§ 'The provisions under Clause 1 of the Education Act 1973 whereby the terms of a Trust may he altered following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals made by the governors or managers of a school affected by a Trust, shall not apply for proposals made under section 13 where the governors or managers declare that such proposals were not willingly submitted by them to the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Brittan.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 7.30 p.m.1877
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)
With this we may take Amendment No. 60 in Clause 2, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—'(5) No proposals submitted by a local education authority or by the governors or managers of a voluntary school, shall conflict with any trust deeds pertaining to the school or schools in question, and the Secretary of State shall not require proposals which would be in conflict with any such trust deeds.'
§ Mr. Brittan
The new clause and the amendment are designed to provide a measure of protection for voluntary schools by preventing the Secretary of State altering their trust deeds against their wishes, and in that way compelling them to become comprehensive schools.
Trust deeds are the documents under which the independent property of a voluntary school is held. Those documents often prescribe the purposes for which the property is to be used and the kind of school that it is intended to be. They may enshrine the intentions of the founders of the school and all those who give money to the school after the foundation. If the trust deeds can be altered at the whim of the Secretary of State to enable such schools to be conducted on a wholly different basis from that intended by the founders and donors, that amounts in our view to little more than legalised robbery. If the new clause is not agreed to, the Bill will permit such legalised robbery. Indeed, there is little reason to doubt not only that the Bill will permit it but that it is designed to bring it about.
A peculiarly repellant aspect of the Bill as it concerns voluntary schools is that not only are they to be made comprehensive at the behest of the Secretary of State, irrespective of their wishes and irrespective of their previous character, but their governors and managers are themselves required to act as their own executioners. They are required to wield the axe against the tree that they are specifically charged to cherish. It is to prevent that outrageous situation arising that we put forward the new clause and the amendment.
To understand why the clause is necessary, we must consider the position of the voluntary schools before the passage of the Bill. Under present law it is impossible for proposals under section 13 for a change in the character of a 1878 voluntary or aided school, for the enlargement of its premises, or for anything of that sort, to be passed without the express consent and support of the governors and managers. The only thing that a local authority can cease to do with the support of the Secretary of State is to cease to maintain the school.
If the local authority wants to say "We do not like this type of school; we do not wish to support it", it can withdraw its support if the Secretary of State agrees with it. The local authority cannot say to a voluntary school "We want you to change your character, your size, your age group and the basis of your selection". None of that can be done by the local authority or the Secretary of State. The only people who can bring about such a change are the governors and managers. Even then, the Secretary of State has to give his approval. The position remains that it is only the governors and managers who can initiate a change in character or a significant alteration.
Over the years it was found that there were occasions on which, in accordance with the spirit of the wishes of the founders of the school and those who set up the trust under which the property was owned, it was desirable from the point of view of the governors and managers to make significant changes, alterations or additions to the school premises. In those cases it was occasionally found necessary, without doing violence to the wishes of those who provided the trust fund, for an alteration to be made to the trust fund and the arrangements under which it was held. For that reason the 1973 Act was passed. Under that Act the Secretary of State can modify a trust deed after consultation with the managers and governors in consequence of any proposals approved by him under Section 13 in relation to that school.
The essence of the matter is that under the 1973 Act the alteration of a trust deed arises only if proposals have been made and approved by the Secretary of State. Such proposals can be made for voluntary schools only by governors and managers. Therefore, the power to alter the trust deed is at present one which the Secretary of State can exercise only in accordance with the wishes of the governors and 1879 managers. He cannot do so by violating their wishes.
If the Bill is passed, the situation will change completely. The position under the 1973 Act will be completely altered. If we trace the history of the matter, we see that under the infamous Clause 2(2) the Secretary of State, if he is not satisfied that adequate progress has been made towards the comprehensive ideal, can require the governors and managers of a voluntary school to submit their proposals for advance towards that ideal. If they are not good enough in his view because they do not go far enough in the direction of the comprehensive ideal, he can require further proposals. Indeed, not only can he require further proposals, he can require them to fulfill such conditions as he may specify with respect to any matter in relation to which the previous proposals were, in his opinion, unsatisfactory.
We have a position where by stages the Secretary of State is compelling a voluntary aided school, possibly completely contrary to its wishes, to the wishes of the governors and managers and to the wishes of those who founded the school, to put forward proposals for its own destruction and transformation, proposals for the radical alteration of the character of the school.
The matter does not end there. Under this iniquitous piece of legislation, the Secretary of State may direct that the proposals that have been dragged or hauled out of the governors and managers be treated as if they were proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Act—namely, put forward voluntarily by the governors of the school in the normal way.
It is truly the case that the governors are required to be their own executioners. It is bad enough to decide that the Secretary of State must have a right to compel voluntary schools as well as county schools to become comprehensive, but it adds insult to injury in an infamous and iniquitous way to require governors of those schools to act as their own executioners.
If that is not enough to do the trick, if the position is that the governors find that they are faced with the obstacle of the trust deed which acts as a restraining hand, because there will be what are deemed to be voluntary proposals— 1880 although they have been dragged out of the governors under the 1973 Act, distorted in character and applied for different purposes in wholly different circumstances, which is a travesty of that piece of legislation—the Secretary of State will have the right to tamper with the trust deeds, violating the intention of the founders and donors. This is a piece of mockery and absurd conduct, and anybody who plays a part in it is doing a grave disservice to the House and is an object of shame and reproach. It is a classic case of adding insult to injury.
For this reason we propose a remedy to cope with the situation. The provision in New Clause 57 says that under Clause 1 of the Education Act 1973the terms of a trust may be altered following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals made by the governors or managers of a school affected by a Trust. …".It goes on to say that those provisions shall not apply in respect of proposalsmade under section 13 where the governors or managers declare that such proposals were not willingly submitted by them to the Secretary of State.It is being said there that it is a travesty of justice to allow the position to come about whereby a Secretary of State can alter trust deeds on the basis of proposals which, by a legislative charade, are deemed to be and pretend to be those of the governors. They are no more proposals of the governors than they are of the Czar of all the Russias. It is an absurdity—and, even worse, it is a gross injustice—which we are seeking to remedy in this clause and the associated amendment.
If the Secretary of State is determined to destroy voluntarily-aided and voluntarily-controlled schools in this country and to compel them into a narrow straitjacket of comprehensive education, irrespective of the circumstances of the school, let him do his own dirty work and not bully and cajole the governors into doing it for him and then exercise a punitive power to seal the dirty act. That is what this clause intends to avoid.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Gerry Fowler
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) on a remarkable speech. He has a command of moral indignation that should commend itself to the whole House—not least when considered in the 1881 context of the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who, by his tactics on this Bill, has lost his right to moral indignation.
§ Mr. Fowler
The hon. Gentleman would never lose his capacity for that. He has a greater capacity for moral indignation than any other Member of this House, and I congratulate him on it.
§ Mr. Fowler
Whether it has any objective basis is a matter of judgment. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not least in managing, in a quarter of an hour, to say that legalised robbery is wrong except in circumstances where there is added to it the offence of conspiracy.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was not that the trust deeds should not be modified, nor was it that the will of those who offended the trust should be observed. His argument was that, provided that the Secretary of State and the trustees conspired, any desirable change could always be made, but that a Secretary of State—especially a Secretary of State in a Labour Government operating under the provisions of this Bill—should not himself require changes in line with national education policy. That may not be an argument that would commend itself to the whole House. Most of us would regard the addition of the offence of conspiracy to the offence of robbery as in no way a palliative of that offence, if we were to accept in the first place that there were an offence, which we do not.
The hon. Gentleman then said that under the 1973 Act—I stress the year of the Act because it is clear who put it forward, namely the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition—the Secretary of State can make such modifications of the trust deeds relating to schools as appear to him or her to be requisite in consequence of the approval of proposals under Section 13. A trust deed can be modified in pursuance of this provision if the Secretary of State approves proposals for a school to become co-educational. There is no doubt about that because that is the present state of the law.
1882 The hon. Gentleman's argument was to the effect that Clause 2 of the Bill should apply and that the effect of the amendment would be to disapply that section of the Act put forward by the right hon. Lady in respect of proposals submitted by voluntary school managers or governors under Clause 2.
In practice, what does that mean? It means simply that if a trust deed provides that a school should be a grammar school or should provide education for pupils of one sex only, the Secretary of State's power to modify that deed would be excluded in respect of proposals put forward under Clause 2.
Let me give an example based on the hon. Gentleman's argument. Where there is a proposal for a single-sex school to become co-educational, the trustees would be under a duty to make the site available for the conduct of a single-sex school. The governors or managers would be under a simultaneous statutory duty under Section 13 of the Act, as modified by Clause 4 of the Bill, to provide a co-educational school on the same site. That is manifest nonsense. It is true that the trustees or governors or managers can apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme to modify the trust deed, but if they did not choose to do so, they could not in practice be compelled to make such an application. The hon. Gentleman postulated that in such a case the governors would be unwilling. That is the basis of his argument. He may be arguing primarily to make single-sex schools co-educational. I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with those cases where a trust deed prescribes that a school should be a grammar school.
Under the operation of this Bill it shall be required that the school shall become part of a comprehensive system. That is what really concerns the hon. Member. He is concerned solely with the preservation of grammar schools. That is very clear from what he has said. Time and again in Committees we had to face wrecking amendments. This is yet another of the same type.
Last night the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on a recent speech and suggested, rather tongue-in-cheek, I 1883 thought, that it marked the conversion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford to the doctrine of comprehensive education. I intervened to point out that the hon. Member for Chelmsford had repeated time and again in Committee the belief that comprehensive education was all right as long as there were grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools. In other words a non-selective system is splendid as long as there is selection within it. That is what he believes, but how he comes to believe it I do not know. How he can argue that a non-selective system is all right as long as there is selection in it, and at the same time claim that he is talking sense and not nonsense is quite beyond me. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is putting forward the same proposition today. He has no objection to the Bill as long as certain grammar schools can be preserved. Of course I must reject that suggestion totally.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby dealt also with Amendment No. 60 which prohibits the submission of proposals under Clause 2 by a local education authority to cease to maintain a voluntary school, or the submission of proposals by the governors to make a significant change in the character of that school if implementation of the proposals would be inconsistent with any trust deed regulating the school. That is clearly a wrecking amendment. He is proposing that a trust deed, no matter how old, should take precedence over the educational and social needs of the nation in the late twentieth century. That proposal would prohibit the submission of proposals by an authority which ceases to maintain a voluntary school if the trust deed requires the trustees to provide such a school—that is, if it were required that they should provide a grammar school. That is what is at the heart of this proposal.
The hon. Member is trying desperately to keep a rigid head and not nod in agreement, because he knows that he has been caught with his pants down. This amendment would be capricious, and would entirely turn upon the details of historic trust deeds. It would be unpredictable and inequitable in the sense that it would preserve, up and down the realm, 1884 grammar schools within an otherwise non-selective system.
The amendment, like the new clause, is totally unacceptable to the Government. The basic principle the Opposition seem to accept here is that historic trust deeds should be the tail that wags the dog of the educational system.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) has tried for many years to demonstrate that his liberal principles are somewhat compatible with the illiberal principles of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford. This is all to do with the comprehensive principle. The new clause and the amendment strike at the root of that principle. That is what they are designed to do, and therefore they are wrecking amendments. I must ask the House to reject them.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
That was an extremely interesting exchange of views. I congratulate the protagonists in that quite rivetting argument. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he deployed the technical and legal arguments which lie behind the new clause and the amendment. It is a technical and legal point involved in the first place, and no one in this House could better the manner in which it was propounded by my hon. Friend.
Behind the technicalities, important as they are, lies a vital issue of principle, and that is not, as the Minister of State seems to think, the issue of comprehensive versus non-comprehensive schools. The issue of principle here is whether voluntary schools, which have historically enjoyed their rights and independence, are to be take over in practice by the Secretary of State and by his instrument, the Department of Education and Science. That is a much wider point of principle than how a school is to be organised, because the powers which voluntary schools have are two-fold. They are the power over their own organisation and the power over the curriculum. The Secretary of State proposes to take away 50 per cent. of their autonomy, and it is only a matter of time before the other 50 per cent. goes as well.
This technical amendment is designed to preserve the autonomy of these schools in so far as can be done by respecting the trust deeds. This is necessary because 1885 although it was a Conservative Government who introduced provisions on trust deeds in the 1973 Act, these were introduced in totally different circumstances in which the rights of voluntary schools were not under threat, but were being meticulously observed. In fact, I gave an express assurance myself on behalf of the Secretary of State at the time that these rights would be observed.
It is not a matter of ancient, out-of-date trusts, as the Minister of State has contemptuously called them. It is quite a different matter and it goes to the roots of the education system. The first people on the educational scene in Britain were the Churches. They undertook the education of people long before the State
§ intervened, and these trusts represented the wishes and sacrifices of earlier generations who assumed this responsibility when the Government was unable or unwilling to undertake it. We are trying to keep faith with the voluntary schools to avoid the worst results of this Bill, which will upset that very delicate settlement involving the voluntary schools, the local authorities, and the Government brought in by Lord Butler, a great and constructive Secretary of State. It is our intention to press this matter to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 304.1889
|Division No. 265.]||AYES||[8.01 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Dykes, Hugh||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, John (Bromley)|
|Alison, Michael||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hurd, Douglas|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Elliott, Sir William||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Arnold, Tom||Emery, Peter||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Eyre, Reginald||James David|
|Awdry, Daniel||Fairbairn, Nicholas||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)|
|Baker, Kenneth||Fairgrieve, Russell||Jessel, Toby|
|Banks, Robert||Farr, John||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)|
|Bell, Ronald||Fell, Anthony||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Jopling, Michael|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Benyon, W.||Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Biffen, John||Forman, Nigel||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Kilfedder, James|
|Blaker, Peter||Fox, Marcus||Kimball, Marcus|
|Body, Richard||Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fry, Peter||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||Kirk, Sir Peter|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Gardiner, George (Reigate||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Knight, Mrs Jill|
|Brittan, Leon||Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Knox, David|
|Brotherton, Michael||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Lamont, Norman|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Glyn, Dr Alan||Lane, David|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Goodhart, Philip||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Buck, Antony||Goodhew, Victor||Lawson, Nigel|
|Budgen, Nick||Goodlad, Alastair||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Gorst, John||Lloyd, Ian|
|Burden, F. A.||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Loveridge, John|
|Carlisle, Mark||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Luce, Richard|
|Carson, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Gray, Hamish||McCrindle, Robert|
|Channon, Paul||Griffiths, Eldon||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Churchill, W. S.||Grist, Ian||MacGregor, John|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Grylls, Michael||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hall, Sir John||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Clark, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Clegg, Walter||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Madel, David|
|Cockcroft, John||Hampson, Dr Keith||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Hannam, John||Marten, Neil|
|Cope, John||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mates, Michael|
|Cordle, John H.||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Mather, Carol|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hastings, Stephen||Maude, Angus|
|Costain, A. P.||Havers, Sir Michael||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Critchley, Julian||Hawkins, Paul||Mawby, Ray|
|Crouch, David||Hayhoe, Barney||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Crowder, F. P.||Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Heseltine, Michael||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Hicks, Robert||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Higgins, Terence L.||Mills, Peter|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Holland, Philip||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Hordern, Peter||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Moate, Roger|
|Dunlop, John||Howell, David (Guildford)||Molyneaux, James|
|Durant, Tony||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Monro, Hector|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||Stokes, John|
|Moore, John (Croydon C)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|More, Jesper (Ludlow)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Tapsell, Peter|
|Morgan, Geraint||Ridsdale, Julian||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Rifkind, Malcolm||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Mudd, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Neave, Airey||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Trotter, Neville|
|Nelson, Anthony||Royle, Sir Anthony||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Neubert, Michael||Sainsbury, Tim||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Newton, Tony||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Normanton, Tom||Scott, Nicholas||Viggers, Peter|
|Nott, John||Scott-Hopkins, James||Wakeham, John|
|Onslow, Cranley||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Osborn, John||Shepherd, Colin||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Page, John (Harrow West)||Shersby, Michael||Wall, Patrick|
|Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Sivester, Fred||Walters, Dennis|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Sims, Roger||Warren, Kenneth|
|Parkinson, Cecil||Sinclair, Sir George||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Percival, Ian||Skeet, T. H. H.||Wells, John|
|Peyton, Rt Hon John||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||Speed, Keith||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Spence, John||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Raison, Timothy||Sproat, Iain||Younger, Hon George|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stainton, Keith|
|Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Stanbrook, Ivor||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Stanley, John||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Mr. Jim Lester.|
|Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Abse, Leo||Corbett, Robin||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)|
|Atlaun, Frank||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Anderson, Donald||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Freud, Clement|
|Archer, Peter||Crawshaw, Richard||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Cronin, John||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Ashley, Jack||Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||George, Bruce|
|Ashton, Joe||Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)||Gilbert, Dr John|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Cryer, Bob||Ginsburg, David|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Golding, John|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)||Gould, Bryan|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Davidson, Arthur||Gourlay, Harry|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Bates, Alf||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Bean, R. E.||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Beith, A. J.||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Deakins, Eric||Hardy, Peter|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Harper, Joseph|
|Bidwell, Sydney||de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Hart, Rt Hon Judith|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dempsey, James||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Boardman, H.||Doig, Peter||Hatton, Frank|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Dormand, J. D.||Hayman, Mrs Helene|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Duffy, A. E. P.||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Dunn, James A.||Hooley, Frank|
|Bradley, Tom||Dunnett, Jack||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Horam, John|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Eadie, Alex||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Edge, Geoff||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)||Huckfield, Les|
|Buchan, Norman||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||English, Michael||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Ennals, David||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Campbell, Ian||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Hunter, Adam|
|Canavan, Dennis||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)|
|Cant, R. B.||Evans, John (Newton)||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)|
|Carmichael, Nell||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)|
|Carter, Ray||Faulds, Andrew||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)|
|Cartwright, John||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Janner, Greville|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)||Jeger, Mrs Lena|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Flannery, Martin||John, Brynmor|
|Cohen, Stanley||Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Coleman, Donald||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Jones, Barry (East Fllnt)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Ford, Ben||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Forrester, John||Judd, Frank|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Kelley, Richard||Ogden, Eric||Stoddart, David|
|Karr, Russell||O'Halloran, Michael||Stott, Roger|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Orbach, Maurice||Strang, Gavin|
|Kinnock, Neil||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Lambie, David||Ovenden, John||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Lamborn, Harry||Owen, Dr David||Swain, Thomas|
|Lamond, James||Padley, Walter||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Palmer, Arthur||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Pardoe, John||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Lee, John||Park, George||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Parker, John||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Parry, Robert||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Pavitt, Laurie||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N. Devon)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pearl, Rt Hon Fred||Tierney, Sydney|
|Lipton, Marcus||Pendry, Tom||Tinn, James|
|Litterick, Tom||Phipps, Dr Colin||Tomlinson, John|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Tomney, Frank|
|Loyden, Eddie||Prescott, John||Torney, Tom|
|Luard, Evan||Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Price, William (Rugby)||Urwin, T. W.|
|McCartney, Hugh||Radice, Giles||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Richardson, Miss Jo||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|MacFarquhar, Roderick||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|MacKenzie, Gregor||Robinson, Geoffrey||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roderick, Caerwyn||Ward, Michael|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Watkins, David|
|Madden, Max||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Watkinson, John|
|Magee, Bryan||Rooker, J. W.||Weetch, Ken|
|Mahon, Simon||Roper, John||Weitzman, David|
|Mallalleu, J. P. W.||Rose, Paul B.||Wellbeloved, James|
|Marks, Kenneth||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Marquand, David||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)||White, James (Pollok)|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Rowlands, Ted||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Sandelson, Neville||Whitlock, William|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Sedgemore, Brian||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Selby, Harry||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Meacher, Michael||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Mendelson, John||Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Millan, Bruce||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Silverman, Julius||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Moonman, Eric||Skinner, Dennis||Woodall, Alec|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Small, William||Woof, Robert|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Snape, Peter|
|Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Spearing, Nigel||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.|
|Newens, Stanley||Stallard, A. W.||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Noble, Mike||Steel, David (Roxburgh)||Mr. Ted Graham.|
|Oakes, Gordon||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.