HC Deb 24 October 1972 vol 843 cc1046-63

Lords Amendment: No. 154, page 71, line 13, leave out "arrangement" and insert "arrangements".

Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenient also to discuss Amendments Nos. 155 and 156.

These are drafting Amendments. Everywhere else in the Clause we referred to "arrangements" but in these cases the word "arrangement" was used. We might as well be consistent throughout the Clause.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Although these are purely drafting Amendments, it is right that I should utter the warning that many local authorities are still unhappy about the agency arrangements for which the Clause provides. Therefore, we shall take the opportunity, on later Amendments, of raising specific cases which illustrate the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 157, in page 72, line 28, leave out paragraph (c) and insert: (c) sections 2 and 3 of the Police Act 1964 (police committees).

Mr. Carlisle

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It will perhaps be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 159, after Clause 105, in page 75, line 44, at end insert new Clause B:

Application of foregoing provisions to police authorities.

  1. B.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—
  2. (a) sections 100 to 102 and 105 above shall apply to a police authority other than tie Secretary of State as they apply to a local authority;
  3. (b) sections 103 and 104 above shall apply both to a police authority and a committee of any such authority or authorities as they apply to a committee of a local authority or authorities;

  1. and in their application to the Common Council as police authority those sections shall have effect subject to those provisions.
  2. (2) A police authority may not arrange for the discharge of their functions by another police authority, and section 100(1)(b) and (3) above shall not apply to a police authority.
  3. (3) The officers who may discharge the functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 100(1), 12) or (5) above shall include the chief officer of police, his deputy while performing his duties and any civilian officer employed for the purposes of the police authority or one of the police authorities.
  4. (4) A police authority may not arrange under section 100 above for the discharge of their functions by a committee or officer as respects part only of their area.
  5. (5) Section 100(10) above shall not apply to a police authority.
  6. (6) Any committee appointed under section 101 above for discharging the functions of one or more police authorities (including any subcommittee) shall consist only of members of the appointing authority or authorities and section 101(3) above shall not apply to committees of police authorities.
  7. (7) Section 102 above, in its application to a joint committee of police authorities, shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted the words "by the Secretary of State".
    8. 1048
  8. (8) A person shall not be disqualified by virtue of section 103 above for being a member of a police authority or the committee (or any sub-committee) of any such authority or authorities by virtue of his holding any office or employment, except employment for the purposes of the police authority or one of the police authorities.
  9. (9) Section 105 above shall not authorise any county council to make standing orders with respect to the quorum, proceedings or place of meeting of a police authority.
  10. (10) For the purposes of this section the following persons shall be treated as employed for the purposes of a police authority, that is to say—

  1. (a) any person employed under section 10 of the Police Act 1964 for police purposes of the police authority's area; and also
  2. (b) in the case of a combined police authority, any person whose services are made available for the use of that authority in pursuance of section 4(5) of that Act."

Amendment No. 157 is a drafting Amendment. The more important Amendment is No. 159, which introduces a new Clause. The effect of the new Clause is to apply Clauses 100 to 105 to police authorities. Those Clauses provide for power to be given to local authorities to delegate the discharge of their functions. The new Clause, by applying those provisions to police authorities, gives police authorities the power also to delegate their functions. At the moment there is a limited power to combined police authorities to delegate functions. There are no powers for a county policy authority to delegate its functions.

The new Clause is long—it has 10 subsections—because it is necessary not only to provide the power to delegate but to adapt the provisions of Clauses 100 to 105 to make them appropriate for police authorities. Some of the powers of delegation available to local authorities will not be suitable for a police authority whose statutory responsibilities are separate from those of a local authority. The County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations have been consulted and they support what is proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

It was difficult to catch the sentence in which the Minister of State referred to the question of consultation. I take it that he did not refer to any consultation with the Police Federation?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

No. I said that the proposal had the approval of the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. This provision deals only with the police authority and the committee of magistrates or local councillors and relates to the delegation of powers by that committee to subcommittees. It is in no way affects the day-to-day running of the police force by the chief constable.

Subsection (1) of the new Clause merely provides that the powers to delegate should apply to police authorities. Subsection (2) makes it clear that a police authority may not arrange to delegate its functions to another police authority or to another local authority, because Section 4(1) of the Police Act makes each police authority responsible for maintaining an adequate and efficient police force for its area and that responsibility cannot properly be delegated to a police authority for another area. If it appears to two conjoining police authorities that they wish to police their areas as one, they should submit to the Secretary of State for his approval in the normal way a scheme for the amalgamation of those forces. The effect of the subsection is to provide that one police authority cannot arrange for the whole of its functions to be delegated to another police authority.

Subsection (4) provides that a police authority may not arrange … for the discharge of their functions by a committee…as respects part only of their area". Under Clause 100 a local authority can set up a committee with responsibilities limited to a geographical area. The purpose of this provision is to prevent—and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) will appreciate this point—a county from hiving off part of the county and saying that it will be policed by a police authority in another area.

I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who I know is concerned about this matter, that police authorities will have the benefit of Clause 101(1)(b) which will enable them to appoint joint committees. We have particularly in mind the possibility that they will want to appoint joint committees for such matters as planning and the policing of motorways. Subsection (4) of the new Clause in no way prevents collaboration between police authorities for the joint provision of premises, equipment or other material of facilities". Such collaboration is specifically provided for in Section 13(2) of the Police Act, 1964, which provides: If it appears to any two or more police authorities that any premises, equipment or other material or facilities can with advantage be provided jointly for the police forces maintained by those authorities, they may make an agreement for that purpose". All that subsection (4) does is to prevent an area committee from discharging police authority functions in that particular area. There is nothing to stop a police authority setting up a committee or a joint committee with other police authorities to plan for and to advise on communications or buildings for an area. What a police authority cannot do is to delegate to an area committee the actual discharge of its functions in a particular geographical area. I should say to the hon. Gentleman, since I know that this is a point which he wants me specifically to deal with, that there is nothing in the new Clause which would prevent the use by two or more of the new police authorities of the facilities of an existing authority, and nothing to prevent the facilities of a new police authority from being used over the part of the area of another police authority.

Those are probably the major subsections, but perhaps I could just say that subsection (3) defines the officers to whom the functions of a police authority may be delegated. The local authority has power to delegate to its police officers and subsection (3) provides who those officers shall be.

Subsection (5) deletes Clause 100(10) which would have prevented delegation by a specialist committee of its powers. A police authority is such a committee.

Subsection (6) makes it clear that the statutory functions of a police authority can be discharged only by members of the authority. In other words, it will ensure that any committee, either of one police authority or made up from members of more than one police authority, will have to consist wholly of members of the appointing authority although it does not prevent the police authority from including non-members on purely advisory committees.

Subsection (7) provides for payments to be apportioned between the authorities concerned on any joint committee.

I do not think there is anything further I need refer to in the new Clause. As I say, basically it provides a power, which is felt to be useful and which has not existed before, for a police authority to delegate its work to other committees; it does that by giving it similar powers as local authorities have. It amends certain particulars which have to be adapted to make them appropriate to the work of police authorities.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

The House is indebted to the Minister of State for his customary courtesy in describing this Clause, which is quite a new Clause introduced by another place, and for explaining it in detail and going through it subsection by subsection, because it is a most important Clause, particularly for the police.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman stressed at the outset of his remarks, this is a Clause which gives provision to police authorities to use agency powers under Clauses 100 to 105 of the Bill. That may have been the intention originally, and I will acept that, but there are two subsections of the new Clause which effectively bolt the door on any effective agency agreements. I refer to subsections (2) and (4) and it is those with which we on this side of the House are concerned.

Subsection (2) states that A police authority may not arrange for the discharge of their functions by another police authority, and section 100(1)(b) and (3) above shall not apply to a police authority. That subsection does not say, as the Minister of State said, "the whole of their functions"—of a police authority" to another police authority". It says "their functions". The first question, therefore, is whether that really means the whole of the police authority's functions. If so, why does it not say so? Or does it mean the whole or any part of the functions? That would be a much more serious matter.

Subsection (4), to which the Minister of State rightly drew attention, is another bolting of the door, so far as I can see, on co-operation between police authorities, because that states: A police authority may not arrange under section 100 above for the discharge of their functions by a committee or officer as respects part only of their area. These two subsections refer to precisely the sort of co-operation that police authorities will seek to have between themselves and, so far from opening the door to agency arrangements under Clauses 100 to 105, this is a closing of the door to any arrangements between them.

As the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend and the whole House know, there have been long debates in this House on the police. This Clause shows what many of us have been saying for a long time: that police powers and functions are not strictly speaking a local government function and, therefore, ought not to have been disturbed in the way they have by the Bill. The hybrid nature of this Clause in providing different laws for police authorities and for other local authorities is ample evidence of what we on this side have been saying for a long time. We have been concerned, and hon. Members on the Government side have been concerned, and police forces throughout the country, and particularly police officers, have been concerned, about the very disruptive effects which the Bill is having and will have on police authorities and police manpower.

I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government have gone some way to alleviate some of the fears by a concession which I greatly appreciate, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me last Thursday in reply to a Question of mine, that Rule 23 will apply to amalgamations or to the breaking up of police areas just as it does to the breaking up of boroughs at the present time.

For many months officers of all ranks, particularly sergeants and chief constables, have been concerned with the problem of manpower. In Lancashire in particular, the police force is very concerned about what the Government are doing, in effect breaking up into six parts what I and many hon. Members consider to be the most effective and the most efficient police force in the country. I want in particular to look at the effects of the new Clause in the area I know best and the police authority I know best, that of Lancashire.

It may be that the police authority, and let us take Lancashire as an example, may decide—it is its decision, not the decision of this House—for the best and most efficient policing of the area that it would be appropriate, at least for a transitional period, immediately after 1974, for a part of its area to be given over completely to be policed by another force. I can see that sort of thing happening in many parts of the country. It may not be a permanent arrangement, not an arrangement for all time, but, when the Bill comes into force, for a transitional length of time.

It could be, for instance—I am not saying that this would happen—that Cumbria, which is quite a small force, might well decide that for a period of time it would be for the most efficient policing of the area if that part of Lancashire which will go into Cumbria were to be administered and policed by the Lancashire force. Why should it not make that decision if it is for the best policing of the area? Subsection (4) debars it from doing so. Cheshire police authority might decide that that part of Lancashire which comes into Cheshire would be best administered by the Merseyside police. I am not saying that it would make that decision, but subsection (4) debars it from making such a decision. This argument could apply to areas all over the country.

I think it quite wrong for this House or another place to lay it down to police authorities that agency arrangements which apply, particularly over the transitional period, to other aspects of local government shall not apply to police authorities.

The Minister of State referred to "the whole of their functions", but I wish that the Clause itself mentioned the whole of their functions rather than "their functions". The phrase "their functions" could include the whole or part of them.

Although the Minister of State said that joint committees could be set up to deal with motorways, communications and so on between various police authorities and that neighbouring police authorities could use one another's facilities, it might be assumed from subsection (2) that that could not happen. It would be mon- strous if police authorities could not enter into arrangements for the better and more efficient policing of their areas.

6.30 p.m.

During the Summer Recess I took the opportunity to visit the police headquarters at Hutton in Lancashire, where I saw the tremendous work being carried out by the Lancashire police force. Indeed, I believe that the Minister of State paid a visit to that headquarters two days before me. I also heard comments by, and sensed the bitterness of, people who, having built up a supreme force, were facing the prospect of that force being divided six ways—for what, to them, was no apparent reason.

When I was at Hutton I saw the communications room, a large part of which was concerned with motorways. The motorways, mainly the M6, are patrolled in the main by Cheshire and Lancashire and some will be patrolled by Cumberland and Westmorland forces. In future it looks as though the motorways will be patrolled by Cheshire, Lancashire, greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cumbria. The communications room at Hutton takes into its ambit the whole of the motorway. Will this enormous communications channel be broken up and divided among other constituent authorities? It will be quite wrong for this to happen because it will needlessly destroy an excellent organisation.

At Hutton I saw the criminal records department in which Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire at present combine their operations. With the advent of large computers, I should like to see even larger areas combining in this work —areas such as Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside, greater Manchester and others. This is essential because criminals do not operate within any given police area; they have a habit of crossing police boundaries—boundaries which they do not recognise at all except in their own advantage. I saw the tremendous advances in photographic work which had been achieved at Hutton. It is the only police force which produces colour photographs for the courts, and they are accepted by the courts. There is an extremely competent staff in the photographic laboratory and they are proud of the work they do. That work will be broken up when this organisation is split between Liverpool, Merseyside, Cumbria, Cheshire and Lancashire. Cannot the authorities combine in this activity and continue the work instead of each area having its own inferior photographic laboratory?

I also visited the training school for Lancashire police. Last week I was told by the Minister of State that the training schools were run by the Home Office, but I would tell him that this training school was run by Lancashire for Lancashire police officers. It would be an admirable training school if it were used for Lancashire, Merseyside, Cumbria and Manchester and if all the facilities were run together. Under subsection (2) of the Clause, will that activity be a function or part of the function of another police authority which it will be debarred from carrying out?

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Member must not be unduly alarmist. The new Clause in no way affects the power already contained in Section 13(2) of the Police Act, 1964, that If it appears to any two or more police authorities that any premises, equipment or other material or facilities can with advantage be provided jointly for the police forces maintained by those authorities, they may make an agreement for that purpose. I visited the training college of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken the day before he did and I addressed a training course there. That course included officers not only of Lancashire but from other forces. There is no power for police authorities to delegate their functions within their areas, but they can make arrangements to send officers to other forces. The provision gives power to individual police authorities to work through committees.

Mr. Oakes

That is the position at the moment. I am looking at the effect of subsection (2) of the Clause. The fear is that the wording could be construed to prevent that sort of agreement under the Police Act being carried out in future. This involves the right of a police authority to say that, at least for the time being, it would be advisable for its area to be policed by another police authority until the magic date of 1974 has passed and until it has sufficient resources to combine. The police authorities should not be rushed into making a decision. Indeed, the police authorities feel badly treated by the Bill. They feel that policemen's arms are being twisted behind their backs by this legislation. I am seeking to prevent a situation in which the new Clause will "put the boot in" against policemen as well as twist their arms up their backs.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I shall be brief. I have a personal interest in the Amendments since I am Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), I readily acknowledge the unfailing courtesy of the Minister of State in explaining his case. I believe that the Minister's policy is profoundly mistaken and flies in the face of operational efficiency, perhaps even more so now than when we first discussed police reorganisation on Report.

It is much to the credit of the Police Federation that its case against the Government's policy was argued mainly on grounds of operational efficiency. There are other important implications, not least in matters of welfare and other matters of direct concern to police personnel.

I appreciate that in recent days the Government have made a statement about Regulation 23. It may be that the Minister of State will feel that he should now say more about the questions of welfare in the police service. This problem, coupled with the urgent and serious question of police pay, makes current relations between police officers and their employers extremely sensitive. Many police officers feel that they are being unnecessarily pushed around. They are asking why they should always be left out of meaningful consultations. I am sure the Minister of State would agree that there was no attempt at meaningful consultation with the federation before this reorganisation was announced.

Mr. Carlisle

The hon. Gentleman is now raising matters of police pay and reorganisation which, with respect, have nothing to do with this Amendment. However, I should like to repeat that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), when Home Secretary, saw the Police Federation on two separate occasions on the matter of reorganisation. We have debated this matter on previous occasions, and suffice it to say that we did not accept the federation's argument for a regional police force. The Government decided, against the views of the federation, that the police force should remain a local force. It does not do the Police Federation's case any good for the hon. Gentleman to say that there was no consultation. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary saw that body on two occasions to discuss that specific issue. I concede that the Government came out against it, but it is wrong to say that there were no talks.

On the question of amalgamation, does the hon. Gentleman feel that, the decision having been taken, it is not more important now to do what the Police Federation is doing—that is to say, to discuss the detailed carrying out of the policy, which it now accepts, rather than to rake over the whole ground again as to whether we were wise to retain the police forces on a local basis?

Mr. Alfred Morris

What I said was that there was no meaningful consultation with the Police Federation before the Government announced their policy. After they had announced their policy, they resisted all the representations made by the federation.

The Minister of State must accept that there was serious disquiet at this year's annual conference of the federation. His right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was at the conference and heard the serious misgivings of officers of the federation about the proposed reorganisation. The Minister of State may feel that there was consultation, but I for my part say that it was consultation after the event and after the Government had made up their mind. Some members of the Government say to employers in general that they should try to consult employees before decisions are taken. It seems to me that one hand of the Government does not know what the other hand is doing. The Police Federation feels that it was not consulted before the Government made up their mind to pursue this policy. Police officers feel very strongly that they are being needlessly pushed around.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will be making a great mistake if he fails to understand the strength of feeling among over 100,000 policemen on the question of reorganisation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring his remarks back to the Amendment, which is much narrower than his present theme.

Mr. Morris

With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to answer the intervention made by the Minister of State.

This Amendment provides an opportunity for the House to recognise that there is widespread disquiet in the police service about the reorganisation. I hope that at the end of the debate right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will acknowledge this disquiet.

Mr. Michael Cocks

Lancashire and Bristol not only have a common problem of chief rents or rent charges but also a problem of police reorganisation. Subsection (4) of the Clause, Lord Champion pointed out in another place, effectively and firmly closes the door against the retention of existing authorities. I must place on record the deep disquiet in the Bristol area over this situation.

The Minister said on Report that it was necessary for the new authorities to be coterminous with the new county councils when formed. This creates a problem for us, because we have urban experience in Bristol and there is rural experience in the remainder of Avon. We have had fairly firm assurances from the Government that fairly soon metropolitan status will be considered. Therefore, while we welcome the statements about Regulation 23, there is still worry in the Bristol force that promotion will go to those who are prepared to move and that people with urban experience who want to stay in an urban setting, and who would be ideal officer material for that metropolitan setting, will suffer as a result of their independence and their desire to stay in Bristol.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle

With the leave of the House, may I first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and repeat that with regard to training, for example, what the Clause would not allow is one authority to delegate the whole of its responsibilities for training to another authority. It certainly would not prevent it from setting up a joint committee on which it was represented for the purpose of making use of the facilities for training. We are providing new powers for a local police authority to send people to another county for training purposes.

What the Clause does is to prevent a police authority saying "Although Parliament has passed an Act which provides for new boundaries of police forces, we shall delegate the functions for policing this area to the old police force". That is what the hon. Gentleman basically wants to do, and that is prevented. If we gave merely the power to delegate without preventing that, it would mean that police authorities, without any consultation with the Secretary of State, could create entirely their own amalgamations, and in the final analysis could presumably create a national police force. Under the hon. Gentleman's argument they could do so, whereas it has always been accepted that the boundaries of police authorities and the type of policing are a matter for this House.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that he fought a great battle on police reorganisation but lost. All that the Lords Amendment does is to provide additional flexibility to police authorities, but it has provisos which prevent them from trying to defeat the new boundary proposals which the House accepted. If the hon. Gentleman accepts, as I am sure he does, the decision taken in both Houses on that matter, he will agree that the Amendment merely adds flexibility to police authorities.

To the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), as a person for whom I have great respect in all our dealings, I repeat that it is a little unfair to take the opportunity of the Amendment to try to launch an attack on the Government for their decision about reorganisation of the police force. I am sure he will concede that I have never tried to minimise the disquiet that I knew was felt by individual officers in individual areas. It is for that reason that, having taken the decision, we immediately went into consultation with the Police Federation about such things as Regulation 23. As I tried to point out on Report, however, the Government decided that the police were to remain linked to local authorities and, therefore, that their boundaries should be coterminous with the new counties. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that decision, but it is unfair to suggest that we took it regardless of the police. We did not. We have been very conscious that it was not a popular decision with individual policemen in the areas concerned, for the various reasons expressed then. We have tried to meet as far as we could what we considered to be their legitimate complaints.

The hon. Member for Widnes talks about the bitterness of the Lancashire force. I realise that police officers there are distressed at its being divided up. The hon. Gentleman has probably pointed out to many of the senior officers to whom he has spoken, as I did, that as recently as 1967 many of the individual forces were complaining bitterly about the creation of the Lancashire force, their departure from which they now bitterly regret. Many of them accept, and I think many other people would accept, that the appropriate amalgamation of police forces at that stage was probably very nearly the one now reached—a force based on Lancashire and forces based on the metropolis of Manchester and the metropolis of Liverpool.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I had no intention of being unfair, and I acknowledge the hon. and learned Gentleman's unfailing courtesy. But my recollection of the Minister when he was in opposition is that he used every opportunity to express his viewpoint in parliamentary debates, and he will accept that I must be allowed the same freedom.

Mr. Carlisle

I accept that the hon. Gentleman will of course state his viewpoints at every opportunity. I was really only saying that if I tried to answer in full I suspected that I might be told by the Chair that what I was saying went rather wide of the Amendments, and I hope that it would not be thought by members of the Police Federation that I in any way accepted the hon. Gentleman's strictures by my inability to answer them in full.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

I agree with Opposition Members about the enormous disquiet felt among police forces. It is all very well for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to say that he hopes we will not rake over the past, but in Committee the matter led to perhaps the most contentious Division we had. It was only on the casting vote of the Chairman that the Government won the day. I hoped that the Government would have second thoughts when the matter was discussed in another place. They did not, and I think that the new Clause is more intransigent than the previous provision. There is such a thing as consistency. I voted against the Government in Committee and on Report, and I must do so again tonight.

Mr. Oakes

With the leave of the House, may I say that I welcome some of the Minister's arguments in reply to mine. There remains, however, the fact that under subsection (2) police authorities cannot, even though it is in the

interests of police efficiency, enter into an arrangement with another police authority for part of their area. I wish them to have this power, not to defeat Parliament but so that at least they shall have transitional provisions to allow them to get on with the job that they know best how to do.

For those reasons, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on the matter.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 144.

Division No. 349.] AYES [6.55 p.m.
Adley, Robert Green, Alan Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Atkins, Humphrey Gummer, J. Selwyn Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel Gurden, Harold Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hall, John (Wycombe) Parkinson, Cecil
Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord Hall-Davis A. G. F. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Batsford, Brian Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hannam, John (Exeter) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Benyon, W. Hastings, Stephen Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hawkins, Paul Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Biggs-Davison, John Hayhoe, Barney Redmond, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hiley, Joseph Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Body, Richard Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Rees, Peter (Dover)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Holt, Miss Mary Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bossom, Sir Clive Hordern, Peter Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bowden, Andrew Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Bray, Ronald Hunt, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Brewis, John James, David Rost, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Russell, Sir Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul Jessel, Toby St. John-Stevas, Norman
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Jopling, Michael Scott, Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chapman, Sydney King, Tom (Bridgwater) Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Kinsey, J. R. Skeet, T. H. H.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kirk, Peter Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Clegg, Walter Knight, Mrs. Jill Soref, Harold
Cockeram, Eric Knox, David Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert Lamont, Norman Spence, John
Cordle, John Lane, David Sproat, Iain
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Le Merchant, Spencer Stanbrook, Ivor
Costain, A. P. MacArthur, Ian Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Crouch, David McLaren, Martin Stokes, John
Davies, Rt. Hn John (Knutsford) McNair-Wilson, Michael Sutcliffe, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Dykes, Hugh Maddan, Martin Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Madel, David Tebbit, Norman
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tl[...]-upon-Tyne,N.) Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fell, Anthony Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Meyer, Sir Anthony Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Fidler, Michael Miscampbell, Norman Tugendhat, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fookes, Miss Janet Moate, Roger Ward, Dame Irene
Fortescue, Tim Monks, Mrs. Connie Wiggin, Jerry
Fowler, Norman Monro, Hector Winterton, Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) More, Jasper Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Goodhew, Victor Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Younger, Hn. George
Gorst, John Morrison, Charles
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Murton, Oscar TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gray, Hamish Normanton, Tom Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Mr. Marcus Fox.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Allen, Scholefield Hardy, Peter Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Murray, Ronald King
Atkinson, Norman Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Oakes, Gordon
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Heffer, Eric S. O'Malley, Brian
Bidwell, Sydney Horam, John Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Bishop, E. S. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Orme, Stanley
Blenkinsop, Arthur Huckfield, Leslie Oswald, Thomas
Broughton, Sir Alfred Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Padley, Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Paget, R. T.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Palmer, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, Adam Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Janner, Greville Parker, John (Dagenham)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pentland, Norman
Carmichael, Neil Jeger, Mrs. Lena Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Prescott, John
Cohen, Stanley John, Brynmor Rhodes, Geoffrey
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Kaufman, Gerald Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dalyell, Tam Kelley, Richard Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Davidson, Arthur Kerr, Russell Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lambie, David Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lamborn, Harry Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Latham, Arthur Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Lawson, George Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Deakins, Eric Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silverman, Julius
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Skinner, Dennis
Dempsey, James Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Dormand, J. D. Lomas, Kenneth Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Duffy, A. E. P. Loughlin, Charles Strang, Gavin
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Swain, Thomas
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McBride, Neil Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Evans, Fred McCartney, Hugh Tinn, James
Ewing, Harry Mackenzie, Gregor Torney, Tom
Faulds, Andrew Maclennan, Robert Tuck, Raphael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin Wainwright, Edwin
Foot, Michael Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ford, Ben Marks, Kenneth Wallace, George
Forrester, John Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Watkins, David
Freeson, Reginald Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Weitzman, David
Gilbert, Dr. John Mendelson, John Wellbeloved, James
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Millan, Bruce White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Golding, John Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Gourlay, Harry Milne, Edward Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Woof, Robert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Montgomery, Fergus TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.