§ 56A.—(1) Where it appears to a District Council that the Regional Council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions but the latter is 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 Secretary of State for a direction under subsection (3) below.
§ (2) Where it appears to a Regional Council that a District Council should be required to make arrangements for the discharge by the former of any of the latter's functions but latter is unwilling to enter into the arrangements, the Regional Council may apply to the Secretary of State for a direction under subsection (3) below.
§ (3) On an application under subsection (1) or (2) above the Secretary of State—
- (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 Regional 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
- (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) Whether or not an application under subsection (1) or (2) above has been made to the Secretary of State may none the less, if he considers it desirable for the efficient discharge of the relevant functions of a District or Regional Council, direct the District and Regional Councils concerned to enter into 147 an arrangement for the discharge by one of them of specified functions of the other; and the Secretary of State may direct that any such arrangements shall contain terms on lines laid down by him.—[Mr. Maclennan.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Maclennan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Its purpose is to permit both regional and district councils to seek from the Secretary of State for Scotland a direction enabling the functions normally exercised by one authority to be exercised by the other. It also provides that the Secretary of State may on his own initiative direct either the regional or the district council to exercise the functions normally exercised by the other.
The clause stems from the concern which has been expressed to me in and throughout the Highlands region that the Government's decision to deprive the districts in the Highlands region of some of the functions which can be exercised by district councils in other parts of Scotland will lead to a diminution in the status of the district councils in the Highlands, to some threat to their attractiveness and possibly a threat to their viability in terms of attracting local Government officials to service them.
Although that is the purpose of the clause, I suggest that it could be useful in an altogether wider context. In the course of the passage of the Bill so far it has become clear that the new structure of local government in Scotland will create very marked imbalances between the regions and the districts throughout Scotland and not simply in the Highland region. The overbalancing weight of the West-Central region has been commented on frequently during the passage of the Bill, and the smallness in size of certain other regions, notably the Borders, makes it seem likely that they will be substantially less authoritative than certain other regions. The pattern suggested by Wheatley has been eroded to some extent by the response of the House to pressures from various localities, most notably in the case of Fife.
It seems that one consequence of this is that the division of functions as between the regional and district authorities does not fall so neatly and logically into place under the Bill as it did under the arrange- 148 ments recommended by Wheatley, and expressions of concern have been made throughout the passage of the Bill, especially in the context of West-Central Scotland, about some of the powers being exercised by the regions. An example of this is the education function. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan) has made some points along these lines on a number of occasions.
We must recognise that we are moving into terra incognita in reorganising local government as we are and that it is by no means clear that the allocation of functions as between region and district makes complete sense in all cases. The Government have shown that they are not approaching the matter in a wholly doctrinaire spirit. They have changed their minds on a number of occasions, for example in the allocation of the housing authority function. They have certainly departed from the Wheatley recommendations in a number of important respects.
The clause will allow the Government and local authorities in Scotland the flexibility to decide, if in practice at a later date it became clear that a function had been allocated to the wrong level of local government, to reallocate it with the approval of the Govermnent of the day. This is a flexible proposal which is unlikely to be very controversial. I hope that the Government will give it their backing and accept it.
I must refer to the particular problem with which the clause seeks to deal in the context of the Highlands region. The three principal powers that the Government have allocated to the districts in other regions of Scotland are functions under the Building Acts, local planning powers and responsibility for libraries.
§ Mr. Dempsey
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the planning reference allocated to a district council is on physical, not structural planning? This is a fundamental difference. Some of us felt that structural planning done within a district council would be the responsibility of that authority. At the moment, that is under the region and physical planning being its responsibility means enforcement of the regional plan for that district.
§ Mr. Maclennan
I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. The position in the 149 Highlands is different from that which appertains in his part of Scotland.
While I am not prepared to argue that the Government have made a fundamental error in their distribution of functions, I must express the view which has been put to me quite forcibly by a number of local authorities in the Highlands region that it is a mistake to have allocated the local planning function to the regional authority. There may have been some second thoughts by certain local authorities in the Highlands region, but it is clear that in both Caithness and Sutherland there is grave disquiet that this function should have been allocated to the regional authority. I believe that similar disquiet is felt in the division represented by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) who, for reasons we understand, cannot participate in the debate.
These anxieties were expressed to all Members of Parliament representing Highlands constituencies at a meeting in Inverness. It was to some extent to reflect those concerns that I moved the clause.
There is a feeling that it does not make sense to treat the functions under the Building Acts separately from the housing function. To allocate the powers under the Building Acts to the districts would have made more sense in the light of the Government's decision to allocate housing functions to them. That argument also applies to many of the local planning powers.
The Wheatley Commission, considering the allocation of functions between the regions, makes a most important point on the status of the second tier authorities. The commission, in paragraph 714 of its report, states:It is important that the second tier of local government should have worthwhile functions; that it should be regarded as having a general interest in the well being of its area ".It goes on to say at paragraph (c):We strongly wish to avoid creating a second tier which means very little in real terms.That is the anxiety that persists in the Highlands, that in the arrangements made by the Government for the allocation of the functions they have created a second tier of government which will be so 150 powerless as to be unattractive to people who wish to serve in local government. This is symptomatic of the Government's treatment of libraries. I do not want to labour the point, but this is a peculiarly local function which Wheatley recommended should go to the lower tier, and to deprive the district council of it is not wholly justifiable in any terms.
It must be recognised that there is a special problem in the Highlands, and that is the size in population terms of some districts. The district of Nairn—and a number of others—is extremely small. That is why I have not sought in the clause to make mandatory the transfer of any functions. The clause is couched in the most permissive terms. It enables the initiative to be taken by either the district or the regional council if, in the evolution of local government, it becomes clear that a function has been wrongly allocated or would be better allocated elsewhere. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to take the initiative if, in his judgment, it would make sense to transfer the function.
I hope that the Government will appreciate that I am approaching the matter in an extremely pragmatic way, in the hope that we can learn from our experience of the reorganisation of local government and create among these new authorities the feeling that they are fulfilling as best they can the needs of their areas. I profoundly hope that the clause will meet with the approval of the Government. I feel confident that it will be widely accepted throughout the Highlands, and possibly in other parts of Scotland, too, where there is not the certainty that one might have hoped for that the functions have been allocated to the correct authority.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
I shall speak briefly about the clause. I have a later amendment on the specific question of planning and I do not want to concentrate on that now.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to paragraph 714 of the Wheatley Report. That was the paragraph which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I quoted in our note of dissent to the Wheatley Report because we were concerned that the amount of work being given to the second tier district council was insufficient. That 151 was one of the basic reasons why we argued—and I still do—that one basic mistake is that the districts are too big and that it would be better if they were smaller. Had that been the case, there would not have been this argument about community councils.
Be that as it may, we are faced with a different situation, and surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that even if the clause were accepted—and if it were all that the Government would be doing would be accepting that they take upon themselves the power to decide a matter in the event of appeal at some future date, which is not an onerous function—a fair amount of time would inevitably elapse before any such appeal were made, because neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would argue for a change of this sort—or changes such as these—quickly or suddenly.
It would be necessary to see how it worked out before bringing into effect the kind of suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member. He is making a fair submission in arguing that, if the Government accepted what he suggests, they would not commit themselves immediately to any change in their own proposed structure but they would be accepting that there was a possibility of changes being made according to experience. This is a reasonable point to make.
I do not want to go in detail into the matter of planning, but it is embodied within the new clause. The problem exists in Inverness and Dumfries in the three regions concerned. Therefore, it is a fairly narrow problem, but it is nevertheless significant and important for these two large burghs. They are both considerable towns in their own right and they have a long experience of using these powers. Both are also expanding communities. I notice that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is present. I am sure he will agree with that view.
I ask the Government to give this proposal careful consideration. In different circumstances than those now existing I would not necessarily have supported the new clause, but in the present circumstances one must recognise the situation and work to deal with it in the best way possible.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is worthy of serious consideration.
In discussing the tier of local government to which a particular function has been allocated, nothing is as likely as disagreement. Almost everyone involved in local government today has different views about the particular tier to which a function should be allocated. The only agreement in the matter is the agreement to disagree. My hon. Friend puts forward a mechanism whereby there may be an opportunity of changing the position of a function without the necessity of fresh legislation.
I was interested in what the Wheatley Commission said about the need for a continuous review of local government functions. The report of the commission stated, in paragraph 1109:We trust that, following the upheaval which the introduction of a new structure of local government is bound to bring, a long period of stability lies ahead. There will still be a need to consider changes in the more distant future, however, and specific provision should be made for this.Following this the Wheatley Commission made the point that one of the reasons why local government has got out of harmony with the current needs of people in Scotland is that, although many people were aware that changes were needed, there was no one to decide what changes were necessary. That was the reason for setting up the Wheatley Commission.
The commission recognised that there should be a continuous review but that this would not happen unless there was some kind of systematic check on the working of the various parts and the structure as a whole.
Finally the commission said, in paragraph 1121, that there should be some kind of ad hoc review body. This is very much for the future. We are concerned that there should not be sudden changes within a region or within the structure as a whole, and we want to ensure that there is some method available to make these changes without it being necessary to have a major Bill such as this one. I wonder whether this is the right method by which to do it.
153 In Committee we argued with some force that the Local Government Boundary Commission was the body to keep not only the boundaries but the functions and the structure under review, and that from time to time it should produce reports which would be a measure not only to the Government of how the structure was working but also to each regional and district authority by which to judge its own performance against the performance of others. If that suggestion had been adopted, perhaps there would have been no necessity for the clause. That is a matter of debate.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary can help me. I must confess that I can find no reference in the Bill to a provision for a review of functions. I had thought that there was one, but perhaps I am confusing it with the discussions that we had in Committee. We are obviously concerned about how things will work out.
As almost every hon. Member knows who has followed this matter, the Bill, even before it was amended in Committee, was not exactly in line with the Wheatley recommendations. We all pray Wheatley in aid when it suits outselves, but if we are realistic we will admit that much of what Wheatley recommended has been discarded. Perhaps the best has been thrown out and the worst kept, but no one can suggest that the Bill is entirely Wheatley.
Although my hon. Friend mentioned the specific difficulties in areas like the Highlands and Islands, where new authorities have been created which did not exist when Wheatley was published, there is great merit in his suggestion because it gives us an opporunity, in individual circumstances, to make changes where only a very general principle can be established.
The Government do not pretend that what they have in the Bill is necessarily good. They have done what they think best in the light of their own experience and advice, but none of us can tell how it will work in practice. Only the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act can prove whether the Government or the Opposition were right in the discussions about functions. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the clause as a basis for continuous review which might have 154 application beyond the area specifically laid down by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. W. H. K. Baker (Banff)
I have a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the clause. It may be necessary at some stage to alter some of the functions of the new local authorities.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will address himself to two points. First, will he consider whether it would be possible to accept the clause with an additional subsection to say that this provision will not apply until four years after the Act comes into force? Second, does he foresee any other way in which changes in functions can take place under the structure in the Bill without a separate Act of Parliament?
§ Mr. Younger
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for the thoughtful way in which he presented his case. I know that he feels strongly and has received many representations from people in the Highland region about planning there. It was interesting also to hear the views of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who is not only involved in that situation but was a member of the Wheatley Commission.
May I first clear up two misconceptions? First, in answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), there is no provision in the Bill for a general review of functions. This is a matter that we consider should be raised in the normal process of consultations between the local authority associations and the Government of the day. It would be a matter upon which the Government of the day would have to take action, if such changes were needed.
The second misconception which I should correct is that several hon. Members have the idea that the clause would provide for some reallocation of function. It does not do that. The situation that it is discussing is where one authority is to provide for another to carry out its function. But it still would remain the function of the first authority, which is clearly stated as having that function.
The first point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was that 155 the new clause would give some new and, in his view, much needed flexibility to the administration of functions between one level and another. In Clause 56(1) flexibility there already is. Clause 56(1) allows a local authority to arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any other local authority in Scotland. The purpose of the new clause, therefore, is a little more specific than that. It is to impose compulsion on the Secretary of State, which is not exactly the same conception as flexibility.
What the hon. Member is trying to do—I understand why—is not to provide for one authority to get another authority to perform its function, but to produce machinery by which the Secretary of State can require one authority to carry out the function of another, even where one of the authorities, at least, does not wish that to be done, or, conceivably, where both of them do not wish that to be done.
We should think hard on this matter before we accepted this proposal. I should feel rather unhappy, as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if we were to put into the position of trying to make a forced marriage of this kind, with two authorities which had not themselves been able to come to agreement on it, bearing in mind my previous point that the original authority would still be responsible for the function although the authority which had been required to take over the operating of that function would perform it. The resultant situation might be an unhappy one.
I am not happy with the clause, if it were passed, as a permanent feature of our legislation on local government. I am glad to see local authorities having freedom to make agency arrangements with one another, because on occasions that will be the most efficient way to get things done. The last thing that I or my right hon. Friend would want would be to become involved in issuing directions on such matters. It is well within the competence of local authorities to come to sensible agreements about such matters.
The clause would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill and to the way in which we have tackled the legislation. The clause is not very satisfactory as it is drafted, in any case, because of the limitedrôleand the fact that an authority under- 156 taking an agency agreement would not itself take over the functions. Therefore, it would not have the policy decisions to make, anyway. It would be merely a matter of, in this case, probably the district authority carrying out the mechanical functions, but the decision making would still be with the original council, anyway.
The hon. Member rightly raised the question of the problems in the Highlands region and the planning powers of the district. The hon. Member for Inverness also made this point. The real reason for the different allocation of functions in these outlying regions is that it was a direct result of our decision, made in the light of many representations put to us, to create a larger number of districts. We did not create as large a number as the hon. Member for Inverness would have liked, but we decided that the representations for more districts were powerful. Therefore, we created a larger number of districts. Inevitably this meant some districts with very much less substantial resources than those of other regions.
In view of all the observations that have been made about all this, we have carefully gone into all possible alternative forms of organisation for this problem of planning in the Highlands region. We have included all sorts of alternatives, including a non-uniform allocation of functions within a single region which is what the clause might in a way be aimed at trying to achieve—that is, by giving additional power to some of the larger districts but not to some of the smaller districts.
I suggest that such an arrangement would create a considerable practical string of difficulties in its wake and cause a certain amount of confusion. After all our careful thought about this, I believe that it would not be in the best interests of planning in these regions to have the regional councils responsible for local planning in some districts while in others this function was handled by the district councils. This would not facilitate an integrated approach to all aspects of planning, which we are all agreed is necessary in the outlying regions where, for instance, development control is a very different matter from what it is in the more densely populated areas.
157 I greatly appreciate the points which the hon. Gentleman is trying to solve by the clause, but I suggest, first, that it does not quite do what he hopes that it would do and, secondly, I tell him frankly that I could not support, for the reasons that I have outlined, his object of trying to get at least some of the districts in the Highlands region with local planning powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked about the question of introducing a proposal whereby there would be, say, a four-year trial period for the present range of functions with an automatic review thereafter. I see the point. It is obviously necessary to gain experience of how things work before making changes. However, this is not the right way to tackle such a fundamental change in local government. We must not go into it in a half-hearted way.
What my hon. Friend seeks to achieve could probably be best achieved, anyway, by the Government of the day, after a period probably of three of four years, having another review of the whole working of the system with the local authority associations and then deciding whether they wished to make changes.
The clause seeks to achieve an end which I respect, but I could not agree with its general purpose. It would not achieve that purpose exactly in the way the hon. Gentleman intends. I thank him for tabling the clause and enabling us to have this debate, but I ask the House not to accept it.
§ Mr. Maclennan
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for what he said, but I must express the profoundest disappointment with the content. He has, I presume unwittingly, distorted both the purpose and the consequence of the clause.
Although I described earlier the provenance of the clause as being related to the representations which I have received in the Highlands about the functions of the district authority, as I perceive the situation there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout Scotland at the notion that these functions as allocated in the Bill are finally so allocated.
What the Under-Secretary is saying in advising the House to reject the clause is that he is completely satisfied that the Government have got it right and are 158 allocating the functions to the proper authority. That is a view that remarkably few people in local government in Scotland would support.
As the Under-Secretary indicated, I have not in the clause sought to reallocate functions. I have simply suggested—it is a very reasonable suggestion—that in the light of experience the local authorities themselves could come to the Secretary of State and say, "We think that the functions should be reallocated." The Under-Secretary admitted that as the Bill stands there is no provision for reviewing the allocation of functions. He says that the way it should be done is in consultation with the local authority associations.
I do not believe that that is a wholly satisfactory suggestion. The local authority associations necessarily represent all the local authorities and the one thing that is clear in Scotland is that the pattern of local government is diverse and that the local authority associations do not always speak for the local authorities. It therefore seems to me desirable that the views of individual local authorities are much more important in this this respect than the views of the associations.
I find the Minister's squeamishness about intervening to suggest to local authorities what reallocation of functions they should embark upon somewhat hard to understand in view of his brazen insistence that he is right on the present allocation of functions. He has no doubts in his mind about the correctness of the situation and yet he recoils from the possibility that he may be wrong and that in future he might wish to admit that he was wrong.
§ Mr. Younger
Is not the hon. Member falling under the misconception that I tried to correct? I was recoiling from the possibility of the Secretary of State intervening and forcing one authority to take an agency for the functions of another. The hon. Member is now suggesting that I am recoiling from another idea—that we had got the allocation of functions wrong, which is an entirely different matter.
§ Mr. Maclennan
The Under-Secretary has now moved on to the agency point which I wanted to deal with separately 159 because I reject it. As I understand the Bill it makes provision for the sharing of functions. My clause does not import the notion of agency. The arrangement would be for the discharge by one authority of the functions of another. I cannot understand or follow the suggestion that such a transfer of function would not in effect import the responsibility for decision making. The Under-Secretary must have got the point wrong. I am sure that that is a misrepresentation of the consequences of the clause.
The Minister concluded by saying that he foresaw practical difficulties. I am sorry that such an omnibus assertion was not backed up by examples of the practical difficulties which he foresaw, and it cannot carry much weight. I foresee many more practical difficulties from the allocation of functions under the Bill. Take the practical difficulties that local authorities at the district level, for example in the Highlands, might have in attracting officials of the appropriate calibre to service them if the functions of the authorities are so limited. That is a practical difficulty which should carry weight with the Government.
I put it to the Under-Secretary that the flexibility of the proposals embodied in the clause would enable the practical difficulties to be ironed out in discussion between local authorities. This would be in a prior attempt to come to an
§ arrangement about the transfer of functions and in subsequent discussions with the Secretary of State. That is the way these things are done. I see no practical difficulties whatever. It would practically be much more difficult to reallocate functions if it were widely felt that they had gone to the wrong authority if there were no statutory power of the kind that I seek to include in the Bill. It is hard to foresee the circumstances in which Parliament would seriously consider the reallocation of functions as between a region and a particular district, and this is the kind of matter which is eminently suitable for such an administrative arrangement, not for legislation.
§ It is very disappointing that the Government have taken such a singularly inflexible attitude to the whole question. I hope that it is not because they are so persuaded of the rectitude of their decision about the allocation of functions between authorities that they are not prepared to consider the possibility that it might prove desirable in the future to change it. I am prepared to concede that they may have it right, but not that it should be incapable of change.
§ Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to divide in support of the clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 162.161
|Division No. 160.]||AYES||[9.40 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Dempsey, James||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Doig, Peter||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Dormand, J. D.||Hughes, Roy (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Ashton, Joe||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hunter, Adam|
|Atkinson, Norman||Eadie, Alex||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Edelman, Maurice||Jeger, Mrs. Lena|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ellis, Tom||John, Brynmor|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Evans, Fred||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Ewing, Harry||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham,S.)|
|Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Judd, Frank|
|Buchan, Norman||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Ford, Ben||Kerr, Russell|
|Carmichael, Neil||Freeson, Reginald||Kinnock, Neil|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Gilbert, Dr. John||Lambie, David|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Golding, John||Lamborn, Harry|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Gourlay, Harry||Lamond, James|
|Concannon, J. D.||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Latham, Arthur|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Lawson, George|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Leonard, Dick|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Davidson, Arthur||Hardy, Peter||Lipton, Marcus|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Harper, Joseph||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Deakins, Eric||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||McBride, Neil|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Horam, John||McCartney, Hugh|
|McElhone, Frank||Paget, R. T.||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Machin, George||Palmer, Arthur||Taverne, Dick|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Pardoe, John||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Pavitt, Laurie||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Perry, Ernest G.||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Price, William (Rugby)||Tinn, James|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Radice, Giles||Tope, Graham|
|Marquand, David||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Torney, Tom|
|Meacher, Michael||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Varley, Eric G.|
|Millan, Bruce||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wallace, George|
|Milne, Edward||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Watkins, David|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Sillars, James||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Murray, Ronald King||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Oakes, Gordon||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Spearing, Nigel||Woof, Robert|
|O'Malley, Brian||Stallard, A. W.|
|Orme, Stanley||Steel, David||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Oswald, Thomas||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Gummer, J. Selwyn||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Gurden, Harold||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Percival, Ian|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Haselhurst, Alan||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Hawkins, Paul||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Bell, Ronald||Hill, S. James A. (South'pton, Test)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Benyon, W.||Hordern, Peter||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Hornby, Richard||Raison, Timothy|
|Biffen, John||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Redmond, Robert|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Body, Richard||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Boscawen, Hn. Robert||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Iremonger, T. L.||Rost, Peter|
|Bowden, Andrew||James, David||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Brewis, John||Jopling, Michael||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Shersby, Michael|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Kershaw, Anthony||Simeons, Charles|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Soref, Harold|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Speed, Keith|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Spence, John|
|Carlisle, Mark||Knox, David||Sproat, Iain|
|Channon, Paul||Lamont, Norman||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Chapman, Sydney||Le Marchant, Spencer||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Stokes, John|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||MacArthur, Ian||Stuttaford, Dr Tom|
|Churchill, W. S.||McCrindle, R. A.||Sutcliffe, John|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||McLaren, Martin||Tapsell, Peter|
|Cockeram, Eric||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Cooke, Robert||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Maddan, Martin||Tebbit, Norman|
|Crouch, David||Madel, David||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack||Mather, Carol||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Dean, Paul||Mawby, Ray||Tilney, John|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Dykes, Hugh||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Miscampbell, Norman||Waddington, David|
|Emery, Peter||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Moate Roger||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)||Money, Ernie||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Monro, Hector||Wilkinson, John|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Montgomery, Fergus||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Fowler, Norman||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Fox, Marcus||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Mudd, David||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Gardner, Edward||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Younger, Hn. George|
|Gower, Raymond||Neave, Airey|
|Gray, Hamish||Noble, Rt. Hn Michael||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Green, Alan||Nott, John||Mr. Walter Glegg and Mr. Tim Fortescue.|
|Grylls, Michael||Onslow, Cranley|
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
§ Question accordingly negatived.