HC Deb 21 October 1975 vol 898 cc282-301

'There shall be established an advisory committee to the Agency, consisting of not less than three persons and not more than five persons, all of whom shall have had experience of business, commerce and banking, who shall have the task of reporting to the Secretary of State on the viability of each scheme in which the Agency proposes to exercise its powers under section 2(2)(b), and the Agency shall be obliged to provide the Committee with such information as it requires'.

Amendment No. 15, in Clause 13, page 13, line 42, at end insert: 'Notwithstanding the general limit imposed by this subsection, the Agency shall not be authorised to spend more than £50 million on the exercise of their powers under section 2(2)(b) until a report has been submitted to Parliament on the record and achievements of the Agency in this regard, and the report has been approved by both Houses of Parliament'.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

We believe that the debates which we have had on this matter have been worth while. In the previous discussion we achieved a great deal, including some remarkable conversions. I was delighted to see the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who had voted against us on the last occasion, decide to vote for us. That was very encouraging. Therefore, we shall try to do the same thing on this occasion and persuade the Government to support us on new Clause 2 in the same way as we supported them on new Clause 1.

New Clauses Nos. 2, and 5 and Amendment No. 15 are important. It is important that the Bill be amended to ensure that there is a fair deal for private industry in Scotland, especially bearing in mind the unemployment figures which were revealed today and which unfortunately indicate male unemployment in Scotland has increased at the rate of approximately 1,000 a week over the past month. At present we have eight fully unemployed Scots for every vacancy. This is obviously a serious and deteriorating situation.

Another factor which causes great concern is that investment is not going ahead. We want to ensure that private industry in Scotland is given a degree of safeguard and confidence.

5. 30 p.m.

The Minister will know from the approaches which have been made by the Confederation of British Industry, and other bodies, that Scottish industry is worried about certain aspects of the Bill—particularly about Clause 2(2)(b), which empowers the Agency to engage in Indus- trial undertakings on its own or in co-operation with others.

It is desperately important for us to ensure that these nationalising powers—powers to set up State firms, or firms in which there is a State partnership)—follow certain basic rules which are fair to the private sector of industry. Without the clause there will be no guarantee that the taxpayers' money will be used wisely or that the full story of the taxpayers' involvement in industry will ever emerge, or emerge fully. There is great concern that nationalised or semi-State-controlled companies should engage in fair competition and use the State money wisely and prudently.

The clause does not provide that companies or partnerships in which there is State participation should immediately be profitable or should immediately move towards a profitable position. It provides that if the Government are to put public money into an industry or a firm they should state clearly, at the beginning, the financial objectives of the undertaking. Without this there is no measure of the success of the enterprise and no way of assessing the accuracy of the predictions of the officials of the Agency.

If the Agency decides, for example, to put £1,000, £100,000 or £1 million into an industrial venture, there should be a statement, at the outset, of what it is hoped that the firm will achieve by way of profitability or return on capital. The new clause provides that the Agency shall be obliged to provide the management of the undertaking with a written statement of the financial objectives of that undertaking, and in drawing up the statement, the Agency shall have regard to the desirability, in its commercial activities, of obtaining a reasonable return on capital employed. We also want to ensure, the objectives having been stated, that there is some indication whether the objective has been achieved. Therefore, the clause also says that there should be a statement on the extent to which each undertaking has achieved, exceeded or fallen short of the financial objective and that this shall be included in the Annual Report of the Agency". We have had very unfortunate examples of State involvement in business, particularly by means of nationalisation and its great ability to waste a great deal of taxpayers' money, to lose millions of pounds and, unfortunately, to ensure that there is no greater job security than exists in the private sector.

We want to ensure that if the Government decide, through the Agency, to finance an industrial operation, they set out the aim at the beginning. Unless we ensure this, those who are engaged in the management of the enterprise will have no guideline to which to work, no specific aim, and nothing against which their success can be measured.

In view of the great number of people employed in the State sector of industry, it is desperately important that we have a real and effective measure of whether the aims are being achieved.

If the Government argue against the clause, they should tell us what would be lost if the clause were to be accepted; in what way it would frustrate the endeavours of the Agency; in what way it would hold up the Agency's work; and in what way it would frustrate the endeavours of management.

The clause would not frustrate the Agency in any way. I can see no objection to it, unless the Government are anxious to cover up much of the Agency's activity and to ensure that skeletons remain in cupboards and are never found out.

Next, we ask the House to agree to new Clause 5, in which we propose an advisory committee whose members will have experience of business, commerce and banking, who shall have the task of reporting to the Secretary of State on the viability of each scheme in which the Agency proposes to exercise its powers under section 2(2)(b)". Before the Government commit any public money, we want to ensure that there is a body which is, so far as possible, independent, charged with the responsibility of examining schemes, assessing their viability and reporting to the Agency. The clause also provides that the Agency shall be obliged to provide the Committee with such information as it requires". particularly at a time when Government expenditure is being reduced so substantially, it should be seen that money is being used wisely and that schemes are viable.

So far, we have had only one indication of an appointment to the Agency. Sir William Gray has been appointed chairman. Sir William, who is a leading public figure in Scotland and who has contributed a great deal to our country, does not, so far as I am aware, possess direct experience of industry and commerce. His experience to date has been as Lord Provost of Glasgow, which has had many financial problems.

Irrespective of the public figures who will be appointed to the board of the Agency, it is important that we have independent views expressed about the viability of each project in which the State wishes to have a shareholding. Here again, nothing would be lost if the clause were accepted. We believe that a great deal would be gained.

Our third proposition is contained in Amendment No. 15, whose purpose is to secure that Notwithstanding the general limit imposed by this subsection,"— that is, the £200 million which is to be available over an unspecified period the Agency shall not be authorised to spend more than £50 million on nationalisation schemes until a report has been submitted to Parliament on the record and achievements of the Agency in this regard, and the report has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. If the Government are to spend a great deal of money on nationalisation schemes in Scotland by promoting firms in which there is a substantial State shareholding, it is important, after the expenditure of £50 million, that we have an indication whether an operation is likely to be successful. All our experience has been to the effect that when the State gets involved in business enterprises it loses a great deal of money.

The Government take the view, as they said in debates in Committee, that this will not happen in the case of the Agency. The Government want the Agency to be involved in profitable businesses which are contributing to the nation. We suggest that after spending £50 million on this purpose—if the Government spend that amount—the House should be enabled to review the situation, to pause for breath and reflection, and to judge if further moves should be made in this direction.

We hope that when replying to the debate the Minister of State will take the opportunity of giving us some idea of what cash is to be made available to the Agency. It will not be good enough for him to say that there is to be a £200 million limit and that it will be up to the Agency; government does not work like that. We hope, further, that the Minister of State will be able to give us an idea of the proportion of the cash to be made available which will be spent on nationalisation schemes.

I need not remind the House of the serious economic problems now facing Scotland. The Minister will know that although some people have welcomed the Agency in differing degrees the CBI and other bodies have expressed considerable concern about certain aspects of it. The Confederation is concerned, in particular, about State involvement in industry, first because in every other case it has meant a higher burden of taxation on the private sector. It also means a smaller private sector to bear the burden of taxation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I never like interrupting hon. Members, but the hon. Gentleman is now embarking on what I would call a Second Reading point.

Mr. Taylor

I was coming to the end of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out—this is directly relevant to new Clause 2—that we were very concerned to ensure that money was wisely spent in this regard and that there should be accountability. I said that we were concerned about the extent of State participation in industry, about the amount which was being spent, and about the way in which a considerable burden was being put upon the private sector of industry.

I mentioned the views of the CBI. Unless we can have an indication that that Government accept the new clause in principle there will be very real concern in the private sector of Scottish industry about its future. We want to encourage private industry to invest and ensure that the burdens on it will not be intolerable. I hope that the Minister who replies to this debate will at least be able to say that he accepts the principle behind the new clauses and the amendment. If they are incorporated into the Bill, many of the fears of the private sector will be removed.

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

To say I am astonished by these new clauses and the amendment would be putting it mildly. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) should be seized of the necessity to get things moving. The part of the Bill which sets out the proposed functions of the Agency should commend itself to hon. Members opposite. I am astonished that the hon. Member should think of putting a millstone around the Agency's neck even before it gets going. The procrastination involved in his proposals is too terrifying to be contemplated with equanimity.

It is obvious that the Opposition are not keen on this Agency. They are terrified in case there might be some success in what we are setting out to do. The Minister who is to reply may feel he should allow a degree of latitude to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. I counsel him with every fibre at my disposal to throw out the proposals and not pay them the slighest attention.

Mr. Grimond

I have some sympathy with the thinking behind new Clause 2, but the Agency will anyway probably do what is suggested in the clause. It will presumably have discussions with managements about financial prospects and undertake to have regard to the desirability of obtaining a reasonable return on capital. I imagine that from the annual report we shall be able to see how the Agency is doing. All these things are necessary, but I think the Government will believe it is not necessary to have such a specific statement written into the Bill, although I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

I have the gravest doubts about new Clause 5. The most recent experience we have of an agency similar to that now being established is the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It is a common complaint already that the board is getting too bureaucratic and is suffering from Parkinson's well-known disease, for ever increasing its staff and resources in Inverness. This is causing serious delays; I have constituents who complain that applications for grants and loans made last winter were not passed until this autumn. In a time of inflation it is even more serious, because costings are thrown out not annually but every few months. As I understand the proposed new clause, it will prevent the Agency from making decisions till it receives the go ahead from the advisory committee. This would entail considerably more delay.

Who is to serve on this committee? Will its members be part-timers employed in industry or, worse still, not employed in industry, or would they be full-time members? Where does Scotland have all these people? Can we afford to have the SDA and also the additional staff to advise it? Presumably the advisers would have to be people of equal or even greater expertise. The advisory committee would need accountants, lawyers, and a large staff and would, in turn, contract Parkinson's disease, so that before we knew it we would have a very large development agency and another very large agency looking over its shoulder. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the Opposition, but it is what the new clause seems to entail.

Unless I have missed something, this seems to be the wrong direction. I have great doubts about increasing the number of bureaucrats in Scotland. We have enough already, and there is no telling how many more might be recruited to look into every proposal to which the SDA might be attracted. I hope I shall either hear something more about the purpose of new Clause 5 or that it will be quietly buried.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gray

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) in the way he moved the new clause. I hope the Minister realises he cannot have the agreement of both the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). They were asking him to do quite different things.

There is much to be said for putting in safeguards of this kind. I have long been a supporter of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has not always been easy, because the board has been the subject of some criticism in the past. I think it has done, and is doing, a good job. It has faults, as do most boards of that kind, but they can be put right, and I hope that in the very near future we shall see some improvements. The board attracts most headlines when it has a failure. If it has supported a company which fails, the Press always latches on to it. This is only natural, because public money is involved. If, by including new Clause 2, we can protect the Agency, there is nothing to be lost. This is not meant to be a restriction on the Agency, and it may be that the Agency will do much of what is proposed in the new clause anyway, but I do not see any harm in writing this into the Bill.

We shall think of the SDA in a different light from the National Enterprise Board or the British National Oil Corporation, which some of us have had a lot to do with during the Committee stage of another Bill. The SDA will be a more personal agency than either of those. The people involved in administering it, from the chairman down, will be very much in the public eye in Scotland. The advice they take is very important, and the fact that in respect of each concern in which they invest they should have to report back periodically with a fairly lucid account of its activities would be an advantage.

The extent of the Agency's participation will probably be considerably limited, initially, because of our present economic circumstances, but there can be little doubt that as time goes on more and more money will be available for the Agency, and since that is public money its expenditure should be closely monitored.

I do not wish to go on at any length about Amendment No. 15 or new Clause 5, but it is surely important that where public money is being spent, particularly when the public are so aware of the economic crisis, every safeguard should be employed.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I have been searching my mind during the debate to discover how it is humanly possible to spend Government money willy-nilly. How is it possible to get away with it? I have never known any public undertaking to be allowed to spend money without some control being exerted by the authorities concerned.

The SDA will have to produce annual accounts which will show the rate of investment, the return on capital, and the other financial results of its activities. Surely the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) realises that expenditure of that type is vetted by more than one body to ensure that public money is being spent prudently. From the way he speaks one would suppose that we were about to shovel money down a drain, but nothing could be further from the truth. He quoted the example of a development costing £50 million being carried out by a private enterprise firm for the Agency. He gave the impression that it would just be a matter of handing over £50 million and then letting the firm get on with it. That is not true. Money is not loaned to or invested in any undertaking unless there are regular reports on the way in which the investment is working out.

The hon. Member must appreciate that such undertakings are run in a normal businesslike fashion, and that they produce annual balance sheets and statements of accounts. They show the details of Government contributions and expenditure covering the various items on which they produce a profit or a loss. The accounts are supplied not only to the Government but to any other interest which invests in the undertaking. That is normal business procedure; it does not need to be written into every Act of Parliament.

The Bill provides for the Agency to invest, and it can pursue that investment to the fullest, even to the extent of its auditors investigating the accounts, analysing the balance sheets and satisfying the Government that the money which has been invested has been spent wisely. It amazes me to think that any hon. Member should consider that a public undertaking was willing to invest large sums without guarantees as to control and development.

I was naturally distressed to hear the reference by the hon. Member for Cathcart to some other publicly-owned activities. I could take him to industries, the appearance and condition of which are a disgrace to the United Kingdom. These firms have been in operation for 50 or 60 years, and the private owners, instead of reinvesting some of the profits to ensure a healthy rate of growth, have been spending them on high living. I hope that money will be spent on taking certain industries into public ownership with a view to improving them in every way possible, to make them more competitive and to safeguard the jobs they provide. I know of industries in which the buildings are ramshackle, there is no proper pavement and, after 60 years of profiteering, the roads still have earth surfaces. I know of industries in which the workpeople do not even have a decent floor to stand on; they have to stand on earth surfaces which serve also as a urinal because of the poor toilet facilities provided. I should like to know where all the profits go—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am trying to be as fair as I can with the hon. Member, but I think he is developing now what I would regard as a Second Reading argument rather than relating his remarks to the new clause.

Mr. Dempsey

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member tempted me by quoting examples of nationalised industries.

Surely the SDA should be able to use money to take over works that were still potentially competitive, so that it could modernise the buildings and put in decent roads, using that element of its resources allocated for environmental improvements. The SDA has every opportunity, given the support, to make this injection into areas like the one I represent and to ensure that the money would not only be spent wisely but would be properly accounted for. If the hon. Member for Cathcart thinks there is any possibility of dodging the column, he has forgotten about the Government Auditor. That gentleman will be in the background, supervising, and he will ensure, if no one else does, that the money that Parliament is voting under this legislation is prudently spent.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)

I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and the optimism with which he delivered it. He must appreciate, however, that there is an advantage to be gained from having safeguards in certain circumstances. The setting up of an advisory committee under new Clause 5 would, for example, assist in considering the viability of schemes.

I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked who would constitute the advisory committee. Surely the SDA would benefit greatly from the expertise of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It has put the case for development in Scotland with great persistence and ability. Even if the Minister felt that the clause is inappropriate, he could still draw from the expertise of the Council, and if he can think of a better way of using its services we should be very glad to listen to what he has to say.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Millan

In its industrial functions the Scottish Development Agency will be expected to pay its way. It will not be subsidising industry but will be involved on a commercial basis. I have made that point many times at different stages of the Bill's progress through the House. Involvement on a commercial basis will be achieved by the determination of the financial duties of the Agency, and will be done by the Secretary of State under Clause 12. In the guidance to be provided for the Agency and to be available as a public document to hon. Members and others it will be made clear that the Agency is to act in a commercial way.

I deal first with new Clause 2. Government Amendment No. 7 provides that any enterprise established under Clause 2(2)(b) will be established by way of a company. Therefore, all the normal provisions of the Companies Act relating to the publication of accounts and so on will be attracted to enterprises established and carried on by the Agency. Under the provisions of the subsection information will automatically become available. There is no need to make special provisions for information to be made available when it will be made available in any case, particularly when we are dealing with companies which are under a legal obligation under the Companies Act to publish their accounts and give certain information.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The Minister said that the normal Companies Act procedure would apply. In other words, companies will have to put information in their accounts, and members of the public can pay their shilling and see them. But will such information about every company in which the SDA has a holding be published in the annual report? If not, how is (hat a safeguard?

Mr. Millan

The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the information will be publicly available, and if it is publicly available I imagine that well-informed people such as the hon. Gentleman will soon be able to obtain the information from the public registers.

There will have to be provision for the accounts of the companies to be consolidated with the accounts of the Agency, That will be done in accordance with the best commercial practice under a further amendment, so the information will be publicly available.

I am not in favour of writing into the Bill that there shall be the kind of statement provided for in the new clause. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) sensibly said that the Agency, in its discussions with management of undertakings for which it will be responsible, would no doubt be talking about financial objectives and so on, but I have seen no reason why the Agency should be in the position, which no private company is in, of setting out for all to see a written statement of financial objectives and so on, and then including in its annual report statements about whether or not the objectives have been met, met only partly, or perhaps not met at all.

There will be an overall obligation on the Agency to pay its way in its industrial function. The information will all be publicly available, and if the Agency is not meeting the financial guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State that will be obvious in its report. I am not in favour of placing on the Agency obligations well beyond those that would be placed on a private enterprise company or holding company. I am not in favour of any of the enterprises which would be subsidiaries of the Agency being excused from any of the normal obligations of the Companies Act and other legislation, but, equally, I am not in favour of their having additional burdens placed upon them.

Mr. Gray

The Minister uses the example of the private company. He would not be agreeable to writing into the Bill anything which would impose on a SDA venture as opposed to a private company any additional burden. Does he not accept that a private company is using its own finances, whereas a considerable amount of public money is involved in the SDA? Is that not justification for providing an extra safeguard?

Mr. Millan

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "an extra safeguard". I have already said that the information will be publicly available in any case. The Agency will be operating in accordance with financial guidelines which will be available to the public and to this House under Clause 12. I am not in favour of laying down for the companies which will operate the industrial functions of the SDA obligations beyond those which would be laid on private enterprise companies, and therefore I cannot accept new Clause 2.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) asked me to explain who would establish the advisory committee under new Clause 5. It is not my new clause. The hon. Gentleman's name is attached to it, and I was going to ask him and his hon. Friends the question that he put to me. There is nothing in the clause to say who establishes the advisory committee, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out. Is it to be established by the Agency, the Secretary of State or somebody else? I am not responsible for the drafting of the clause. It is obviously defective from that point of view alone.

The clause is also defective because we should not write into the Bill obligations on the Agency to establish all sorts of committees, whether of the kind described in the clause or any other kind. It is certainly necessary to write into the Bill the power for the Agency to establish such committees as it may think fit, and that power is provided in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1, but we deliberately did not make provision for committees by writing into the Bill an organisational structure for the Agency, because we want it to develop its own organisational structure. If it feels that advisory or other committees are sensible, it will have power to appoint them, but we shall not write that into the Bill.

Speaking personally, I hope that the Agency does not operate through a whole series of committees, that it does not operate in a bureaucratic way. Particularly in matters of commercial judgment and so on, I want it to act in an enterprising way, certainly taking advice from outside if it feels it desirable in a particular situation, but not adopting a bureaucratic structure which would mean that matters would have to go to a committee for a decision before it could operate. I strongly resist any suggestion that we should write that sort of thing into the Bill, and therefore I cannot advise the House to accept new Clause 5.

I cannot recommend the House to accept Amendment No. 15. It would write into the Bill a second financial limit apart from the general one of £200 million to £300 million, and would direct that limit to a specific power in the hands of the Agency. It is not for me to anticipate what the Agency might spend on any of its functions. We shall have to discuss with the chairman-designate of the organising committee and the Agency the question of budgets, as we do in the case of every other public agency. Information about budgets will be available in the ordinary way through the White Papers on public expenditure and, as the Agency develops, it will produce accounts which will show to hon. Members how much is being spent on one function as distinct from another. All that information will be publicly available, and no doubt I shall be advised if the whole range of activities of the Agency are not debated in the House from time to time. Obviously that information will be available, but I am not willing to write into the Bill any additional restrictions on the Agency's powers.

If the Agency is to succeed, as I believe it will, it will have to be on the basis that the Government of the day have appointed the Agency on a given day with wide-ranging powers, powers that are accepted by a wide range of opinion in Scotland. It should be allowed to exercise enterprise and should not be continually restricted or inhibited by detailed control or intervention from Government. There should be nothing in the legislation, or indeed in the Government's attitude, to suggest that the Agency is not to be trusted, and can do what it wants only if it is subject to detailed control by the House or the Government of the day. It would set the Agency off on the wrong foot if we were to single it out for special attention by imposing on it a separate financial limitation.

I repeat that the spending figures will be publicly available as will our estimates of sums under various headings. However, we shall not act in a way which

will inhibit the Agency in furthering the industrial and environmental development of Scotland. I cannot recommend that any of these propositions be accepted.

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

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 252.

Division No. 345.] AYES [6.12 p.m.
Adley, Robert Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Aitken, Jonathan Grant Anthony (Harrow C) Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Alison, Michael Gray, Hamish Mudd, David
Arnold, Tom Grieve, Percy Neave, Airey
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nelson, Anthony
Awdry, Daniel Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Neubert, Michael
Baker, Kenneth Hampson, Dr Keith Newton, Tony
Banks Robert Hannam, John Nott, John
Bell, Ronald Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Berry, Hon Anthony Hastings, Stephen Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Biffen, John Hawkins, Paul Parkinson, Cecil
Biggs-Davison, John Hayhoe, Barney Pattie, Geoffrey
Body, Richard Heath, Rt Hon Edward Peyton, Rt Hon John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Heseltine, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Bottomley, Peter Hicks, Robert Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Higgins, Terence L. Raison, Timothy
Brotherton, Michael Hordern, Peter Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Budgen, Nick Howell, David (Guildford) Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Bulmer, Esmond Hunt, John Rifkind Malcolm
Carlisle, Mark Hurd, Douglas Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carr, Rt Hon Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Sainsbury, Tim
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) James, David Scott, Nicholas
Clark, William (Croydon S) Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Jessel, Toby Shelton, William (Streatham)
Cockcroft, John Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Shepherd, Colin
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Shersby, Michael
Cope, John Jopling, Michael Silvester, Fred
Cordle, John H. Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Sims, Roger
Costain, A. P. Kershaw, Anthony Sinclair, Sir George
Crouch, David Kimball, Marcus Skeet, T. H. H.
Crowder, F. P. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Kitson, Sir Timothy Speed, Keith
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Knight, Mrs. Jill Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Knox, David Sproat, Iain
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lamont, Norman Stainton, Keith
Drayson, Burnaby Latham, Michael (Melton) Stanbrook, Ivor
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Lawrence, Ivan Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lawson, Nigel Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lester Jim (Beeston) Stokes, John
Elliott, Sir William Loveridge, John Stradling Thomas, J.
Emery, Peter McCrindle, Robert Tapsell, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas Macfarlane, Neil Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Fairgrieve, Russell MacGregor, John Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Farr, John Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Temple-Morris, Peter
Fell, Anthony McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Finsberg Geoffrey McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Townsend, Cyril D.
Fisher, Sir Nigel Madel, David Trotter, Neville
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marshall, Michael (Arundel) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fookes, Miss Janet Marten, Neil Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Mates, Michael Viggers, Peter
Fox, Marcus Mather, Carol Wakeham, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Statford & St) Maude, Angus Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Fry, Peter Mawby, Ray Wall, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Walters, Dennis
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mayhew, Patrick Wells, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Meyer, Sir Anthony Wiggin, Jerry
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Mills, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fite) Miscampbell, Norman Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Moate, Roger Younger, Hon George
Goodhew, Victor Montgomery, Fergus
Goodlad, Alastair Moore, John (Croydon C) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gorst, John More, Jasper (Ludlow) Mr. Adam Butler and
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Mr. Michael Roberts.
Abse, Leo Grimond, Rt Hon J. Orbach, Maurice
Allaun, Frank Grocott, Bruce Ovenden, John
Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Padley, Walter
Ashley, Jack Harper, Joseph Park, George
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Hart, Rt Hon Judith Parker, John
Atkinson, Norman Hatton, Frank Parry, Robert
Bain, Mrs Margaret Hayman, Mrs Helene Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Healey, Rt Hon Denis Penhaligon, David
Bean, R. E. Heffer, Eric S. Perry, Ernest
Beith, A. J. Henderson, Douglas Phipps, Dr Colin
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Horam, John Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bidwell, Sydney Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Price, William (Rugby)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Radice, Giles
Boardman, H. Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Booth, Albert Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Reid, George
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Richardson, Miss Jo
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hunter, Adam Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Buchanan, Richard Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Roderick, Caerwyn
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Campbell, Ian Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Canavan, Dennis Janner, Greville Rooker, J. W.
Cant, R. B. Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Rose, Paul B.
Carter, Ray Jeger, Mrs Lena Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Sandelson, Neville
Cartwright, John Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Sedgemore, Brian
Clemitson, Ivor John, Brynmor Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Johnson, James (Hull West) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen Jones, Barry (East Flint) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Kaufman, Gerald Sillars, James
Corbett, Robin Kelley, Richard Silverman, Julius
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Skinner, Dennis
Crawford, Douglas Kinnock, Neil Small, William
Crawshaw, Richard Lambie, David Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Cryer, Bob Lamborn, Harry Snape, Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lamond, James Spearing, Nigel
Davidson, Arthur Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lee, John Stallard, A. W.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Stoddart, David
Davis. Clinton (Hackney C) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Deakins, Eric Lipton, Marcus Stott, Roger
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Litterick, Tom Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Delargy, Hugh Loyden, Eddie Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dempsey, James Luard, Evan Swain, Thomas
Doig, Peter Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Dormand, J. D. McCartny, Hugh Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce MacCormick, Iain Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Dunn, James A. McElhone, Frank Thompson, George
Dunnett, Jack MacFarquhar, Roderick Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McGuire, Michael (Ince) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Edelman, Maurice Maclennan, Robert Tierney, Sydney
Edge, Geoff McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Tinn, James
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) McNamara, Kevin Tomlinson, John
English, Michael Madden, Max Tomney, Frank
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Magee, Bryan Torney, Tom
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Tuck, Raphael
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Marks, Kenneth Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Marquand, David Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Faulds, Andrew Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Maynard, Miss Joan Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Flannery. Martin Meacher, Michael Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Ward, Michael
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mikardo, Ian Watkins, David
Ford, Ben Millan, Bruce Watkinson, John
Forrester, John Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride) Watt, Hamish
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Weetch, Ken
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Molloy, William Weitzman, David
Freeson, Reginald Moonman, Eric Wellbeloved, James
Freud, Clement Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Welsh, Andrew
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) White, James (Pollok)
George, Bruce Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Whitehead, Phillip
Gilbert, Dr John Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Whitlock, William
Ginsburg, David Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Wigley, Dafydd
Gould, Bryan Newens, Stanley Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Gourlay, Harry Noble, Mike Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Graham, Ted Ogden, Eric Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Grant, George (Morpeth) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) Woof, Robert TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) Wrigglesworth, Ian Mr. Walter Harrison and
Wise, Mrs. Audrey Young, David (Bolton E) Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to