HC Deb 24 October 1972 vol 843 cc1097-111

Lords Amendment: No. 161, after Clause 108, in page 76, line 24, insert new Clause C:

  1. "C.—(1) Where it appears to a district council that the county council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions as respects a period beginning with 1st April 1974, but the latter are unwilling to enter into the arrangements or the two councils are unable to agree on the terms of the arrangements, the district council may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction under subsection (3) below.
  2. (2) Where it appears to a county council that a district council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions as respects a period beginning with 1st April 1974, but the latter are unwilling to enter into the arrangements or the two councils are unable to agree on the terms of the arrangements, the county council may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction under subsection (3) below.
  3. (3) On an application under subsection (1) or (2) above the appropriate Minister—
    1. (a) may, if he considers it desirable for the efficient discharge of the relevant functions, or of other functions of either or both of the councils concerned, direct the county council and the district council concerned to enter into any arrangements for the discharge by one of them of specified functions of the other; and
    2. (b) whether or not he gives a direction under paragraph (a) above, may direct that any such arrangements shall contain terms on lines laid down by him.
  4. (4) A direction under subsection (3) above shall not be given after 31st March 1974 and shall, subject to subsection (5) below, remain in force for a period specified in the direction ending before 1st April 1979, but the expiry of any such direction shall not of itself end the arrangements to which it relates.
  5. (5) While a direction under subsection (3) above is in force, the parties to the arrangements to which it relates may by agreement vary or end the arrangements or in default of agreement either of them may apply to the appropriate Minister for a direction to vary or end the arrangements, and the appropriate Minister may, if he considers it desirable for the efficient, discharge of the relevant functions, or of other functions of either or both of the councils concerned, direct the parties to vary the arrangements on lines laid down by him or to end the arrangements."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out subsection (4).

That subsection in effect limits the time when agency agreements may be submitted to the Secretary of State, where there is agreement between a county council and a district council, and it appears that direction shall not be given after 31st March, 1974. All the local authority associations are most concerned about this provision—the AMC, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association—and for a number of reasons.

First of all, many of these agency agreements are being entered into or being discussed at the moment, but we have only a matter of months, till 1st April, 1974, for the actual agreements, to be entered into. Far more important is this fact, that after 1st April, 1974, the Boundary Commission will effectively alter many of the areas involved in the present agency agreements. It seems quite wrong that this curtailment and this limitation to 31st March, 1974, should exist in the Bill.

So there are two reasons for opposition to subsection (4). One is that it is unduly rushing things at this time, and the second is that even after 1st April, 1974, and changes proposed by the Boundary Commission, it may be necessary for agency agreements to be entered into between district and county councils, either one way or the other. The Secretary of State himself made it very clear to the House that agency agreements should work two ways. It is assumed—and very often it will be the case—that if any application is made to the Secretary of State it will be a district council applying to the Secretary of State for a direction because of a greedy county council which is taking all the work unto itself and neglecting agency with a district council.

In many instances the situation could be the other way round. Where a county council considers that it can do the job better than a district council, it could apply to the Secretary of State for a direction. After 1st April, 1974, there will be many boundary changes and it will be valuable for agency agreements still to exist or to be arranged. Where there are difficulties between district and county councils the Secretary of State should be empowered to intervene to deal with difficulties between the two parties and to issue a direction.

Hon. Members on this side of the House, and also, I understand, the local authority associations, welcome the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce the concept which lies behind the new Clause, namely that he should intervene between district and county council where there is an impasse so that there is some form of appeal in the case of complete disagreement. However, subsection (4) of the Clause unduly limits the situation to a date, 1st April, 1974—a date that is so near at hand that many authorities, even in the period from today until that date, will still not have resolved the position whether they wish to put an agency agreement to the Minister.

I do not know whether the Government are aware of the extreme confusion which exists at present between district councils and county councils on the old question of who does what. If this were purely a matter of the rights, powers and privileges of councillors, it would not matter a great deal. But the issue is much more important than that. It involves the question of who is to do a job, where a person is to be employed, whether somebody will lose his present employment, and whether he and his family will have to move to another location. All these factors tend to add to the considerable confusion which now exists between the counties and districts.

Authorities are working hard at the problem and joint consultative committees are already trying to thrash out these matters and many have not reached any agreement. It may be that they will not reach any firm agreement for some time. Therefore, we must set some deadline or time limit, otherwise there may be a possibility that districts and county councils, even after the new local government structure is created, will still disagree and still need to go to the Secretary of State to ask for a direction. I do not think that will happen, but under subsection (4) there is a danger that some authorities will not have got themselves in a position to apply for a direction.

Even more important, some authorities will find that, as a result of the effects of the Boundary Commission's proposals, between 1974 and 1977 whole areas of their districts or counties, in the interests of good local government, will be moved from one area to another. Therefore, it is essential that agency agreements be entered into since any greediness on the part of either district councils or county councils could be disastrous for local government.

The situation would not be so hopeless if the subsection were to be deleted. It is possible that some future Government could discontinue the arrangement. If the Secretary of State considered that the situation had gone on long enough, he could introduce legislation to put a stop to it. However, it is now too early to lay down a deadline of 1st April, 1974. Although the provision is a good one—and we congratulate the Government and the other place on including it in the Bill—we feel that this subsection could quite easily be deleted. It would do no harm if it were omitted, because subsequent legislation could be brought in to deal with it. It would do harm to retain it, because it limits the Secretary of State in deciding on any directions.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

It might be convenient if I intervene at this stage. I assume that I may address my remarks not only to the Amendments, but to the substance of the Clause, and then perhaps I need not speak again.

It is well known to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave certain undertakings on Report to meet the very proper representations that we had received on the agency arrangements under Clause 100 and that it was necessary to provide some machinery to reach finality on negotiations.

There are various ways in which local authorities can join together in carrying out their functions. A number of these ways involve the setting up of joint committees, joint purchase of materials, and the carrying out of common services under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act, 1970. Among the flexible arrangements permitted in Clause 100 is the possibility that one authority may make arrangements for the discharge of any of those functions by any other authority. There are a great many circumstances in which it would be convenient and economical for one authority to act as the agent of another either on a particular occasion or on a continuing basis.

But we still wish to retain a certainty in the carrying-out of the functions given to the authorities under the Act. If an authority is to act as a continuing agent for another, the arrangement will of course have repercussions on the staffing requirements and management structure of both the principal and the agent authorities. We think it is essential that the staff should not be left in doubt as to the functions to be carried out by their employing authority, and that the employing authority should work out its management structure at the earliest possible stage.

The provisions of the Bill will mean that the statutory responsibility for certain functions will be moved from one level of authority to another. There will be that movement of functions from the position as we know it today. In some cases it will be from district to county and in others from county to district. It may be sensible for the district authority, if it is the district which is surrendering certain functions, to continue to exercise particular functions for which it already has the staff, the experienced team. In other cases this may work in the opposite direction; specialised professional teams may be employed at county level, and it would be appropriate for them to be kept intact and for the county to undertake functions as agent of the district to which the Bill gives those functions. I do not want to attempt any precise, comprehensive catalogue of the circumstances in which one authority may act as agent for another.

The point which emerges very clearly is that where agency arrangements are to operate from 1st April, 1974 it is of the utmost importance that they should be finalised as soon as possible so that each authority can make its plans. In particular, the officers and staff should know clearly what the authority by which they will be employed after reorganisation will undertake, what sort of staff it will require and what sort of management structure it will require.

The new Clause arises from discussions on Report. Although the Clause appears to the House in detail only on the Lords Amendments, I think that it was fairly fully explained at that stage. First, the interested Government Departments—my own Department and those concerned—will draw up some guidance or advice on the circumstances in which agency arrangements might be appropriate. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) was exaggerating a little in saying that there was confusion at present. Of course, there is uncertainty, and we hope that we can dispel it by issuing guidance as soon as possible when the Bill receives Royal Assent and we know its exact contents. Not only will the guidance be on the circumstances under which arrangements might conveniently be made—those circumstances will include and be influenced by the existing teams of staff and officers, of specialised staff particularly—but we shall try to assist in saying what sort of agreements might be entered into. I hope that this will provide a useful framework within which the joint committees of existing authorities can discuss possibilities and within which the new authorities can reach quick, final agreements as soon as possible after they have been elected in the spring of 1973. We do not want to wait for the working out of these agreements until the authorities are elected. There are already the joint committees working, and there is no reason why they should not go a long way in the next few months before the spring of 1973 in working out those arrangements.

Then we come to the point that we should guard against the possibility that in some instances such voluntary arrangements will not be reached. For such cases—and I hope that they will be very few and far between—the new Clause provides the machinery under which an authority can apply to the appropriate Minister—not always my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the appropriate Minister for the function concerned—for a direction. Such a direction could settle not only whether the agency arrangement should be entered into but also, if necessary, the terms and extent of that arrangement. I hope that this appeals machinery will be used only as a last resort. It is very much better that authorities should come to agreement between themselves. The last thing we want to do is to ask the Secretary of State to act as arbitrator. Therefore, our guidance to authorities in the early stages will be guidance to enable them to reach agreement between themselves, and we shall not encourage appeals to the Secretary of State.

The appeals machinery relates only to agency arrangements which will operate from April, 1974. It is essentially a device to promote the efficient changeover to the new system. It is not a permanent feature of our local government reorganisation that there should be an appeal to the Secretary of State whenever two authorities cannot agree. In the long term, agency arrangements should be a matter for voluntary agreement between the authorities. So we have limited it to the extent that the Secretary of State will only act as arbitrator in arrangements reached which are to start from April, 1974. However, arrangements which operate when the new authorities take over their full functions in 1974 should be designed to continue with certainty for a few years so that the new authorities and their officers can settle down without the prospect of further change just round the corner. In voluntary arrangements between authorities I should expect this point to be covered by agreement that the arrangement should last for a certain period of years. However, if they have to appeal to the Secretary of State for a direction, then the direction, having set out the agency arrangement between the authorities, will state that it is not to be altered for up to five years except by a fresh direction.

Thus the appeal machinery will be a purely transitional arrangement which will apply only to arrangements made to start in April, 1974, so as to give them some permanency so that the staff and the authorities concerned can go ahead with the new job under reorganisation.

The Amendment, which seeks to remove subsection (4), would mean that there would be a permanent right of appeal to Ministers from either county councils or district councils regarding whether these agency arrangements should operate, and, if so, on what terms. I should think that this is wholly contrary to the spirit not only of the Bill, but of Clause 100 which seeks to have voluntary arrangements between the local authorities concerned.

I appreciate that the view put forward by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is shared by some of the local authority associations. However, when the associations are constantly complaining both to myself and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there ought to be less intervention by central Government, that they should be allowed to get on with the job without central Government intervening, I find it rather astonishing that they should be pressing for a permanent power of veto and direction in the hands of Ministers covering the relationship between one local authority and another over the complete range of executive authorities and in relation to most of the functions.

Mr. Oakes

If the subsection were left out and the Secretary of State thought that something had gone on too long and was dissatisfied, he need not make a direction. Why are the Government tying his hands behind his back? There may be an exceptional case when he would want to make a direction.

Mr. Page

We do not want to leave the local authorities in any doubt about any change in the functions which they arrange between themselves. We want to reach finality at this stage so that the staff and elected members know what functions each authority will carry out. If we leave it wide open for them to come to the Secretary of State, we shall reach no finality on the matter.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I am particularly concerned with and interested in this area. Why does the Minister feel that this is a purely temporary matter? Are not new issues bound to arise continually? It is endemic in the whole nature of the setup of the different levels of authority. This is the strongly held feeling in planning circles. Will not the Secretary of State require the power for that reason?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Page

This is just the power that we do not want—a sort of Big Brother attitude by the Secretary of State, a power of veto over what the local authorities may wish to arrange between themselves. The Bill states the functions which each local authority shall carry out. If they wish to arrange between themselves for this or that function to be carried out on an agency arrangement by one or the other, it is for them to arrange that between themselves.

At the outset, there is a necessity for some arbitration, because at the outset we are taking over staffs from the existing local authorities into new local authorities—with different functions, if they carry out the functions as set out in the Bill.

What we want is for the new local authorities to make the best of the existing local authority staffs, but it will not be necessary in future for them to be directed by the Secretary of State as to how they should manage their affairs. It is only at the commencement of this reorganisation that it is necessary for someone to come in as arbitrator.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

The Minister says that he does not want a Big Brother attitude by the Secretary of State, but under the new Clause the Secretary of State would intervene only on application. My idea of a Big Brother is someone who intervenes willy-nilly, but here it will happen only where the council applies to the Secretary of State and says, "We have reached a deadlock; can you help us out?" They may even regret their application because he may come down on the other side. He may not be a Big Brother after all.

How does the Minister see a situation resolving itself in which the district council and the county council have genuinely come to a total deadlock, where they want some help—not a Big Brother, but just someone who can sort them out?

Mr. Page

They would have guidance and assistance from the Department and from my right hon. Friend under those circumstances—advice, but not direction at that stage. We wish to leave it to them to settle between themselves. It would not be in the spirit of the reorganisation of local government to have directions under these circumstances. We are always ready—no doubt the local authorities think that we are too ready at times—to give advice. I often think that we send out far too many circulars of advice. But on this, if they find themselves in a deadlock, we are always ready to give advice.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but where the advice is not sufficient to enable them to reach agreement and two local authorities ask the Minister to arbitrate, is he saying that he considers it unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have the power so to do?

Mr. Page

Yes, I do. This goes to the very basis of this reorganisation. The appeal machinery is necessary at the outset because we will be dealing with things which there exist—the management structure, the teams, the staff and so on. It would present difficulties if the local authorities did not have some arbitrator to decide where functions should go, having regard to the staffs being where they are. But after this transitional period, after they have got it settled, it would be fatal to the proper working of the local authorities to give them the opportunity to come to the Secretary of State to settle disputes if deadlock arises. I do not believe that they will. I believe that by reasonable arrangements between local authorities no such position will arise, but if it does we shall be willing to give advice if we are asked to do so.

Mr. Silkin

I hate to harass the right hon. Gentleman, but let us get it straight. He and I know, in our former professional capacities, that people who have a dispute can sue one another in court or they can go to arbitration. If they go to arbitration, it is a voluntary action in which they are saying "We have reached a deadlock. On our own initiative, we want someone to come in and help." To say that the Minister is always there, like Mr. Cheeryble, to give advice and guidance is very kind and attractive but it does not necessarily resolve the difficulty. It may be that a district council and a county council, faced with a deadlock, will want this difficulty to be definitely resolved. But it may be that they will not, and if they do not it may be that the Minister will not have to come into it. It will only come into issue where someone wants a decision.

Mr. Page

Let me take the two points which arise from what the right hon. Gentleman says. First, he asks us to create an entirely new power for the Secretary of State. At present, no Secretary of State has any power to tell local authorities to agree on how their functions should be carried out. This is not an agreement as between local authorities or an arrangement of their functions as between the two. This is a taking over by the Secretary of State himself. The Secretary of State has to act as Big Brother in such circumstances. That is something that I hope we shall not carry into other functions of local government.

I am being asked now to create an entirely new power, and it would surely be understood from our doing that that we had no confidence in the new authorities we are setting up—less confidence than we have in the existing authorities. If we do not have that power in relation to existing authorities we should not create new powers to govern the new authorities in that way.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that if two local authorities come to a deadlock and cannot decide, they go to the Secretary of State. If they go to him by voluntary agreement, they go voluntarily agreed to accept his decision, as they could accept the decision of the right hon. Gentleman as an arbitrator—

Mr. Silkin

The right hon. Gentleman has too much integrity to want to misinterpret what I am saying. I am saying that there may be a case in which there is a deadlock and one authority, not necessarily both authorities, wants to go to the Secretary of State and ask for his decision.

Mr. Page

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for leading him right up the garden path to the point of interruption and so on, because that is just the case we do not want to arise—the case of an authority approaching the Secretary of State in order to force its will on another local authority. This goes right to the root of things. If they come voluntarily and say "We want someone to decide this for us", that is voluntary agreement and they can go either to the Secretary of State or to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that I can carry the matter any further. I am perhaps tediously repeating myself. I hope that I have made the principle of the appeals machinery quite clear; that it is transitional, and that we hope that local authorities will, before April, 1974, settle exactly what functions shall be carried out by each local authority.

Mr. George Thomas

The Minister has failed to satisfy us of his awareness of this problem. I have listened to him for many years, both from this side and now from the Government Front Bench. I know him well enough to realise when he is skating on thin ice and making the most of a poor argument. I must say that I am getting the uneasy impression that on these 633 Amendments the Government intend to treat the Opposition with the same arrogance that they showed on the Common Market Amendments, and that they will oppose any Amendments proposed from this side because—and I understand their difficulties—of expediency. But if ever the merits of an argument ought to be taken into account, they should be taken into account on this issue. The Minister is quite right in saying that this aspect goes to the heart of the matter. That is why we are raising it now.

The Minister has put forward the view that if he keeps these powers which he wants until 1st April, 1974, and then keeps them until 2nd April, 1974, he will become Big Brother; he will somehow be imposing the will of the Government on an unwilling local authority. But my right hon. and hon. Friends by their interventions have already blown that argument sky high, because the Secretary of State, whether for the Environment or for Wales, will be called upon only if agreement between authorities is not possible and they wish the Department to declare upon the matter.

We believe that the Government are living in cloud-cuckoo land if they believe that agreement on these agencies will be completed by 1st April, 1974, and that there will be a rush to meet the deadline, which the Government have refused to postpone so as to give time for these agency arrangements to be made. They know that they are pushing on to the shadow authorities responsibilities almost impossible of fulfilment in 12 months. Yet the Minister says that he is not prepared to give to local authorities the advantage of the right of appeal to the Minister for decision after 1st April, 1974.

Everyone with knowledge and experience of local government will soon teach some of the new authorities that changes are desirable. Obviously some disagreements will arise between district councils and county councils as to what agencies should be entered into after 1st April, 1974. Concerned as I am and as we all are about servants in local government having a sense of security, that is not a basis on which decisions should be taken concerning the character of local government.

The Minister said that the staff have a right to know what will happen. The staff will be aware, and experience will prove, that there is a necessity for some changes to be taken. We agree that appeal to the Secretary of State should be a last resort and that we should not encourage appeals. None the less, we feel that we would be failing in our duty to local authorities if we did not listen to their judgment on this matter. This is the view not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself but that of the local authorities which are alarmed at the decision which the Government have taken.

It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister to tell local authorities that they do not know their business and that he knows better than they do. After all, he has created the deadline. He has created the two-tier system. He has decided on

a higgledy-piggledy arrangement of functions which is bound to cause great argument. Therefore, he should at least say to the local authority associations which are disturbed that he will meet them.

The Amendment is not a small one; it means much to local authorities. I hope that the Minister will not force us to go into the Lobby. However, we shall have no option but to go into the Lobby unless he is prepared to say that the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends and the local authorities have given him cause for second thoughts. The Government have swallowed a lot as a result of what happened in the other place. They have been standing on their heads on all sorts of issues but here all they are asked to do is to be reasonable, to remove the date and to say that this authority, this power, for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment shall continue as long as the local authorities want it.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 150.

Division No. 350.] AYES [9.15 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mackenzie, Gregor
Allen, Scholefield Golding, John Maclennan, Robert
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Gourlay, Harry McNamara, J. Kevin
Ashton, Joe Grant, George (Morpeth) Marks, Kenneth
Atkinson, Norman Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Bidwell Sydney Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Millan, Bruce
Bishop, E. S. Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hardy, Peter Milne, Edward
Broughton, Sir Alfred Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Heffer, Eric S. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Horam, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Huckfield, Leslie Murray, Ronald King
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oakes, Gordon
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Oswald, Thomas
Concannon, J. D. Hunter, Adam Paget, R. T.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Janner, Greville Palmer, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parker, John (Dagenham)
Dalyell, Tam Jeger, Mrs. Lena Pendry, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) John, Brynmor Pentland, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Kaufman, Gerald Prescott, John
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Kelley, Richard Probert, Arthur
Deakins, Eric Kerr Russell Rhodes, Geoffrey
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Kinnock, Neil Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dempsey, James Lambie, David Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Dormand, J. D. Lamborn, Harry Robertson, John (Paisley)
Duffy, A. E. P. Latham, Arthur Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Eadie, Alex Lawson, George Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Ewing, Harry Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Foot, Michael Lipton, Marcus Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Lomas, Kenneth Silverman, Julius
Ford, Ben Loughlin, Charles Skinner, Dennis
Forrester, John Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Freeson, R[...]ginald McBride, Neil Strang, Gavin
Gilbert, Dr. John McGuire, Michael Swain, Thomas
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Tinn, James Wallace, George Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Torney, Tom Watkins, David
Tuck, Raphael Weitzman, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Varley, Eric G. Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Wainwright, Edwin White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Adley, Robert Green, Alan Osborn, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Atkins, Humphrey Gurden, Harold Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel Hall, John (Wycombe) Parkinson, Cecil
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Percival, Ian
Ba[...]lel, Rt. Hn. Lord Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Batsford, Brian Hannam, John (Exeter) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Hastings, Stephen Quennell, Miss J. M.
Benyon, W. Hawkins, Paul Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hayhoe, Barney Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Biggs-Davison, John Heseltine, Michael Redmond, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Body, Richard Holt, Miss Mary Rees, Peter (Dover)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Hordern, Peter Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bossom, Sir Clive Hornby, Richard Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bowden, Andrew Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Rost, Peter
Bray, Ronald Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Russell, Sir Ronald
Brewis, John Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) St. John Stevas, Norman
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hunt, John Scott, Nicholas
Bryan, Sir Paul Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Sinclair, Sir George
Carlisle, Mark Kinsey, J. R. Skeet, T. H. H.
Chapman, Sydney Kirk, Peter Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Knox, David Soref, Harold
Clegg, Walter Lamont, Norman Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert Lane, David Spence, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Le Marchant, Spencer Sproat, Iain
Cormack, Patrick MacArthur, Ian Stanbrook, Ivor
Costain, A. P. McCrindle, R. A. Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Crouch, David McLaren, Martin Stokes, John
Crowder, F. P. McNair-Wilson, Michael Sutcliffe, John
Dean, Paul McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F Maddan, Martin Tebbit, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Madel, David Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Elliott R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Tugendhat, Christopher
Fidler, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Miscampbell, Norman van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Ward, Dame Irene
Fookes, Miss Janet Moate, Roger Weatherill, Bernard
Fortescue Tim Monks, Mrs. Connie Wiggin, Jerry
Fowler, Norman Monro, Hector Winterton, Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Montgomery, Fergus Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
More, Jasper Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Younger, Hn. George
Goodhart, Philip Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gorst, John Murton, Oscar
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Mr. Michael Jopling and
Gray, Hamish Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Forward to