§ Mr. Carlisle
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 18.
I hope that it will be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4) since Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving Amendment.
The Amendments would delete what was the interpretation provision, Clause 1(4), which would have defined "tenant" as including "statutory tenant", and "principal place of work" by reference to the time anyone had spent working in a particular local authority area as against any other such area. In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) put forward many different examples of people who were at various times in the areas of different local authorities, and his wisdom persuaded me that the attempt to define created more problems than it solved.
I took the view, as did the Committee generally, that it would be better to delete the interpretation and leave it to the court to decide the interpretation from the simple commonsense point of view, should the matter ever go before a court. This would be on the basis that if asked where his place of work was, the average person—this would go for the vast majority of people—would have no difficulty in saying at once where it was, whereas there might be difficulty if one had to decide the point on the basis of the interpretation provision which was written into the Bill, with its reference to the amount of time spent at the place of work.
As for Amendment No. 5, it has been decided that the first part of subsection (4), which said:'tenant' includes a statutory tenantis unnecessary. The term "statutory tenant" is well known where domestic tenancies are concerned, and this term would not seem appropriate in connection with the 1954 Act when dealing with business tenancies. Again, this 1285 Amendment meets a point which was made in Committee.
§ Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)
I congratulate the Government on having had the wisdom to accept the arguments which my hon. Friends and I adduced in Committee. We are grateful for the Amendment, which makes the provision much more satisfactory in that the lawyers are left to see that things are properly done.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following Amendments: No. 14, in line 20, leave out 'additional'; No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'; and No. 7, in line 39, leave out 'additional'.
§ Mr. Carlisle
That is convenient, as the four Amendments taken together delete the word "additional" where it appears in the Bill. This is, therefore, a drafting Amendment. The word "additional" is wholly tautologous in that it refers to additional subsections being added to the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 14, in page 1, line 20. leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
§ 12 midnight.
§ Mr. Carlisle
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert:'(bb) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:'(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.No. 8, in page 4, line 15, after principal', insert 'or only'.
No. 9, in line 46, after 'principal', insert 'or only'.
1286 No. 10, in line 47, after 'resided";' insert 'the words "the whole of" shall be deleted;'.
§ Mr. Carlisle
This concludes the Government Amendments. The purpose of this group is to rewrite subsection (2) (bb) in regard to the phrase "principal place of work". This meets a point made in Committee by hon. Members who argued that the use of the words "whole of" in the definition of place of work was unsuitable. On reflection the Government agree, and the Amendment merely replaces what was to have been the definition, that somebody was required to have spentthe whole of the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate".Instead, the provision will sayhis principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority".
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)
We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for having considered this point and for having come to the same conclusion as we did. Our joy is somewhat diminished by the fact that the Bill still refers to "a place of work" rather than "a place of employment." It would be proper for the House to be aware that it is possible for a person to qualify to stand as a candidate not because he is employed in a certain local authority area but because he is doing work which may amount to only an hour or two a day and which may be voluntary or little more than recreational activity. We consider that to be an unrealistic basis for giving a person a right to nomination. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concession.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made:
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:
'(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
§ Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
§ Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'.1287
§ Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 8, at end insert:(8) A person shall not be disqualified under section 59 of the Local Government Act 1933 from being a member of any authority for which he is eligible to be a candidate—In Committee we dealt with the narrower point of teachers in this context, but we have broadened the matter now because we feel very strongly about it. It is related to what we said on Second Reading in relation to the Government's greatly increasing the number of people who would have the right of nomination even if they did not live in the local authority area but only worked there. We pointed to the lack of right to stand for election to local authorities because of the growth of joint local authority undertakings—boards, transport and other undertakings, colleges of technology and the like. This decreases the opportunity far beyond anything envisaged in Section 59 (2) of the 1933 Act.
- (a) by reason only of his being employed by a joint authority of local authorities and that the local authority for which he is eligible appoints delegates to that joint authority or
- (b) that he is an employee of a local authority which is an excepted district under the Education Act 1944.
The Under-Secretary said in Committee that while he understood that our debates on the subject were in order and was not abrogating to himself the job of Chairman of the Committee, our side had not dealt with the matter in the past. To that we replied that we had not introduced a Measure which brought into qualification large numbers of people who did not live in the area concerned on the ground that there was need to bring fresh blood into local government.
By our Amendment we seek again to deal with the situation where just because a number of authorities are joined together in a water undertaking or the like someone is effectively prevented from nomination for the council in the area in which he lives. In particular, we come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about excepted districts. 1288 In the debate on 7th May, 1958, the then Mr. Chuter Ede referred to the 1944 Education Act, and said:We contended that we had left the teachers who were serving on the council which became an excepted district council free for election to that body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1278.]That was the intention in the 1944 Act.
This point has been returned to again and again, and we ask it of the hon. Gentleman again at this late stage. He has greatly increased the number of people who can be nominated for a local authority. Yet there are people of great ability who the Government say, because of the fortuitous arrangements which are made for education, water, and so on, cannot be dealt with now but must be left for some later occasion. That is not a valid argument when the Government have dealt with so many people in the Bill. I hope that we shall hear words of reason from the Under-Secretary. It was an excellent Committee. Surely on this one point, at this pitch of the night, the hon. Gentleman will undertake to meet us.
§ Mr. Weitzman
I greatly regret that this important Amendment has to be discussed at this late hour. In Committee we on this side put forward a strong case for teachers and employees of a council qualifying to be elected to the council. The Under-Secretary did not resist our argument, but he pointed out that it was a serious matter which should be discussed. It was pointed out to him that Sir Edward Boyle made this statement in 1958:I can give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider the position of all local government employees and if, as a result of further review, it seems that a change in the law ought to be made, no doubt a suitable occasion could be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1297.]It was suggested from this side that as this was a Bill dealing with the qualification of persons to be elected to councils it was an ideal vehicle in which the promise made by Sir Edward Boyle could be fulfilled. The way in which the Under-Secretary resisted the inclusion of the Amendment was by saying that it was not the proper way in which it should be done. A promise was made as long ago as 1958. Nothing has been done about it by either a Tory Government or a Labour Government. The Tory Government now have a good opportunity of 1289 carrying through something which cannot be resisted on the merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has restricted the Amendment to excepted districts under the Education Act and in the words used in paragraph (a) of the Amendment. I rather object to my hon. Friend's not having gone the whole hog. However, this is something. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he repents of the argument that he has put forward and will do his duty and accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Carter
I apologise for my earlier intervention [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I think it is necessary to apologise.
A constituent of mine is vitally affected by the Clause. I ask that not only teachers but other officers in local government should be considered. My constituent has been selected to fight for the Labour Party in the municipal elections in Birmingham next year. He is the dental officer for the Warley Borough Council, which is Conservative-controlled. He has been told by the authority that if he is elected he will be sacked.
I ask the Government to extend to this man the same privileges as are being extended to others by the Bill, most of whom are employers. If the Under-Secretary accepts the Amendment to grant exemptions to teachers, I ask him to grant them to other local authority employees and, if he does so, to circularise local authorities, particularly the Warley Borough Council, asking them to make it possible for their employees to stand as and perform their services as members of local authorities.
§ Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)
In Committee on 1st December, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised a point to which he received no specific answer.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Giles, is a member of the staff of the Newport and Monmouthshire College of Technology. He is a resident of the county borough of Newport and is included in the town's electoral roll. Is he permitted to stand for the council in the Newport borough? It appears that the town clerk has some doubt about whether the gentleman is eligible. I hope that the Minister can clear up this point.
§ Sir Geoffrey de Freitas (Kettering)
At this hour it is wrong that such an important matter should be brought before the House. It is a disgrace that the Government cannot organise their business so that we can discuss it at a reasonable hour.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)
I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the honeyed words coming from the benches opposite. It would be a pity to breach a long-established principle for the sake of these hard cases. It is a much wider issue. Hon. Members will recall the perturbation caused when the previous Administration gave permission for certain polytechnic staff to stand for election to their employing authorities.
The words quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) do not commit anyone to do more than consider at the appropriate time. The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly castigated his own party for not dealing with this matter when it took away certain rights of people to stand for election. This Bill restores the position, with a slight addition resulting from the first Maud Report.
If there is a case for examination of the two cases raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), this is not the vehicle for that sort of change. We would be merely tinkering with the matter if we allowed employees of two—
§ Mr. Weitzman
Would not the hon. Gentleman castigate his Government for not taking the earliset opportunity to correct an injustice.
§ Mr. Finsberg
I am tempted to say what a pity it was that they did not restore the business vote as well. However, I am content for that to come in its Own good time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
There are some grounds for arguing that employees should be eligible to stand for any kind of authority, but it should not be tacked on to this small Measure. The ideal time will be when we come to deal with the major questions of local Government reform, and that will be done in the context of the White Paper that we have been promised.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
Present on the Treasury Bench are representatives of the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Civil Service. In a matter which is particularly relevant to local government reform, and in view of its implications for local government reform, I cannot understand why there is no representative of the Department of the Environment, which has to consider these matters.
Recently I had occasion to table a Question on regional policy to the Department of Trade and Industry, only to find that the Department of the Environment insisted on horning in on it and giving me an answer which I did not wish to have on regional policy in relation to the environment.
The Under-Secretary of State, a very courteous man, is helping us as much as he can. I hope that he will now tell us why, on an important matter of this kind closely relevant to the reform of local government into which the Department of the Environment purports to be inquiring, we do not have present the Secretary of State or one of the many junior Ministers in his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) put it to the Prime Minister today that there were too many of them, and the right hon. Gentleman said that there were enough. May we be told why one is not here now to keep a watching brief on a matter so closely related to the reform of local government? Inevitably, when local government is reformed the Department of the Environment will have to take account of the various aspects of the matter which are being discussed tonight.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Mr. Carlisle
I have a certain sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) when he asked why we should be debating a matter of this importance at this hour of the morning. With respect, I take that point, and I then lead on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). This issue raises wide and important considerations. We discussed them in detail in Committee on their merits. I said then, and I must repeat now, that it is the Government's view that, important 1292 and wide-ranging as these questions of disqualification are, the present Bill is not the right vehicle for that broader debate or for the proposed change.
We cannot attempt to make amendments piecemeal in relation to the difficult problems of disqualification for standing for election to local councils. These matters, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Environment, and they are, I submit, matters which must be looked at in a far wider context than an attempt piecemeal to amend Section 59 of the Act.
§ Mr. Weitzman
But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is of such importance, and the view which he is putting is of such significance, that the House should have an opportunity to discuss whether he is right or wrong, or whether the change should be made now?
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we have been overtaken by events, by the growth of such bodies as joint water boards? It is possible that a member of staff of a water authority in a county constituency lives in a city constituency, and, by virtue of his residential qualification, he would be able to stand for his city authority, though because of the growth of joint water boards he is disqualified, having been overtaken by events. Is not that an injustice which should be put right?
§ Mr. Carlisle
With respect, that is the point on which the Amendment is mainly based. It refers in particular to joint authorities. I must resist the Amendment. It raises the whole question of disqualification for standing for local councils, which, as I say, is a matter for the Department of the Environment, not for the Home Office, and not one which can be dealt with by piecemeal Amendment of this kind.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) raised a constituency matter. There is no legislation at present requiring employers to permit members of their staff to have time to attend council meetings. This was considered by the Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government, 1293 which concluded that it would be impracticable to compel employers to release staff or to legislate in this field. We have no evidence to suggest that employers generally are being unhelpful about the release of staff, and we do not believe that this is a situation which legislation would help.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), he is right when he says that I did not answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that on that day he was trying to serve on two separate Committees and, having raised that point, he unfortunately had to leave when I was speaking and that was probably why I failed to deal with it. My answer would not necessarily have been helpful. All I can say is that it is an extremely difficult question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent is or is not entitled to stand for this local authority. All I can suggest is that he should write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
§ Mr. Kaufman
The Under-Secretary is, as always, particularly courteous to the House. He has referred to the Department of the Environment. Can we be informed why the Department is not represented on the Front Bench on this Bill which is totally relevant to the Department? I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House is here, another courteous hon. Gentleman. Cannot someone from the Department be sent for so that this can be taken up?
§ Mr. Carlisle
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is a Home Office Bill covering England and Scotland. I am here representing the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here representing the Scottish Office. He cannot, with respect, ask that every Minister should be represented throughout any Bill in case at any time any point is raised affecting his Department. He must accept that the people in the Department of the Environment are capable of reading HANSARD.
§ Mr. Roy Hughes
Could I point out the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is, as I understand it, responsible for local government in Wales but— 1294 [Interruption.]—there is no one present from his Department?
§ Mr. Carlisle
I am afraid that in the noise I did not catch that point. The only Amendment being considered, and all the discussion, despite the presence of some Welsh Members, is related to Scotland and England. Anyone who was on the Committee knows that Welsh matters were adequately dealt with.
Having said that this is not a matter which the Government believe to be capable of being dealt with in this way, I must also say that I am advised that this Amendment is based on a misunderstanding of what the law is with regard to disqualification on joint authorities. I am told that a person employed by a joint authority of local authorities such as a joint water board is not disqualified by virtue of Section 59 from being elected a member of a constituent authority of the board. I gather that he would be disqualified from being appointed a member of the committee but he is apparently not disqualified by Section 59 from being a member of any one of the constituent local authorities.
What I understand normally happens is that it is the practice to provide in the Instrument setting up the water board that the person shall not stand. Section 59 with which this Amendment attempts to deal is not a Section on which a person's disqualification from being a member of that joint authority is based.
As to the second part of the Amendment, in Committee I conceded that this raised a difficulty. It appears that the teacher is caught by the excepted district as well as the main employing authority and it may be that a teacher in the area of a county council is able to stand neither for the county council nor for the district council of the area in which he lives if the district council is an excepted district for education purposes under the county council.
I have never disputed that there is a considerable point in what the hon. Member said with regard to this double disqualification. I can only repeat, and urge on the House, that these matters are extremely complex. They should be looked at in the whole matter of disqualification. They raise matters on which, as we heard in Committee, people have many arguments on the merits on 1295 both sides. I must, therefore, ask the House to resist the Amendment at this stage.
§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
At the seventh and last Sitting of the Committee, when we dealt with this matter, the Under-Secretary courteously promised, at col. 334, to discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I would like to know, and I am sure that the House would like
|Division No. 47.]||AYES||[12.25 a.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Gilbert, Dr. John||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Golding, John||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Grant, John D. (Islington, East)||Molloy, William|
|Ashton, Joe||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Barnes, Michael||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Barnett, Joel||Hamling, William||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Hardy, Peter||Moyle, Roland|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Bishop, E, S.||Hattersley, Roy||Murray, Ronald King|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Booth, Albert||Heffer, Eric S.||O'Malley, Brian|
|Bradley, Tom||Hilton, W. S.||Orme, Stanley|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Horam, John||Oswald, Thomas|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Huckfield, Leslie||Palmer, Arthur|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Cant, R. B.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Pendry, Tom|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Hunter, Adam||Pentland, Norman|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Janner, Greville||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)||Prescott, John|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Probert, Arthur|
|Cohen, Stanley||John, Brynmor||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Coleman, Donald||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Jones, Barry, Flint, E.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Judd, Frank||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Kaufman, Gerald||Roper, John|
|Davidson, Arthur||Kerr, Russell||Rose, Paul B.|
|Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)||Kinnock, Neil||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Lambie, David||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lamond, James||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)||Latham Arthur||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lawson, George||Sillars, James|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Leonard, Dick||Silverman, Julius|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lestor, Miss Joan||Skinner, Dennis|
|Dempsey, James||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)||Small, William|
|Doig, Peter||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Dormand, J. D.||Loughlin, Charles||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lyons, Edward (Bradford)||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Dunn, James A.||McBride, Neil||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Dunnett, Jack||McCann, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Eadie, Alex||McCartney, Hugh||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||McElhone, Frank||Swain, Thomas|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McGuire, Michael||Taverne, Dick|
|Ellis, Tom||Mackie, John||Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)|
|English, Michael||Mackintosh, John P.||Tinn, James|
|Evans, Fred||Maclennan, Robert||Tomney, Frank|
|Fernyhough, E.||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Torney, Tom|
|Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Urwin, T. W.|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Marquand, David||Varley, Eric G.|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Foot, Michael||Meacher, Michael||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Ford, Ben||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Wallace, George|
|Forrester, John||Mendelson, John||Watkins, David|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Millan, Bruce||Weitzman, David|
§ to know, whether that conversation has yet taken place and, if so, with what result.
§ Mr. Carlisle
Obviously, what I said in Committee has been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 229.
|Wells, John (Maidstone)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Whitehead, Phillip||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)||Woof, Robert||Mr. Kenneth Marks.|
|Adley, Robert||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Normanton, Tom|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Gummer, Selwyn||Nott, John|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Gurden, Harold||Onslow, Cranley|
|Astor, John||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Osborn, John|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Bell, Ronald||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Haselhurst, Alan||Percival, Ian|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Hastings, Stephen||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John|
|Berry, Hon. Anthony||Havers, Michael||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Biffen, John||Hawkins, Paul||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hay, John||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Blaker, Peter||Hayhoe, Barney||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Hicks, Robert||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Body, Richard||Higgine, Terence L.||Raison, Timothy|
|Boscawen, Robert||Hiley, Joseph||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Redmond, Robert|
|Bowden, Andrew||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Bray, Ronald||Holt, Miss Mary||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Brewis, John||Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Howell, David (Guildford)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Hunt, John||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Buck, Antony||James, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Rost, Peter|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Jessel, Toby||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Carlisle, Mark||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|Chapman, Sydney||Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Jopling, Michael||Sharples, Richard|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Kershaw, Anthony||Simeons, Charles|
|Clegg, Walter||Kilfedder, James||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Kimball, Marcus||Soref, Harold|
|Cooke, Robert||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Spence, John|
|Coombs, Derek||Kinsey, J. R.||Sproat, Iain|
|Cooper, A. E.||Kirk, Peter||Stainton, Keith|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Knox, David||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Critchley, Julian||Lane, David||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Crouch, David||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Stokes, John|
|Crowder, F. P.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Curran, Charles||Le Marchant, Spencer||Tapsell, Peter|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Dean, Paul||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Loveridge, John||Tebbit, Norman|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||MacArthur, Ian||Temple, John M.|
|Dixon, Piers||McCrindle, R. A.||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Drayson, G. B.||McLaren, Martin||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Dykes, Hugh||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Tilney, John|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Madel, David||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Emery, Peter||Mather, Carol||Trew, Peter|
|Eyre, Reginald||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Fell, Anthony||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Fidler, Michael||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Miscampbell, Norman||Walters, Dennis|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Fowler, Norman||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Fox, Marcus||Moate, Roger||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Molyneaux, James||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Monks, Mrs. Connie||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Monro, Hector||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Montgomery, Fergus||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Goodhart, Philip||More, Jasper||Wilkinson, John|
|Goodhew, Victor||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Gorst, John||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gower, Raymond||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Murton, Oscar|
|Gray, Hamish||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Green, Alan||Neave, Airey||Mr. Tim Fortescue and|
|Grieve, Percy||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Mr. Keith Speed.|