample precedent for the costs of securing the necessary licence or permission to fall upon the authority which seeks such permission as part of the ordinary costs of the local authority concerned.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is highly likely that there will be some cost, that this provision will certainly be of no financial benefit to the authorities and that, whether the costs are small or large, the local authorities will have to pay and will not be reimbursed?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the position, but it will be our intention to keep those costs to the absolute minimum.

Those who have put their names to this amendment should bear in mind that if we reimbursed any of the costs in full, that would be an open licence to an abolition authority to clog up the machinery as much as it could to make life as difficult as possible for the Government.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has indicated that such an ambition is not far from his mind, but that would be a guarantee of substantial extra costs and delay. Even if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were prepared to overlook that possibility, we may be sure that the abolition authorities would not.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Mr. Jenkin

I must press on. We cannot subscribe to the notion that each time I mention an hon. Member I automatically give him the right to intervene.

Amendment (f) to Lords amendment No. 10 is more serious. It seeks to make a consent under the Bill sufficient for all purposes so that it would replace any other consent required under the Acts. I can understand why this has a superficial attraction which might have commended it to some hon. Members.

In fact, it would not be appropriate for the simple reason that the criteria on which a decision would depend under this Bill would be quite different from the criteria under the various consent powers in other legislation.

The hon. Member for Norwood mentioned section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Quite different criteria would apply. That Act requires Government consent for the disposal of land below market value. It might be entirely appropriate in the ordinary course of events for such a consent to be given, whereas it might be entirely appropriate and reasonable to withhold consent for an abolition authority, shortly to go out of existence, which has assets which should be properly devolved to the local authority after 1 April.

Therefore, it would not be right simply to subsume the one into the other and to assume that all the necessary consents can be given at the same time. We do not want to see the removal of the existing consents from the Bill.

No one spoke to amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 11, which deals with consulting staff bodies. That is totally inappropriate. The new clause expressly excludes staff contracts. Therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

It was said that the contract clauses and the question of thresholds were purely figures drawn from the air. The level at which to pitch the threshold above which contracts will be caught by the new clause must be a matter of judgment. We want it to be sufficiently high to eliminate the need to refer many small contracts to the Government, but no so high that many substantial contracts go through, because those might constitute the mischief at which the Lords amendment is aimed.

To raise the threshold from the current £250,000 in the Bill to £1 million would provide too wide a discretion for authorities to spend without regard for the future. Similarly, for other types of contract described in the new clause, the amendment suggests £500,000 rather than £100,000. Those additions would raise the threshold very high and substantially weaken the protective purpose of the clause as a whole.

The suggestion of higher figures is unacceptable, but, in the light of experience, it would be open to the Government to raise the threshold by the operation of general consents. If, after we have had limited experience of operating the clause, it seems right to move in the direction of the amendments, we shall be prepared to do so.

Mr. Simon Hughes

As we have not yet heard any facts or percentages, can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of the contracts are governed by his levels, as set out in the Bill, to give us some idea of the number of contracts to which we are referring?

Mr. Jenkin

In relation to the GLC, I have seen a figure suggesting that 250 contracts a week would be caught by the proposals. I think that that figure was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The view of my Department is that that is a significant overestimate of the number of contracts that would be caught. The list is not unmanageable, however, and I hope that it will be substantially lower. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey the proportions of contracts involved, as we do not have all of the details of the small contracts.

I have to tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that ILEA is not included as an error, but simply because, so long as ILEA remains a special committee of the GLC and the properties and contracts are in the name of the GLC and not ILEA, as at present, it will be impossible to distinguish between contracts that are entered into for the benefit of ILEA and other GLC contracts.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury shakes his head, but he knows that ILEA has no corporate personality. It is merely a special committee of the GLC. Thus, the GLC is party to all the contracts concerned, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to operate the distinction that amendment (1) seeks to raise.

In some cases, it might be possible to say that the GLC was acting as an education authority, but in other cases, where ILEA was the eventual user or beneficiary, the connection would be tenuous and difficult to disentangle. It is even possible that attempts to operate such a distinction could give rise to further delay and costs in handling applications for consent, which would put a heavier burden on the GLC. What I said earlier about certain education contracts being subject to general consents will, I hope, go some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman.

I believe that both the new clauses are necessary to protect the interests of successor authorities and ratepayers. I fear that I cannot commend to the House the amendments that have been moved and spoken to by Opposition Members. I hope very much that the House will reject the amendments and, when the Question is put, will accept Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11.

2 am

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment No. 10, in line 8, at end, insert— '(2A) Before exercising his power under this section to grant or refuse consent, the Secretary of State shall specify the matters he is to take into consideration in granting or refusing his consent; and any consent or refusal of consent by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by reasons for his decision. '.—[Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 269.

Division No 458]	[12.12 am
AYES
Adley, Robert	Brooke, Hon Peter
Aitken, Jonathan	Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Alexander, Richard	Browne, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Bruinvels, Peter
Amess, David	Bryan, Sir Paul
Ancram, Michael	Buck, Sir Antony
Ashby, David	Budgen, Nick
Aspinwall, Jack	Bulmer, Esmond
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.	Butcher, John
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Butterfill, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Carttiss, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Cash, William
Batiste, Spencer	Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Bendall, Vivian	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Berry, Sir Anthony	Chapman, Sydney
Best, Keith	Chope, Christopher
Bevan, David Gilroy	Churchill, W. S.
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Body, Richard	Cockeram, Eric
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Colvin, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Conway, Derek
Bottomley, Peter	Cope, John
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Cranborne, Viscount
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Critchley, Julian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Crouch, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Dicks, Terry
Bright, Graham	Dorrell, Stephen
Brinton, Tim	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Dover, Den	Lang, Ian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Latham, Michael
Durant, Tony	Lawler, Geoffrey
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lawrence, Ivan
Eggar, Tim	Lee, John (Pendle)
Emery, Sir Peter	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Fallon, Michael	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Farr, Sir John	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Favell, Anthony	Lightbown, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Lilley, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel	Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Luce, Richard
Forth, Eric	Lyell, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Fox, Marcus	MacGregor, John
Franks, Cecil	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Freeman, Roger	Maclean, David John
Fry, Peter	McQuarrie, Albert
Gale, Roger	Madel, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Malins, Humfrey
Glyn, Dr Alan	Malone, Gerald
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Maples, John
Goodlad, Alastair	Marland, Paul
Gorst, John	Marlow, Antony
Gow, Ian	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Mates, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony	Maude, Hon Francis
Greenway, Harry	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gregory, Conal	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Mellor, David
Grist, Ian	Merchant, Piers
Grylls, Michael	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Miscampbell, Norman
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hanley, Jeremy	Moate, Roger
Hannam,John	Monro, Sir Hector
Harris, David	Montgomery, Fergus
Harvey, Robert	Moore, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Mudd, David
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)	Murphy, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)	Neale, Gerrard
Hawksley, Warren	Needham, Richard
Hayes, J.	Nelson, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney	Neubert, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nicholls, Patrick
Henderson, Barry	Normanton, Tom
Hill, James	Norris, Steven
Hind, Kenneth	Onslow, Cranley
Hirst, Michael	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Osborn, Sir John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)	Ottaway, Richard
Holt, Richard	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Hooson, Tom	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hordern, Peter	Patten, John (Oxford)
Howard, Michael	Pattie, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Pawsey, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Pollock, Alexander
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Porter, Barry
Hunter, Andrew	Powell, William (Corby)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Powley, John
Irving, Charles	Proctor, K. Harvey
Jackson, Robert	Raffan, Keith
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Renton, Tim
Jessel, Toby	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Rifkind, Malcolm
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Key, Robert	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Rost, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lamont, Norman	Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Hon Thomas	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Thornton, Malcolm
Sayeed, Jonathan	Thurnham, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Trippier, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Trotter, Neville
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Shersby, Michael	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Silvester, Fred	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sims, Roger	Viggers, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.	Waddington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Speller, Tony	Walden, George
Spencer, Derek	Waller, Gary
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)	Ward, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Squire, Robin	Warren, Kenneth
Stanbrook, Ivor	Watson, John
Steen, Anthony	Watts, John
Stern, Michael	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)	Whitfield, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Whitney, Raymond
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)	Wiggin, Jerry
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)	Wilkinson, John
Stradling Thomas, J.	Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, David	Wood, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter	Woodcock, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. John Major and Mr. David Hunt
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
NOES
Alton, David	Dalyell, Tam
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Ashton, Joe	Deakins, Eric
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Dewar, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dixon, Donald
Barnett, Guy	Dobson, Frank
Barron, Kevin	Dormand, Jack
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Douglas, Dick
Beith, A. J.	Dubs, Alfred
Bell, Stuart	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Benn, Tony	Eadie, Alex
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Eastham, Ken
Bermingham, Gerald	Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Bidwell, Sydney	Ewing, Harry
Blair, Anthony	Fatchett, Derek
Boyes, Roland	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Fisher, Mark
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	Foster, Derek
Bruce, Malcolm	Foulkes, George
Buchan, Norman	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Caborn, Richard	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Garrett, W. E.
Campbell-Savours, Dale	George, Bruce
Canavan, Dennis	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Godman, Dr Norman
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Golding, John
Cartwright, John	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Clarke, Thomas	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hardy, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Harman, Ms Harriet
Cohen, Harry	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Conlan, Bernard	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Corbett, Robin	Heffer, Eric S.
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cowans, Harry	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Craigen, J. M.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Cunningham, Dr John	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Kennedy, Charles	Nellist, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Lambie, David	O'Brien, William
Lamond, James	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Leadbitter, Ted	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Leighton, Ronald	Park, George
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Parry, Robert
Litherland, Robert	Patchett, Terry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Pavitt, Laurie
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Pendry, Tom
McCartney, Hugh	Penhaligon, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Pike, Peter
McGuire, Michael	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Prescott, John
Maclennan, Robert	Redmond, M.
Madden, Max	Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Richardson, Ms Jo
Maynard, Miss Joan	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Meacher, Michael	Robertson, George
Michie, William	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mikardo, Ian	Rogers, Allan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Rooker, J. W.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted	Tinn, James
Sheerman, Barry	Torney, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.	Wainwright, R.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)	Wareing, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon J.	Welsh, Michael
Skinner, Dennis	Wigley, Dafydd
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Winnick, David
Snape, Peter	Woodall, Alec
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel	Tellers for the Noes:
Straw, Jack	Mr. John McWillam and Mr. Allen McKay.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Division No. 459]	[1.59 am
AYES
Alton, David	Dixon, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dobson, Frank
Ashdown, Paddy	Dormand, Jack
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Dubs, Alfred
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Barnett, Guy	Eadie, Alex
Barron, Kevin	Eastham, Ken
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Beith, A. J.	Ewing, Harry
Bell, Stuart	Fatchett, Derek
Benn, Tony	Fisher, Mark
Bennett, A. (Dent'n S Red'sh)	Flannery, Martin
Bermingham, Gerald	Foster, Derek
Blair, Anthony	Foulkes, George
Boyes, Roland	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Garrett, W. E.
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	George, Bruce
Bruce, Malcolm	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Buchan, Norman	Godman, Dr Norman
Caborn, Richard	Golding, John
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hardy, Peter
Canavan, Dennis	Harman, Ms Harriet
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Cartwright, John	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Clarke, Thomas	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cohen, Harry	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Craigen, J. M.	Lamond, James
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Leadbitter, Ted
Cunningham, Dr John	Leighton, Ronald
Dalyell, Tam	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Litherland, Robert
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Deakins, Eric	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dewar, Donald	McDonald, Dr Oonagh

McGuire, Michael	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Rogers, Allan
Madden, Max	Rooker, J. W.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Maynard, Miss Joan	Rowlands, Ted
Meacher, Michael	Sheerman, Barry
Michie, William	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mikardo, Ian	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Skinner, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Snape, Peter
Nellist, David	Soley, Clive
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Spearing, Nigel
O'Brien, William	Straw, Jack
Park, George	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Parry, Robert	Wainwright, R,
Pavitt, Laurie	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Pendry, Tom	Wareing, Robert
Pike, Peter	Welsh, Michael
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Winnick, David
Prescott, John	Woodall, Alec
Redmond, M.	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Richardson, Ms Jo	Tellers for the Ayes:
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Mr. James Hamilton and
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Mr. Allen McKay

NOES
Adley, Robert	Cockeram, Eric
Aitken, Jonathan	Colvin, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Conway, Derek
Amess, David	Cope, John
Ancram, Michael	Cranborne, Viscount
Ashby, David	Crouch, David
Aspinwall, Jack	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Dicks, Terry
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Dorrell, Stephen
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Dover, Den
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Durant, Tony
Batiste, Spencer	Eggar, Tim
Bendall, Vivian	Emery, Sir Peter
Berry, Sir Anthony	Fallon, Michael
Best, Keith	Farr, Sir John
Bevan, David Gilroy	Favell, Anthony
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Forman, Nigel
Body, Richard	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Forth, Eric
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fox, Marcus
Bottomley, Peter	Franks, Cecil
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Freeman, Roger
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Fry, Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Gale, Roger
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bright, Graham	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Brinton, Tim	Goodlad, Alastair
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gorst, John
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Gow, Ian
Browne, John	Grant, Sir Anthony
Bruinvels, Peter	Green way, Harry
Buck, Sir Antony	Gregory, Conal
Budgen, Nick	Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Bulmer, Esmond	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Butcher, John	Grist, Ian
Butterfill, John	Grylls, Michael
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Gummer, John Selwyn
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Carttiss, Michael	Hampson, Dr Keith
Cash, William	Hanley, Jeremy
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Hannam, John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Harris, David
Chapman, Sydney	Harvey, Robert
Chope, Christopher	Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Churchill, W. S.	Hawksley, Warren
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hayes, J.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Hayhoe, Barney

Heathcoat-Amory, David	Norris, Steven
Heddle, John	Onslow, Cranley
Henderson, Barry	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hill, James	Osborn, Sir John
Hind, Kenneth	Ottaway, Richard
Hirst, Michael	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Holt, Richard	Pattie, Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom	Pawsey, James
Hordern, Peter	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Howard, Michael	Pollock, Alexander
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Porter, Barry
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Powley, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Proctor, K. Harvey
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Raffan, Keith
Hunter, Andrew	Renton, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jackson, Robert	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Jessel, Toby	Roe, Mrs Marion
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Ryder, Richard
Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Key, Robert	Sayeed, Jonathan
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lamont, Norman	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Latham, Michael	Shersby, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey	Silvester, Fred
Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Speller, Tony
Lightbown, David	Spencer, Derek
Lilley, Peter	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lord, Michael	Squire, Robin
Lyell, Nicholas	Stanbrook, Ivor
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Steen, Anthony
MacGregor, John	Stern, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Maclean, David John	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Madel, David	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Major, John	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Malins, Humfrey	Stradling Thomas, J.
Malone, Gerald	Sumberg, David
Maples, John	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Marland, Paul	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Marlow, Antony	Temple-Morris, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mates, Michael	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Maude, Hon Francis	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thornton, Malcolm
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Thurnham, Peter
Mellor, David	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Merchant, Piers	Trippier, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Trotter, Neville
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Miscampbell, Norman	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)	Viggers, Peter
Moate, Roger	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Monro, Sir Hector	Waldegrave, Hon William
Montgomery, Fergus	Walden, George
Moore, John	Waller, Gary
Mudd, David	Ward, John
Murphy, Christopher	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Neale, Gerrard	Warren, Kenneth
Needham, Richard	Watson, John
Nelson, Anthony	Watts, John
Neubert, Michael	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Nicholls, Patrick	Wheeler, John
Normanton, Tom	Whitfield, John

Whitney, Raymond	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wiggin, Jerry
Wilkinson, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Wolfson, Mark	Mr. Ian Lang and
Wood, Timothy	Mr. Archie Hamilton.
Woodcock, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (g) proposed to Lords amendment No. 10, in line 26, at end, add— '() Any costs or charges following upon the council in question, or upon the person to whom the land is to be disposed, arising as a result of—

1. (a) delay by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section, or
2. (b) refusal by the Secretary of State to grant consent under this section, or
3. (c) any conditions imposed by the Secretary of State in granting consent under this section

shall be re-imbursed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Question put,That amendment (g) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 268.

Division No. 460]	[2.9 am
AYES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Flannery, Martin
Ashdown, Paddy	Foster, Derek
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Barnett, Guy	Garrett, W. E.
Barron, Kevin	George, Bruce
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bell, Stuart	Godman, Dr Norman
Benn, Tony	Golding, John
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Bermingham, Gerald	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Blair, Anthony	Hardy, Peter
Boyes, Roland	Harman, Ms Harriet
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Bruce, Malcolm	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Canavan, Dennis	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Lamond, James
Cartwright, John	Leighton, Ronald
Clarke, Thomas	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Litherland, Robert
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cohen, Harry	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Corbett, Robin	McGuire, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cowans, Harry	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McWilliam, John
Craigen, J. M.	Madden, Max
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Cunningham, Dr John	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dalyell, Tam	Meacher, Michael
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Michie, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dewar, Donald	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dixon, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dobson, Frank	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dormand, Jack	Nellist, David
Dubs, Alfred	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	O'Brien, William
Eadie, Alex	Park, George
Eastham, Ken	Parry, Robert
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Pavitt, Laurie
Ewing, Harry	Pendry, Tom
Fatchett, Derek	Pike, Peter
Fisher, Mark	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Prescott, John	Snape, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)	Soley, Clive
Richardson, Ms Jo	Spearing, Nigel
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Straw, Jack
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Wainwright, R.
Rogers, Allan	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Rooker, J. W.	Wareing, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Welsh, Michael
Rowlands, Ted	Winnick, David
Sheerman, Barry	Woodall, Alec
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. David Alton and
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Mr. A. J. Beith.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Eggar, Tim
Aitken, Jonathan	Emery, Sir Peter
Alexander, Richard	Fallon, Michael
Amess, David	Farr, Sir John
Ashby, David	Favell, Anthony
Aspinwall, Jack	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Forman, Nigel
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Forth, Eric
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fox, Marcus
Batiste, Spencer	Franks, Cecil
Bendall, Vivian	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Berry, Sir Anthony	Freeman, Roger
Best, Keith	Fry, Peter
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gale, Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Goodlad, Alastair
Body, Richard	Gorst, John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gow, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Grant, Sir Anthony
Bottomley, Peter	Greenway, Harry
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Gregory, Conal
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Grist, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Grylls, Michael
Bright, Graham	Gummer, John Selwyn
Brinton, Tim	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Browne, John	Hanley, Jeremy
Bruinvels, Peter	Hannam,John
Buck, Sir Antony	Harris, David
Budgen, Nick	Harvey, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond	Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Butcher, John	Hawksley, Warren
Butterfill, John	Hayes, J.
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hayhoe, Barney
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carttiss, Michael	Heddle, John
Cash, William	Henderson, Barry
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Hind, Kenneth
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hirst, Michael
Chapman, Sydney	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Chope, Christopher	Holt, Richard
Churchill, W. S.	Hooson, Tom
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hordern, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howard, Michael
Cockeram, Eric	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Colvin, Michael	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Conway, Derek	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Cope, John	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cranborne, Viscount	Hunter, Andrew
Crouch, David	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jackson, Robert
Dicks, Terry	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen	Jessel, Toby
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dover, Den	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Durant, Tony	Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Key, Robert	Miscampbell, Norman
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Moate, Roger
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Monro, Sir Hector
Lamont, Norman	Montgomery, Fergus
Lang, Ian	Moore, John
Latham, Michael	Mudd, David
Lawler, Geoffrey	Murphy, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan	Neale, Gerrard
Lee, John (Pendle)	Needham, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Nelson, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Neubert, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Nicholls, Patrick
Lightbown, David	Normanton, Tom
Lilley, Peter	Norris, Steven
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Onslow, Cranley
Lord, Michael	Oppenheim, Phillip
Lyell, Nicholas	Osborn, Sir John
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Ottaway, Richard
MacGregor, John	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Maclean, David John	Pattie, Geoffrey
Madel, David	Pawsey, James
Major, John	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey	Pollock, Alexander
Malone, Gerald	Porter, Barry
Maples, John	Powell, William (Corby)
Marland, Paul	Powley, John
Marlow, Antony	Proctor, K. Harvey
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Raffan, Keith
Mates, Michael	Ronton, Tim
Maude, Hon Francis	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Roe, Mrs Marion
Mellor, David	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Merchant, Piers	Ryder, Richard
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan	Thornton, Malcolm
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Thurnham, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Trippier, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Trotter, Neville
Shersby, Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Silvester, Fred	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Sims, Roger	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Skeet, T. H. H.	Viggers, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Speller, Tony	Walden, George
Spencer, Derek	Waller, Gary
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)	Ward, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Squire, Robin	Warren, Kenneth
Stanbrook, Ivor	Watson, John
Steen, Anthony	Watts, John
Stern, Michael	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)	Whitfield, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Whitney, Raymond
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)	Wiggin, Jerry
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)	Wilkinson, John
Stradling Thomas, J.	Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, David	Wood, Timothy
Taylor, John (Solihull)	Woodcock, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)	Mr. David Hunt and
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)	Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

5	". — (1) Except with the consent of the Secretary of State neither the Greater London Council nor a metropolitan county council shall after the passing of this Act enter into a contract which (with or without other matters) provides for—
	(a) the carrying out by or for the council of building or engineering works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £250,000;
10	b) the carrying out by or for the council of maintenance works in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;
	(c) the supply by or to the council of goods in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000;
15	(d) the provision by or to the council of administrative, professional or technical services in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000; or
20	(e) the use by another person of any vehicle, plant or appararus of the council, or the use by the council of any vehicle, plant or apparatus of another person, in respect of which the consideration exceeds £100,000.
	(2) Where the consideration or any of the consideration under a contract is not in money, the limits specified in subsection
25	(1) above shall apply to the value of the consideration; and any necessary apportionment shall be made of consideration which is referable to two or more of the matters mentioned in that subsection or to any of them and other matters.
30	(3) For the purpose of determining whether a limit specified in subsection (1) above is exceeded in the case of any contract, there shall be taken into account the consideration under any other contract or contracts entered into by the council in the previous twelve months (but not earlier than the passing of this Act) so far as relating, in a case wifhin paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to works of the same or a similar description to be carried out on the same or adjacent land or, in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of that subsection, to goods, services, vehicles, plant or apparatus of the same or a similar description.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, after clause 8, and after the clause last inserted, insert the following new clause— Control of contracts—

40	(4) Any consent under this section may be given either in respect of a particular contract or in respect of contracts of any class or. description and either unconditionally or subject to conditions.
45	(5) A contract shall not be void by reason only that it has been entered into in contravention of this section and a person entering into a contract with a council to which this section applies shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.
50	(6) In this section— "building or engineering works" includes any work involved in the laying out of land, the improvement of land or buildings, the construction or improvement of a highway and any work of demolition;
	"maintenance works" includes work for the maintenance or repair of land, buildings or highways, the gritting of a highway and the clearing of snow from a highway." —[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (l) proposed to Lords amendment No. 11, in line 53, at end add—— '() Nothing in this section shall apply to the Greater London Council when acting as an education authority for the Inner London area pursuant to section 30 of the London Government Act 1963.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That amendment (l) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 264.

Division No. 461]	[2.20 am
AYES
Alton, David	Fatchett, Derek
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fisher, Mark
Ashdown, Paddy	Flannery, Martin
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Foster, Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Barnett, Guy	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Barron, Kevin	Garrett, W. E.
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	George, Bruce
Bell, Stuart	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Benn, Tony	Godman, Dr Norman
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Golding, John
Bermingham, Gerald	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Blair, Anthony	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Boyes, Roland	Hardy, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Harman, Ms Harriet
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Bruce, Malcolm	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Buchan, Norman	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Canavan, Dennis	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clarke, Thomas	Lamond, James
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Leighton, Ronald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Cohen, Harry	Litherland, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbett, Robin	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Corbyn, Jeremy	McGuire, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Craigen, J. M.	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Madden, Max
Cunningham, Dr John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dalyell, Tam	Maynard, Miss Joan
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Meacher, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Michie, William
Deakins, Eric	Mikardo, Ian
Dewar, Donald	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dixon, Donald	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dobson, Frank	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dormand, Jack	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dubs, Alfred	Nellist, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Eadie, Alex	O'Brien, William
Eastham, Ken	Park, George
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Parry, Robert
Ewing, Harry98	Pavitt, Laurie

Pendry, Tom	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Pike, Peter	Snape, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Soley, Clive
Prescott, John	Spearing, Nigel
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)	Straw, Jack
Richardson, Ms Jo	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wainwright, R.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Wareing, Robert
Rogers, Allan	Welsh, Michael
Rooker, J. W.	Winnick, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Woodall, Alec
Rowlands, Ted	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Sheerman, Barry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. John Cartwright and
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)	Mr. A. J. Beith
Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Skinner, Dennis

NOES
Adley, Robert	Carttiss, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan	Cash, William
Alexander, Richard	Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Amess, David	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ashby, David	Chapman, Sydney
Aspinwall, Jack	Chope, Christopher
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Churchill, W. S.
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Cockeram, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Colvin, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Conway, Derek
Batiste, Spencer	Cope, John
Bendall, Vivian	Cranborne, Viscount
Berry, Sir Anthony	Crouch, David
Best, Keith	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bevan, David Gilroy	Dicks, Terry
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Dorrell, Stephen
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Dover, Den
Body, Richard	Durant, Tony
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Eggar, Tim
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Emery, Sir Peter
Bottomley, Peter	Fallon, Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Farr, Sir John
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Favell, Anthony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Forman, Nigel
Bright, Graham	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brinton, Tim	Forth, Eric
Brooke, Hon Peter	Fox, Marcus
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Franks, Cecil
Browne, John	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bruinvels, Peter	Freeman, Roger
Buck, Sir Antony	Fry, Peter
Budgen, Nick	Gale, Roger
Bulmer, Esmond	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Butcher, John	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Butterfill, John	Goodlad, Alastair
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Gorst, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gow, Ian

Grant, Sir Anthony	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Greenway, Harry	Miscampbell, Norman
Gregory, Conal	Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)	Moate, Roger
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Monro, Sir Hector
Grist, Ian	Montgomery, Fergus
Grylls, Michael	Moore, John
Gummer, John Selwyn	Mudd, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Murphy, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith	Neale, Gerrard
Hanley, Jeremy	Needham, Richard
Hannam, John	Nelson, Anthony
Harris, David	Neubert, Michael
Harvey, Robert	Nicholls, Patrick
Hayes, J.	Normanton, Tom
Hayhoe, Barney	Norris, Steven
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Onslow, Cranley
Heddle, John	Oppenheim, Phillip
Henderson, Barry	Osborn, Sir John
Hind, Kenneth	Ottaway, Richard
Hirst, Michael	Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Holt, Richard	Pattie, Geoffrey
Hooson, Tom	Pawsey, James
Hordern, Peter	Pollock, Alexander
Howard, Michael	Porter, Barry
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Powley, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Raffan, Keith
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Renton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Jackson, Robert	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Roe, Mrs Marion
Jessel, Toby	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Ryder, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Sayeed, Jonathan
Key, Robert	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lamont, Norman	Shersby, Michael
Lang, Ian	Silvester, Fred
Latham, Michael	Sims, Roger
Lawler, Geoffrey	Skeet, T. H. H.
Lawrence, Ivan	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Speller, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Spencer, Derek
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lightbown, David	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lilley, Peter	Squire, Robin
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lord, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas	Stern, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
MacGregor, John	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Maclean, David John	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Madel, David	Stradling Thomas, J.
Malins, Humfrey	Sumberg, David
Malone, Gerald	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Maples, John	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Marland, Paul	Temple-Morris, Peter
Marlow, Antony	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mates, Michael	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Maude, Hon Francis	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Thornton, Malcolm
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Thurnham, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mellor, David	Trippier, David
Merchant, Piers	Trotter, Neville
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Whitfield, John
Viggers, Peter	Whitney, Raymond
Wakeham, Rt Hon John	Wiggin, Jerry
Waldegrave, Hon William	Wilkinson, John
Walden, George	Wolfson, Mark
Waller, Gary	Wood, Timothy
Ward, John	Woodcock, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)	Yeo, Tim
Warren, Kenneth	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Watson, John
Watts, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)	Mr. Archie Hamilton and
Wheeler, John	Mr. John Major.

Division No. 462]	[2.31 am
AYES
Alton, David	Flannery, Martin
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Foster, Derek
Ashdown, Paddy	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Garrett, W. E.
Barnett, Guy	George, Bruce
Barron, Kevin	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Godman, Dr Norman
Bell, Stuart	Golding, John
Benn, Tony	Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Hancock, Mr. Michael
Bermingham, Gerald	Hardy, Peter
Blair, Anthony	Harman, Ms Harrlet
Boyes, Roland	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Bruce, Malcolm	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Canavan, Dennis	Lamond, James
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Leighton, Ronald
Clarke, Thomas	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Litherland, Robert
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cohen, Harry	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Corbett, Robin	McGuire, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Craigen, J. M.	Madden, Max
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Cunningham, Dr John	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dalyell, Tam	Meacher, Michael
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Michie, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)	Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dewar, Donald	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dixon, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dobson, Frank	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dormand, Jack	Nellist, David
Dubs, Alfred	O'Brien, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Park, George
Eadie, Alex	Parry, Robert
Eastham, Ken	Pavitt, Laurie
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Pendry, Tom
Ewing, Harry	Pike, Peter
Fatchett, Derek	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fisher, Mark	Prescott, John

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)	Soley, Clive
Richardson, Ms Jo	Spearing, Nigel
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Straw, Jack
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)	Wainwright, R.
Rogers, Allan	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Rooker, J. W.	Wareing, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)	Welsh, Michael
Rowlands, Ted	Winnick, David
Sheerman, Barry	Woodall, Alec
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.	Tellers for the Ayes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. John Cartwright and
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Mr. A. J. Beith.
Snape, Peter

NOES
Adley, Robert	Emery, Sir Peter
Aitken, Jonathan	Fallon, Michael
Alexander, Richard	Farr, Sir John
Amess, David	Favell, Anthony
Ashby, David	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Aspinwall, Jack	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Forman, Nigel
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Fox, Marcus
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Franks, Cecil
Batiste, Spencer	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bendall, Vivian	Freeman, Roger
Berry, Sir Anthony	Fry, Peter
Best, Keith	Gale, Roger
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Goodlad, Alastair
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Gorst, John
Body, Richard	Gow, Ian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Grant, Sir Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Greenway, Harry
Bottomley, Peter	Gregory, Conal
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Grist, Ian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Grylls, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Gummer, John Selwyn
Bright, Graham	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Brinton, Tim	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Hanley, Jeremy
Browne, John	Hannam, John
Bruinvels, Peter	Harris, David
Buck, Sir Antony	Harvey, Robert
Budgen, Nick	Hawksley, Warren
Bulmer, Esmond	Hayes, J.
Butcher, John	Hayhoe, Barney
Butterfill, John	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Heddle, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Henderson, Barry
Carttiss, Michael	Hind, Kenneth
Cash, William	Hirst, Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Chapman, Sydney	Holt, Richard
Chope, Christopher	Hooson, Tom
Churchill, W. S.	Hordern, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Howard, Michael
Cockeram, Eric	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Colvin, Michael	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Conway, Derek	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Cope, John	Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cranborne, Viscount	Hunter, Andrew
Crouch, David	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Jackson, Robert
Dicks, Terry	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen	Jessel, Toby
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dover, Den	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Durant, Tony	Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Eggar, Tim	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Key, Robert	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Ryder, Richard
Lamont, Norman	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Latham, Michael	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lawler, Geoffrey	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Shersby, Michael
Lightbown, David	Silvester, Fred
Lilley, Peter	Sims, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Lord, Michael	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lyell, Nicholas	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Speller, Tony
MacGregor, John	Spencer, Derek
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maclean, David John	Squire, Robin
Madel, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
Major, John	Steen, Anthony
Malins, Humfrey	Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Maples, John	Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Marland, Paul	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Marlow, Antony	Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Mates, Michael	Stradling Thomas, J.
Maude, Hon Francis	Sumberg, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Taylor, John (Solihull)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mellor, David	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Merchant, Piers	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	Thornton, Malcolm
Miscampbell, Norman	Thurnham, Peter
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Moate, Roger	Trippier, David
Montgomery, Fergus	Trotter, Neville
Moore, John	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mudd, David	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Murphy, Christopher	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Neale, Gerrard	Viggers, Peter
Needham, Richard	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Nelson, Anthony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Neubert, Michael	Walden, George
Nicholls, Patrick	Waller, Gary
Normanton, Tom	Ward, John
Norris, Steven	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Onslow, Cranley	Warren, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip	Watson, John
Osborn, Sir John	Watts, John
Ottaway, Richard	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)	Wheeler, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Whitfield, John
Patten, John (Oxford)	Whitney, Raymond
Pattie, Geoffrey	Wiggin, Jerry
Pawsey, James	Wilkinson, John
Pollock, Alexander	Wolfson, Mark
Porter, Barry	Wood, Timothy
Powell, William (Corby)	Woodcock, Michael
Powley, John	Yeo, Tim
Proctor, K. Harvey	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Raffan, Keith
Renton, Tim	Tellers for the Noes:
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Mr. David Hunt and
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.