HC Deb 20 April 1971 vol 815 cc1105-21

In the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 for subsection (3) of section 7, there shall be substituted the following subsection:— (3) An education authority may at any time and shall if and when so required by the Secretary of State, or when any such scheme or modification introduces the charge ing of fees for school education in any school under their management, prepare and submit for his approval a revised scheme or modification of an existing scheme under this section."—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Buchan

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This covers not the same but related ground to two basic themes which we feel vital before proceeding further with the Bill. The first is that we tried to get from the Under-Secretary a full explanation as to whether or not any scheme of modification brought forward by a local authority was caused merely because of the introduction of fee paying required to go before the Secretary of State.

As I recall his defence, which was very involved, he allied it to the general powers laid down upon the Secretary of State. If this is the case, he can have no objection to our setting it out in the form in which we have in New Clause 2, because what the Clause does is merely to spell out that if fee paying is introduced in any way, a scheme must be put forward; in other words, not only in the situation when local authorities are required to do so by the Secretary of State but, in any such situation, this must be brought forward to the Secretary of State.

Linked with that—and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing discussion of New Clause 3—is the point of simple democracy that if the Secretary of State decides to approve of a scheme which involves fee paying, that scheme must be brought before these Houses of Parliament. Our reason, above all, for doing that is partly answered by the dodging that we saw on the Front Bench during the last discussion. They still have not answered the question as to whether they believe Glasgow is behaving legally. It is for this reason that this Government, of all Governments, cannot be left to approve of a scheme coming forward, because we do not trust the Government. That is why schemes must be brought before the House to be looked after. That is the important thing.

I am told that this is interfering with local freedoms and local authority powers. We have gone through this for a long time. We limit local authority freedoms and powers considerably. The Government are about to limit their power enormously on the question of local authority power to decide their rents and even the number of houses that they build. We see housing subsidies coming forward. I want no more rubbish of that kind from the Under-Secretary.

We are asking, as a matter of simple democracy and so that the scheme can be discussed, having compelled the Government to insist on schemes of modification being brought forward, that they should be brought forward to the House for discussion.

We are to discuss Amendments No. 24 and No. 25. As I understand the procedure at this stage of a Bill, it will be only when they come in their proper order at the end of the day that there can be voting on those two Amendments, but we discuss them now. This is how the muck becomes muckier. The Amendments say that despite the Acts that exist—the Government go back to the year 1889 to carry out their plots and to change the Act of 1889 to try to facilitate the submission of schemes and the approval of schemes by the Secretary of State—even before the Bill has gone to the House of Lords, this is what will happen. As of the passing of the Bill and before it becomes an Act on 1st August, local authorities can already start preparing their schemes and the Secretary of State can start approving them. Why? It is for the same reason that has necessitated the tabling of New Clause 1. The Government introduced the Bill hurriedly because they wanted to get it through before they were defeated at the local elections at Glasgow. That is the reason for the haste and that is why any schemes must be submitted to and be approved by the Secretary of State.

I have never known a Government and a party in a city who were so convinced of their defeat in the May elections as this Government. It is a proclamation of defeat. That is the significance of Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. We will have no part in it. It is squalid and sordid, as have been preceding events today. When we reach Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, we shall seek to reject them.

I hope that my hon. Friends, if not hon. Members opposite, will in the interests of democracy be prepared to support the new Clauses and that all sides of the House will, when we reach Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, show their contempt for the squalid little deal which has been unfolded over the last few months.

Mr. Edward Taylor

It is unfortunate that once again the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has approached this technical and important matter in this very emotive and aggressive way. The hon. Gentleman referred to conspiracies and deals, which we have all along denied and which I again deny.

As to the question which the hon. Gentleman once again raised about the use which Glasgow made of the previous Government's 1969 Act, I make it clear that it is not the job of my right hon. Friend or myself to give legal decisions in the House of Commons; but for the avoidance of doubt I will say that I have no reason to believe that Glasgow acted in any way illegally.

As to the important question about the submitting of schemes, I promised during the 24th sitting of the Standing Committee to consider what had been said by the hon. Gentleman and to write to him. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 31st March, and in the preparation of the letter I had the benefit of the Lord Advocate's advice. That letter confirmed the line I had taken in Committee.

In view of that letter and in view of the assurances which I gave in Committee and which I repeat now, I suggest that there is no need for the Clause. There is no dispute between us about the procedure which should be followed, and the 1962 Act already provides for it. In addition, the House may wish to know that a circular to be issued by the Scottish Education Department after the passing of the Bill, if it becomes law, will make it clear that the Secretary of State will require a revised scheme or modification of an existing scheme to be submitted to him where it is proposed to charge school fees. I hope that this will make it clear beyond any doubt that, if there is a proposal to charge fees in Scottish local authority schools, it will need the submission of a modification of a scheme or a new scheme.

New Clause 3 in effect seeks to amend Section 70 of the 1962 Act subsection (2) of which deals with a dispute between the education authority and the Secretary of State about the latter's modification or amendment of a scheme. If an authority were aggrieved by the Secretary of State's modification or amendment of a scheme which included fee-paying schools the matter could be brought before Parliament. But it seems quite unnecessary to include a provision to bring before Parliament every scheme or modification for the introduction of fee paying.

11.30 p.m.

The new Clause illustrates the Opposition's unwillingness to trust education authorities. The authorities already have to obtain the Secretary of State's approval to their schemes, and this will continue in relation to any schemes for the introduction of fee paying. It is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill, which is designed to restore freedom to education authorities, to impose a further restriction on the implementation of decisions taken by education authorities in the light of local circumstances. I could not recommend the House to accept new Clause No. 3.

I was disappointed by the way in which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West approached Amendments No. 24 and 25, which are technical Amendments designed for a straightforward and practical purpose. In case it may be required, Amendment No. 24 gives the necessary statutory cover so as to allow any authority which may wish to use it to take the necessary preliminary steps to restore the charging of fees in the session 1971–72. As the House knows, the Bill, when enacted, will come into force on 1st August 1971. As I said in Committee, we chose that date since authorities make their arrangements on a year-to-year basis, and 1st August 1971 was the earliest convenient date.

Both in Committee and on new Clause No. 2 we have already discussed the need for authorities intending to restore fees to submit revised schemes or modifications of existing schemes. The Amendment removes any doubt about whether the Secretary of State or any authority can take the necessary preliminary steps towards the restoration of fees between the date of the passing of the Bill and 1st August 1971.

That is entirely reasonable and consistent with the spirit of the Bill and the comments and statements made by my right hon. Friend. It is clear. We have named the date in the Bill. All the Amendment does is to remove any doubt on the matter: 1st August is the appropriate date.

Mr. Buchan

Why was this not included in the Bill in the first place?

Mr. Taylor

We listened, as we always do, to the observations of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in Committee. It appeared to me, on hearing some of the speeches, that it was necessary to remove any doubt on this point. It seemed that there was, perhaps, some doubt about it, and to that extent I thought it better to deal with it. That is what we have done.

Mr. Buchan

When was this question raised by the Opposition? It is news to me.

Mr. Taylor

The matter was not specifically raised. If it had been, I should certainly have referred to it. We discussed many aspects of these matters, and I gave constant consideration not only to the arguments advanced by the Opposition but to their implications, too. It seemed to me appropriate to check up on every part of the Bill to make sure that there was no doubt about anything. It was in part of that consideration that I thought that there was, perhaps, some doubt on this matter, and I thought that it ought to be removed. I have introduced these two Amendments for that reason.

iMr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The Under-Secretary of State said that new Clause No. 3 showed that we did not trust the local authorities, to which, he said, the Bill would give great freedom. One can only judge how much trust to put in local authorities by the behaviour of particular authorities in relation to education. Moreover, it is not just a question of trusting local authorities; it is a question also of how far we trust the Secretary of State to look closely at schemes which are laid before him.

I remember the occasion when the Secretary of State's friends on the Aberdeen Town Council had a majority and, therefore, controlled the education committee. The scheme of comprehensive education which had been carefully prepared by the Labour-controlled education authority, in conjunction with education experts, came under review. Some very odd things came out of the review. That is why we wonder very much about giving this so-called freedom to local authorities.

One of the schemes proposed was to the effect that certain schools in Aberdeen should remain as single-sex schools, and that to preserve freedom of choice not only should they be comprehensive on a single-sex and area basis but there should be freedom to all people within the city to choose which kind of education should be available It was pointed out to those in charge of the education authority that because the two schools chosen as single-sex schools were also the two with the highest educational reputation in the city parents might have a hangover from the bad old days and feel that it would be desirable to send their children to those schools, because there might still be better education there, and therefore there might be more applications than there were places. That question was put directly to the Progressive convenor of education, "How will children to go to those schools be selected if there are insufficient places for the number of applicants?" We had the astonishing proposal that the places would be allocated by ballot. I do not know of a more ridiculous method.

The so-called Progressive members of Aberdeen local authority have for years sailed under false colours, and are only now beginning to call themselves Conservatives and come into the open. We wonder at the tortuous reasoning in their minds. If they consider it to be reasonable to allocate education places by ballot, we wonder how far it would be regarded as reasonable by the Secretary of State. It is precisely because of the tie-up between those in control of the Scottish Office today and people who might by some grave mischance once again have control of local education services that we seek to preserve the right to have schemes brought before the House where at least we have a chance to discuss and expose the mad reasoning that is sometimes behind them.

The policy of fee-paying schools is dressed up in all kinds of language—freedom of choice and all the rest But it is strange that when the crunch comes and people are expected to pay the true cost of education, which one of our defeated Amendments would have made them pay, suddenly all these things are revised, and we hear all kinds of false statements about freedom for the rich and not the vast majority. The education system that is in the process of being changed has always led to privilege in education for the rich. It is precisely that kind of thing that we want to change. Because of the very odd reasoning behind it, I should like the Under-Secretary of State to say now that he would never approve of such a scheme as I have mentioned. I hope that he will find it in the interests of democracy and freedom to agree to the Clause being accepted as it stands.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

The Under-Secretary presented Amendments No. 24 and 25 as being merely technical issues, to straighten the lines of communication between the Scottish Education Department and the local authorities. He said that we did not have to worry about them, because they dealt with a simple little technical matter between the administrators at central Government and local government level, and that they were nothing to get annoyed about.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have a number of very sound reasons for doubting the political integrity of the Conservative Party in Government. We had very clear demonstrations of these earlier this evening in our debate on the Bill to denationalise State pubs. We are all aware of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State has dashed North on occasion to meet people in Cathcart Conservative Association to try to resolve problems there. There was some suspicion that he might have done a deal with Councillor Wylie. However, he has denied it and we will have to accept what he says because we were not present at those meetings.

Mr. Edward Taylor

For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that we have no problems in the Cathcart Conservative Association.

Mr. Sillars

The Under-Secretary has many problems in his Association. We have some reason to doubt the political integrity of the Conservatives in this matter. This is a crucial period in Glasgow's history since in two weeks from now the first Labour victories will be rolling out of the ballot boxes and Labour will be on the way to controlling the city.

The hon. Gentleman can clear up the whole issue as to his Governments integrity and intentions in this matter. A letter sent by the Secretary of State for Scotland to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as recorded in the Sixteenth Sitting of the Committee upstairs, said: Before any authority can reimpose fees a modification of the scheme of educational provision will have to be submitted to me. All authorities are well aware of this and I shall of course be arranging for a circular about the Bill to be issued as soon as it is enacted. The Under-Secretary mentioned the issue of a circular. Do we take it that the circular will not simply indicate to local authorities that the Bill has become an Act because they can all read this in the Press or in the reports of parliamentary proceedings? Any reasonable circular sent out by a sensible Government would give some guidelines to local authorities about two very important aspects of the Bill: the definition of "limited" in its application to the number of schools for which fees can be charged and the definition of the word "adequate" in relation to the so called free education that applies in non fee-paying schools in a local authority area. It is important that we should be given an adequate definition.

May we be given an assurance by the Under-Secretary that between now and two weeks' time—in other words, before the municipal elections in Glasgow—there is no possibility of the Government issuing their circular and the Glasgow education authority setting out its intentions so that approval can be given in that two-week period by the Secretary of State? I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary has agreed or disagreed with this suggestion. He is as mixed up on these matters as he is about his position vis-à-vis the Common Market. I hope that we will have a categoric statement that at no time in the next fortnight will Glasgow be allowed to go forward with a modified educational provision, including the matter of fees.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

I should like to have some explanation about any changes which are to be made in the law, and here I address myself to the Lord Advocate. Amendment No. 24 says Without prejudice to the operation of section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889 That Section, which I have before me, is concerned with giving to the Minister concerned, powers to take certain actions in the interim. There are many things that can be done. There is mention of the issuing of notices. It may be that officers have to be appointed or offices set up. There are many preliminary or interim activities relating to the coming into operation of any Measure.

Unless I am mistaken this Amendment gives an education authority the power to take action and put through a motion which may be bitterly opposed and which cannot be reversed for a long time. This is a substantial power. The Under-Secretary says that this is to remove doubt, but I want to know whether the existing position as laid down in Section 37 of the 1889 Act has been used to give some authority than the Government the power to engage in substantial activities.

An education authority is being given the power to decide to do something which up to a point is illegal. The necessary decision has been taken, the scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State and approval has been given and the scheme is ready to come into operation on the commencing date. This is a very different set of circumstances from the circumstances which seem to be disscribed in Section 37. I want to know whether this change in the law is being made or whether there are established precedents for this.

Mr. Edward Taylor

Once again we are grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for the careful way in which he has studied this matter. I hope that the information I am about to give will be helpful. The subsection is without prejudice to Section 37 of the 1889 Act.

Mr. Lawson

What does that mean?

Mr. Taylor

It means that Section 37 still stands. It still exists. It makes provisions similar to those contained in the Amendment in relation to Statutes generally which do not come into operation immediately. As there might be room for doubt as to whether what is covered by the Amendment is in the terms of that Section the Amendment seeks to make the position clear. It safeguards the provisions of Section 37 and at the same time spells out the position in relation to the Bill in detail. Section 37 exists, but, in view of the very careful arguments of the Opposition, I wished to make sure that there was no doubt about the matter.

Similar considerations have arisen in recent and not so recent legislation. The formula used in the proposed subsection (3A) is not an innovation. It is purely a machinery provision which is well precedented in, for example, Section 117 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, Section 36 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1964, Section 4 of the English Education (No. 2) Act, 1968, and more recently in Section 132 of the Post Office Act, 1969. I hope that those precedents show that we are not making a constitutional innovation but are simply using machinery used in other Acts for no doubt similar reasons. I hope that that information is helpful to hon. Members.

Mr. Lawson

The hon. Gentleman must not look tired and annoyed. He has recited a number of Acts, but he has not answered my question. The Government's proposal gives education authorities very extensive powers of action during a period when a Measure is not an Act. Do the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred give bodies other than the Government power to do certain things?

Mr. Taylor

The advice which I have received—and I always consult the Lord Advocate on important matters—is that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes".

Mr. Douglas

Is there any precedent in any Act for giving this power to bodies external to the Government?

Mr. Taylor

I have given several precedents which I hoped would be helpful. We are not dealing with a legal argument but simply facilitating legislation. A date has been clearly spelled out in the Bill. The Government have made their intentions clear. It was our intention, on the passing of the Bill, that authorities which wished to do so could take the necessary steps to provide for fee-paying in the forthcoming session. No one can suggest that our intentions have been in any doubt. We are merely facilitating legislation and removing any doubt there may be.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was concerned lest there was any possibility of the circular being sent out over the next two weeks. It is unlikely that the Bill will have passed through all its stages in the next two weeks. If it completed all its stages in the next two weeks, that would be a possibility. But I give the clear assurance that the circular will not be issued until the Bill is enacted.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire asked whether the circular on the Bill would give guidance on the meaning of the words "limited" and "adequate". The answer is, no, because it is not the function of a circular of this type to interpret the law. In submitting any modification of a scheme, an authority would have to reach a view on "limited" and "adequate". It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider whether to approve the modification.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that we were obsessed with the situation in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman should be cautious in making such remarks, bearing in mind that it is not so long since we had a General Election when hon. Gentlemen opposite were expressing the same wild enthusiasm about their prospects as the hon. Gentleman is doing about his party's prospects in Glasgow. The Labour Party had a sad shock on that occasion and the same situation could arise here.

Mr. Sillars

Is the hon. Gentleman unaware that the Labour Party trounced the Tory Party in Scotland at the General Election?

Mr. Taylor

The enthusiasm to which I was referring applied to all members of the Labour Party, and all of them had a sad shock. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not get too enthusiastic in case he suffers a similar disappointment in Glasgow and elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) asked me specifically whether Section 37 gave the Government power to do things. Section 37 makes no mention of the Government but refers to bye-laws, which are commonly local authority matters.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) asked me about Aberdeen. I give him the clear assurance that if Aberdeen, or any other Scottish local authority, wished to consider the introduction of fees in local authority schools it would be necessary for the local authority to bring forward a modification to its existing scheme. He also said that some members of the Progressive Conservative Group in Aberdeen had put forward the proposal of a ballot. He asked, if anyone was crazy enough to bring forward a proposal to select pupils by ballot, whether the Secretary of State would condemn this absolutely. I would not like to give a decision on hypothetical considerations, but I would point out to him that the Opposition presented Amendment No. 31 in Committee which called for the selection of pupils by ballot and which contained these words: In the event of such applications being in more in number than 75 per cent. of the available places then these will be allocated by a random selection within that authority in order to obtain an adequate social mix. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to condemn out of hand something which was argued for fiercely by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, it would be discourteous for me to do so in a discussion which has been so harmonious. He is, of course an advocate of the ballot and the raffle but I suggest that it is not my job to try to work out the ideological cleavages which exist in the Labour Party, have existed for years and will no doubt exist for years to come.

12 midnight

Mr. Buchan

I hope the House will allow me to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on trying to avoid a difficult position with his rhodomontade at the end of his reply. What he said about new Clause 2 was his usual brisk nonsense. But let us leave that for a moment. I want to talk of serious things, about the points raised by his arguments on Amendments 24 and 25.

Throughout the Committee stage, we pressed for the presence of the Lord Advocate because of the intense legal implications of so much of the drafting of the Bill. The Lord Advocate is present tonight. I would have thought that, on this extremely complicated part of the Bill, we would have had the benefit of his advice. I have found the last ten minutes rather sad, and I think that the Under-Secretary of State was put into unnecessary difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman was asked about precedent. He gave no answer. That question concerned whether or not powers have been given to a body other than the Government. The Act was quoted and the question put—but we got no answer. Yet this is extremely important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) put a valid point in relation to Section 37 of the Interpretation Act, 1889. What a position we find ourselves in when we have to go back to 1889 in order to get the Government out of a mess! Section 37 relates to an Act which is not to come into operation immediately and it confers powers to do various things. But it does those things …so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement… What the Government are proposing is not necessary but it is expedient in order that Glasgow in particular, and other local authorities in general, can start moving before the 5th May elections. Clearly, what it does not do is what Section 37 of the 1889 Act spells out. The hon. Gentleman should not have allowed himself to be put in such a mess.

If it is so important, why was this matter not raised earlier? Why was it not in the Bill in the first place if it is so important? The hon. Gentleman said that it is here because it was raised in Standing Committee. I asked him who raised it in Standing Committee. He said that no one had raised it in Standing Committee. It was not raised in Committee, but the time spent there in making sense of the Bill brought the Government close to 5th May, so they put their little minds to work. These Amendments were introduced so that they could get the Bill into operation quickly. Everything said by the hon.

Gentleman has borne that out. No precedent has been produced. His argument in relation to Section 37 of the 1889 Act has been proved wrong. His argument about he discussion in Committee has been proved wrong as well.

Had this matter been so important, it could have been raised in Committee, but it was not. We are seeing now a squalid conspiracy between the Government and the Glasgow Tories to get this Bill into operation before 5th May. We are accused of boasting that we shall win the elections. I have never boasted that. I am saying that the action of the Under-Secretary and of the Convenor of Edu-

cation in Glasgow is an admission that they will be beaten. I have never claimed that we shall win. But their action is a flaunting of the consciousness of their own defeat, and that is the reason for their squalid Amendments.

I now see the vital necessity of my own Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and I give notice of our intention to vote against Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 when we eventually reach them.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 70, Noes 107.

Division No. 344.] AYES [12.5 a.m.
Armstrong, Ernest Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Ashton, Joe Hunter, Adam Pentland, Norman
Atkinson, Norman John, Brynmor Perry, Ernest G.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Kaufman, Gerald Prescott, John
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Kerr, Russell Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Kinnock, Neil Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Buchan, Norman Lambie, David Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Lawson, George Sillars, James
Carmichael, Neil Leadbitter, Ted Silverman, Julius
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Leonard, Dick Skinner, Dennis
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Lestor, Miss Joan Small, William
Dalyell, Tam Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McElhone, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Mackenzie, Gregor Stallard, A. W.
Dormand, J. D. Mackintosh, John P. Strang, Gavin
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Tinn, James
Freeson, Reginald McNamara, J. Kevin Urwin, T. W.
Galpern, Sir Myer Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Golding, John Marks, Kenneth Wellbeloved, James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Millan, Bruce
Hamling, William Miller, Dr. M. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harper, Joseph Murray, Ronald King Mr. James Hamilton and
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Oswald, Thomas Mr. Donald Coleman.
Huckfield, Leslie Palmer, Arthur
Adley, Robert Fortescue, Tim McLaren, Martin
Atkins, Humphrey Gardner, Edward McNair-Wilson, Michael
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin
Biffen, John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maginnis, John E.
Biggs-Davison, John Goodhew, Victor Mather, Carol
Boscawen, Robert Gower, Raymond Maude, Angus
Bowden, Andrew Gray, Hamish Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bray, Ronald Green, Alan Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Brown, Sir Edgar (Bath) Gummer, Selwyn Molyneaux, James
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Money, Ernie
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Haselhurst, Alan Monks, Mrs. Connie
Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn) Hawkins, Paul Montgomery, Fergus
Channon, Paul Hill, James (Southampton, Test) More, Jasper
Chapman, Sydney Holt, Miss Mary Murton, Oscar
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hornby, Richard Neave, Airey
Clegg, Walter Hutchison, Michael Clark Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Cockeram, Eric Iremonger, T. L. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Cooke, Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Percival, Ian
Crouch, David James, David Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj.-Gen. Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Raison, Timothy
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Dykes, Hugh King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke) Kinsey, J, R. Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Knight, Mrs. Jill Roberts, Michael (Caridff, N.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Knox, David Russell, Sir Ronald
Eyre, Reginald Loveridge, John Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Luce, R. N. Shelton, William (Clapham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) MacArthur, Ian Sinclair, Sir George
Soref, Harold Sutcliffe, John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Speed, Keith Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) Worsley, Marcus
Spence, John Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Sproat, Iain Tebbit, Norman Younger, Hn. George
Stanbrook, Ivor Tilney, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Trafford, Dr. Anthony TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Waddington, David Mr. Hector Monro and
Stokes, John Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Weatherill, Bernard
Forward to