§ 4.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—'Provided that the Secretary of State shall not use any of the money authorised by this Act for the purposes of giving financial assistance in pursuance of directions under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975 to any company in which any of the shares are owned by the National Enterprise Board, and'.The Opposition believe this amendment to be one of the most crucial to this unwise, very small Bill. This legislation is a way by which the Government can siphon more funds into the National Enterprise Board with very scant parliamentary procedure. We believe that if the NEB is to have money, and it has been allocated its own money of £1,000 million, that should be the limit. However, this Section 3 procedure of the 1975 Industry Act allows the Secretary of State to make a direction that the NEB shall operate the Section 8 procedure of the 1972 Act. We do not believe that that is right.
It will not be news to the Government that the Opposition do not like the NEB very much. We do not hide out views about that. But we dislike this procedure even more, because under it the amount of money that the NEB has may be increased to almost double.
On 7th August we had the first occasion on which this procedure was used. The Secretary of State allocated £30 million to Leyland under the Section 3 procedure. We all knew that an additional £70 million would be allocated out of the NEB's own funds. In that debate I asked the Minister of State why he was not asking the NEB to use £100 718 million of its own money, which it still had, and why the NEB was prepared to use only £70 million of its own money for Leyland and to have £30 million directed from the Secretary of State.
That seemed to be a common sense and reasonable point to make. The Government were enthusiastic about Leyland. The Minister could have replied that perhaps our suggestion would be better. Indeed, he almost said that. In the closing minutes of the debate he said that there was a case for all the money coming from the NEB. Why did not he arrange it?
When we discussed the 1975 Industry Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we were never told why there was this short-circuiting procedure with Industry Act money being forcibly fed through the NEB to NEB-owned companies. During many hours of debate on the Industry Bill, we had no answer to that question and on the first occasion when it was triggered off, on 3rd August, the Minister gave us no answer.
I can only assume that this sort of procedure is a hangover from the days when the former Secretary of State was winging his way round industry trying to take over this and that, and the 1975 Industry Act was the horse on which he was to ride to achieve those aims. We thought that those days had ended. We have a new Secretary of State and a helpful and amiable Minister of State. On this question I must ask the Minister of State to give us a clear answer. Why does he need to have the Section 3 procedure? In these difficult days, if we are to increase the amount of money under the Industry Act and its Section 8 procedures by nearly two and half times, we are entitled to ask the question even more strongly.
Returning to the Leyland situation, one can imagine the scenario at a NEB meeting. A progress report on Leyland had been published by the NEB, It tried to pretend that all was going fairly well and, therefore, that it was safe to allow Leyland to have £100 million to go ahead with its development.
Having this proposition put up to it, the NEB thought that it had to approve it because the Government wanted the money to go to Leyland and were committed up to the hilt to allowing Leyland 719 to have this money in order to carry on. But the NEB was not sure what kind of return it would get on its money and, naturally, at the end of the year it wanted to show on its balance sheet that it had made a decent profit. As a result, it felt justified in deciding to give Leyland just a portion of what it required and to ask the Government for a Section 3 direction for the balance of the money.
Is this procedure an excuse to use money for non-viable projects? That is the suspicion of the Opposition. We are told at the same time that the NEB will monitor the result of its investment. But is it really feasible for the NEB to be asked to monitor that in which it does not apparently believe? If the NEB is a super holding Government investment company and if it approves investment for Leyland, let it use its own money and explain to the public what has been the return on that money and what monitoring it has done. The NEB is to be asked to monitor an investment three-tenths of which it does not believe in, and we regard that as being quite wrong.
The proposal has one further bad facet in the view of the Opposition: it removes further from Parliament control over this public money. As hon. Members will have discovered when attempting to put questions to the NEB, it is a difficult animal from which to get information. An hon. Member can put down Questions, but the Table Office does not quite know whether they should be allowed.
Even when Questions are answered by the Minister, he merely says that these are matters for the NEB. If an hon. Member writes to he NEB, occasionally it helps him. But that is not proper parliamentary control. If Parliament has allowed the NEB certain money, it should use that money. It should get on with it and use that money for its own subsidiary companies and its own projects. There should not be other money filtered in. That is the wrong way to do it, and it removes parliamentary control further from this House.
The Minister of State will remember that when we debated the matter on 3rd August there were many directors and others from British Leyland present in the Gallery. I hope that it is not improper to say this, but after the debate some 720 of those Leyland moguls were horrified by the scantiness of attendance at our debate. The matter was discussed for an hour and a half late at night. We were discussing a gigantic sum of money which a couple of decades ago would have represented the total National Debt.
I cannot believe that it is very satisfactory for the people v/ho run. administer and work in the National Enterprise Board itself. Although I can give no grounds for my fears, f suspect that the NEB itself would probably rather have this its own way. Then it would be in a position to say that it believes that Leyland justifies not the maximum of £100 million, but slightly less. In this case it believed that it justified £70 million and that £30 million should be forcibly fed in by the Government.
We believe the amendment to be important. It is even more important because of the amounts involved in the Bill. I hope that, in view of what the Minister of State said on 3rd August, when he certainly did not say that he was wedded to this proposal—he gave me the impression that he thought that I had made a fair point, that all the money should come from the NEB—in his heart of hearts he will see that this direction procedure is not the right way to proceed. If the Government's industrial policy is to back winners and put public money only into viable enterprises, this trigger mechanism of the Secretary of State giving directions is unnecessary.
§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)
First, on behalf of the Liberal Bench, I would welcome the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to his Front Bench position on the first occasion on which he has been partly responsible for piloting legislation. We on this Bench will naturally watch with concern lest his change of place in the Chamber is accompanied by any loss of conviction or any diminution of pungency in the way in which he customarily expresses those convictions.
Liberal Members are not surprised, but we do regret, that this amendment should be treated, apparently, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), as an occasion for outright attack on the National Enterprise Board. Let me make it clear once 721 again that the Liberal Party believes that there is a role for such a board. Indeed, without wearying the House with a lot of history, I can say in one sentence that it is almost 50 years since the Liberal Party, advised by Lord Keynes, Sir Walter Layton and others, advocated a national investment board as a major instrument of Government policy.
However, what our predecessors had in mind then, and what, broadly speaking, we have in mind now with the NEB, is a body which most emphatically will not be saddled by the Government with lame ducks of any character for political reasons. Our image of the NEB is a body with formidable powers and as much independence as possible from day-today hurly-burly politics, which will make it its job to step in where, unfortunately, for various reasons, private enterprise seems to have failed, to pick up new technologies, develop new processes, make the best use of new discoveries, and so on.
In order to achieve that rôle, it is extremely important that the NEB should be deliberately protected from the awesome responsibility of being landed by a Secretary of State's direction with lame ducks, which, of course, have already landed with the most frightful thud on the plate of the present NEB. It is simply in order to preserve what we believe should be the concept of a National Enterprise Board—namely, that the emphasis should be entirely on the enterprise—that we are inclined to support the amendment.
But in so doing, we do not join in wholesale condemnation of the idea of a National Enterprise Board. Nor are we so far entirely without hope that some adjustment of the Industry Act 1975 by a future Government might make the NEB of genuine utility to the country. In that spirit, but in that spirit only, we intend to support the amendment.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer)
I would first thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) for his kind remarks about my metamorphosis and my appearance at this hallowed Dispatch Box.
I would make it clear immediately that we intend to call upon the House to resist the amendment, which we think will be of no advantage to the National 722 Enterprise Board or the Secretary of State.
The amendment would mean that Section 8 assistance could not be provided through a direction under Section 3 of the Industry Act 1975 to a company owned wholly or partly by the NEB—as, for example, in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), in which British Leyland had £70 million advanced by the NEB and £30 million under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972.
There is absolutely no question of forcibly feeding the NEB with Section 8 money, as the hon. Member suggested. One of the important elements is that Section 3 money made by direction of the Secretary of State is restorable to the NEB; hence, a Section 3 direction gives the NEB much more flexibility, especially where NEB funds may already be allocated.
I am very surprised that the Conservative Opposition are taking their view when only last night they put on a party political broadcast in which a group of people talked about the Conservative attitude to the trade union movement. In the TUC Economic Review for 1976, in Section 43, the TUC specifically make the point that they do not want any unnecessary restrictions on the NEB.
This is not a question of accepting directions from the TUC but simply of obeying a commonsense approach to cooperation with the trade unions. I should have thought that, if the TUC had put forward a proposal, it should be taken seriously and, of course, it is taken seriously by the Government—but, alas, not, apparently, by the Opposition.
In Section 43 on page 27 of its Economic Review the TUC suggests that the NEB will be the main interventionist instrument in industrial strategy. It is vital that the NEB's prime role in the industrial strategy is recognised and that it is not hindered in its ambitions by unnecessary restrictions. In our view, the amendment would certainly constitute an unnecessary restriction.
§ Mr. Grylls
I have been trying to follow the Minister's answer to my question about Leyland money. He has not given an answer. Can he say why not all the money came from the NEB, which has plenty of money—£1,000 million?
§ Mr. Cryer
The notion that the NEB has plenty of money is fallacious. The £1,000 million is spread over at least four years and the TUC was asking in its document for £1,000 million a year. It would therefore seem entirely reasonable to make the division of money to British Leyland. Of course, that is, at least in part, a matter for the NEB and not wholly for the Secretary of State, but at the same time the Section 8 assistance under Section 3 of the 1975 Act in no way suggested a lack of confidence by the NEB in British Leyland.
When I recently visited the Motor Show, it gave me great pleasure to see a fine British Leyland stand exhibiting a wide range of cars. I was conscious that, but for the action taken by a Labour Government, which was dealt with churlishly by the Conservative Party, there is a strong possibility that that stand would not be there—certainly that the volume car production would not be there.
Therefore, the attitude of the NEB is clear. It has confidence in British Leyland, the British nation has confidence in British Leyland, and we certainly need a company like British Leyland prepared to go out and battle in the markets of the world with the car industries of Japan and the Common Market.
§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
Does the Minister think that the fact that about 40 per cent, of cars on the home market are now imported is the criterion by which he guesses that the British public have confidence in British Leyland?
§ Mr. Cryer
That was not a particularly helpful intervention. If the Conservative Party had its way, the level of imports would be more than 40 per cent.—probably about 50 or 60 per cent. Of course I greatly regret the level of 40 per cent, penetration, but at least we have a viable motor industry which can meet some of its competition. If the matter had rested with the Conservative Party, British Leyland would now be in a much different way of operation. Volume car production would almost certainly not exist and Chrysler would have gone to the wall as well. Therefore, the Opposition clearly have no grounds for making any allegations about the Government's attitude towards the car industry. The industry stands in debt to the Labour Government.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)
Had it not been for Government assistance, the Leyland stand might have contained a smaller number of different models, but models with a reasonable chance of selling at a profit, instead of Leyland's boasting that it produces the largest range of cars. That is no way to run a profitable motor industry.
§ Mr. Cryer
That is a characteristically defeatist attitude. It would be pleasant if Opposition Members expressed a strong desire to see the British motor industry succeed instead of making carping comments about the sort of range which Leyland is currently selling.
Clearly, the amendment flies in the face of the policy advocated by the TUC and achieved by the Government in co-operation with the trade union movement. Any Section 8 assistance would be subject to the normal criteria for selective assistance. Having decided to provide the assistance, the Secretary of State has a choice of providing it directly to the company or through the National Enterprise Board via a Section 3 direction. The main factor determining this choice is monitoring—that is, ensuring that the funds provided are applied strictly to the approved purposes and used effectively.
By enacting the Industry Act 1975 Parliament deemed the NEB to be a competent body in which major public interest might be vested. Therefore, the NEB can reasonably be regarded as a fit and proper body to exercise a monitoring function wherever it makes good administrative sense so to do. If the NEB is already interested in a company, that means being involved in the running of it to a greater or lesser degree. To deny the Secretary of State the right to give a direction to the NEB under Section 3 of the 1975 Act would mean that any Section 8 money advanced would have to be given directly and monitored by the Department, which would lead to wasteful and unnecessary duplication.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West said that there was scant parliamentary control of this process, that parliamentary control was being taken away from the House. There is already adequate scrutiny by Parliament of the NEB. The interim statement covering the period 20th November 1975 to 30th June 1976 was laid before the House on 725 12th October, and before the Lords on 27th September.
I have not noticed—for example, during business questions today—any notable pressure from the Opposition for time to debate this statement. They have that opportunity and can use some of their time for this kind of issue if they feel that it is important. But the interim statement, which indicates some degree of success by the NEB—perhaps that is why the Opposition do not wish to debate it—has certainly been placed before the House.
In addition, when a direction is given under Section 3 of the Industry Act 1975 a statement must be laid before the House about the direction as soon as practicable. In any event, if the Opposition's view is that this is some form of extending ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, I remind them that Section 8 assistance must require the consent of the company to the holding of shares. It seems to me, and I am sure to most sensible people, that there are sufficient safeguards. I accept the view that:There may be occasions when a government has to intervene to assist a company in financial difficulties on strategic, or technological or other grounds.I would not like to restrict the Secretary of State's opportunity to do this. That quotation is taken from the Conservative document "The Right Approach". It seems that the Conservatives are prepared to advance discretionary powers to the Government in the case of entirely-owned private firms but not in the case of firms wholly or partly owned by the NEB.
The NEB is a vital part of the Government's strategy. We want it to succeed. We do not want it to be restricted, nor do we want the Secretary of State restricted in his application of the legislation.
I believe in the NEB. I hope that we shall have some indications from the Opposition that they, too, believe in it. Unfortunately, the indication seems to be that they wish to abolish it. It is an important part of our strategy for ensuring that investment goes into British manufacturing industry so that the basis of all our strategy—the provision of social services—has a sound manufacturing base on which to succeed. Any restrictions placed in the way of the Secretary of State 726 or the NEB would go very much against that aim.
§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
I welcome the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to his new post. Plus ça change, plus e'est la même chose. On Second Reading I had to welcome another Minister, the Minister of State. I said then that it would not be a long welcome, because we had to welcome new Ministers in the Department quite often. Here we are on Report and we have a new Minister. I sincerely welcome him. I am fascinated to see him as part of the Establishment, clutching in a rather nervous hand the departmental brief. It may also stagger a few of his constituents to find him in his new position.
Has there been a further change within the Department? I am not aware that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), whom I see present, has changed his responsibilities. He took the Bill through Committee, but for some reason he is not taking it through the Report stage. I am not clear whether there has been a reallocation of responsibilities, but there seems to be a further unnecessary confusion within the Department. I say that with no disrespect to the hon. Member for Keighley.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will feel that his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box was a universal success. I am not sure what all those comments about the car industry were intended to mean. I was interested in his remark that if the Conservative Party had had its way there would have been no Chrysler operation in this country now. I remind him that if his own Secretary of State had had his way, there would be no Chrysler operation on the present scale. It is not a happy topic for Ministers in the Department to discuss. The history of that matter is too well known to need repeating.
The hon. Gentleman was very pleased about the great new range of cars which British Leyland has at the Motor Show in its new nationalised NEB guise. It is worth remembering that every one of those models is the creation of the previous private-sector company. Lord Stokes gets a lot of stick, but all those cars which are now the spearhead of the range on which many hopes are based—we wish them well, because in the interests of the country we must hope that 727 they will succeed—are nothing to do with the present management which has been responsible for production. For the design we should pay tribute to the previous management.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not here in his new rôle solely as spokesman for the TUC. Half his speech consisted of reading a TUC brief. The hon. Gentleman is not now a Member sponsored by a union with TUC affiliations but a Minister in Her Majesty's Government, for whom the TUC is merely one of a number of outside bodies which will properly want to make representations. The TUC will have a point of view, but it is not a body with overriding importance, one entitled to overriding consideration and whose view is final in all these matters.
§ Mr. Cryer
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is important to take all views into consideration, including those of the TUC. Perhaps he can explain why he decides in the amendment to fly in the face of TUC advice, particularly when his party is grovelling after the trade union vote.
§ Mr. King
I was saying why the amendment was necessary. The point I made was that the TUC was only one of the bodies concerned.
Certainly there should be consultations at all times. There should be consultations with all interested parties. If the Under-Secretary studies his speech, he will see that he told us that the judgment of the TUC is final. His opening argument was to say that this is the case just because the TUC said it must be so. If he reads his speech in Hansard, he will see that he advanced this as a justification, and in his intervention just now he challenged me to say how I could go against the judgment of the TUC.
I respect the judgment of the TUC—clearly one would be a fool not to respect its judgment on industrial matters. Its views are valuable and should be noted and considered, but it is not the final arbiter in matters such as these.
Our concern in the amendment is not about whether the NEB should exist. This argument is quite separate. The position is that we have the NEB with its own funds, and we also have the 728 Industry Act, which supplies funds under Sections 7 and 8. We particularly object to the confusion caused by having Government funds from two different sources crossed in this way. This makes it much more difficult to identify where these funds are going and the performance that they are generating.
The Minister's argument is the same as that given by the Minister of State in Committee, namely, that this helps monitoring. Both have the point precisely wrong. Unless they are saying that the Department will not monitor Section 8 money to the NEB, there must be duplication of monitoring. I trust that no Minister will say that the Department has no responsibility here.
The senior civil servant in the Department is the accounting officer responsible for all Section 8 money. If there has been any change in that policy, we shall be very interested to hear it. It is the responsibility of the senior civil servant to see that all Section 8 money is properly monitored. Therefore we have a situation in which the Government have said the NEB will monitor it but the Department will still monitor it as well. It would be much simpler if the NEB monitored its own companies' funds and companies applying to the Government under Section 8 of the Industry Act for funds were monitored by the Department. How can the Minister honestly suggest that it will simplify and reduce monitoring by having money coming through two channels? Monitoring by the NEB and the Department is a palpable duplication, and our belief is that it should be simplified.
It is difficult in the present situation because the Government are putting money into industry in a whole range of different ways—by selective assistance and various schemes. In the Under-Secretary's own constituency money has been put into machine tools. Money is also going into stockpiling, wool textiles, ferrous foundry schemes and in general assistance to companies under Section 8. There is also the possibility of investment by the NEB, so money is going around all different sections, leaving aside employment subsidy schemes.
There is a problem with monitoring and establishing where money is going and whether it is being properly used. It 729 is important to keep this sort of monitoring as simple as possible. Clearly this can give rise to considerable misunderstanding, as in the case of British Leyland. Lord Ryder was determined that companies in the NEB would perform in a thoroughly commercial way and that their rate of return would be commercially viable. When the last money was advanced, there was an attempt to fudge the issue, to reduce his capital and get money from other sources by using the Industry Act money. No account was taken of the performance ratio or assessments in other areas. The money was just being pushed around from one sector to another, and it was impossible to tell how much State money was in the activity, and what the performance was in relation to it.
§ Mr. Richard Wainwright
If the reason for the amendment is that Conservatives do not want cross-fertilisation between different sections of assistance, why is this amendment so narrowly drafted? It refers only to directions under Section 3. Why does it not include all other forms
§ of Industry Act assistance to NEB companies?
§ Mr. King
I shall give an unsatisfactory answer to that. We are able to debate this matter only because the Division on this amendment was tied in Committee, and it is not possible under the rules of procedure to change its wording on Report. There is a case for extending the areas of simplification but we were restricted by the rules of the House on Report.
It is clear to the House from the Under-Secretary's answer that the TUC wants no restrictions and no changes in the way the NEB is set up. He regards this as an overwhelming argument. While I respect the TUC's point of view, I do not believe that it is the overriding consideration. Our amendment will simplify and improve the Bill, and I hope that it will be fully supported in the Lobby.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes, 212.733
|Division No. 352.]||AYES||[4.47 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Emery, Peter||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Alison, Michael||Eyre, Reginald||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Arnold, Tom||Fairbairn, Nicholas||James, David|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Fairgrieve, Russell||Jessel, Toby|
|Baker, Kenneth||Fell, Anthony||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Bell, Ronald||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Jopling, Michael|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Fookes, Miss Janet||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Benyon, W.||Forman, Nigel||Kimball, Marcus|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)|
|Biffen, John||Fox, Marcus||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Freud, Clement||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Blaker, Peter||Fry, Peter||Knight, Mrs Jill|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Knox, David|
|Bottomley, Peter||Glyn, Dr Alan||Lamont, Norman|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Goodhart, Philip||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Goodhew, Victor||Lawson, Nigel|
|Brittan, Leon||Gorst, John||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Lloyd, Ian|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Gray, Hamish||Luce, Richard|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Grist, Ian||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Buck, Antony||Grylls, Michael||McCusker, H.|
|Budgen, Nick||Hall, Sir John||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||MacGregor, John|
|Burden, F. A.||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hampson, Dr Keith||Madel, David|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hannam, John||Marten, Nell|
|Channon, Paul||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Mates, Michael|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Havers, Sir Michael||Mather, Carol|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hawkins, Paul||Maude, Angus|
|Clegg, Walter||Hayhoe, Barney||Mawby, Ray|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Heseltine, Michael||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Cope, John||Holland, Philip||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Contain, A. P.||Hooson, Emlyn||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Hordern, Peter||Mills, Peter|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Howell, David (Guildford)||Moate, Roger|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Molyneaux, James|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, John (Bromley)||Monro, Hector|
|Elliott, Sir William||Hurd, Douglas||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Morgan, Geraint||Ridsdale, Julian||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Rifkind, Malcolm||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Tebbit, Norman|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Mudd, David||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Neave, Airey||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Nelson, Anthony||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Trotter, Neville|
|Neubert, Michael||Royle, Sir Anthony||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||St. John-Stevas, Norman||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Page, John (Harrow West)||Scott, Nicholas||Vaughan, Dr Gerald|
|Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Wakeham, John|
|Pardoe, John||Shepherd, Colin||Wall, Patrick|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Silvester, Fred||Walters, Dennis|
|Penhaligon, David||Sims, Roger||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Percival, Ian||Speed, Keith||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Spence, John||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Raison, Timothy||Sproat, Iain|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stanbrook, Ivor||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Stanley, John||Mr. John Corrie and|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Mr. Michael Roberts.|
|Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Abse, Leo||Duffy, A. E. P.||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)|
|Allaun, Frank||Dunn, James A.||Lipton, Marcus|
|Anderson, Donald||Dunnett, Jack||Litterick, Tom|
|Archer, Peter||Eadie, Alex||Loyden, Eddie|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Edge, Geoff||Luard, Evan|
|Ashley, Jack||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Ashton, Joe||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||McElhone, Frank|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||English, Michael||McGuire, Michael (Ince)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||MacKenzie, Gregor|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Bates, Alf||Faulds, Andrew||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||McNamara, Kevin|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Flannery, Martin||Madden, Max|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Magee, Bryan|
|Bishop, E. S.||Ford, Ben||Mahon, Simon|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Forrester, John||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||George, Bruce||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Gilbert, Dr John||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Ginsburg, David||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Bradley, Tom||Gould, Bryan||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Gourlay Harry||Mikardo, Ian|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Graham, Ted||Miller, Dr M. S (E Kilbride)|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Grand, John (Isligton C)|
|Buchan, Norman||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Moonman, Erlc|
|Buchanan, Richard||Hardy, Peter||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & p)||Hatton, Frank||Oakes, Gordon|
|Campbell, Ian||Heffer, Eric S.||Ogden, Eric|
|Canavan, Dennis||Henderson, Douglas||Ovenden, John|
|Cant, R. B.||Parry, Robert|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hooley, Frank||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Horam, John||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Cartwright John||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Huckfield, Les||Radice, Giles|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Coleman, Donald||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hunter, Adam||Rodgers George (Chorley)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Corbett, Robin||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Janner, Greville||Rooker, J. W.|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Roper, John|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||John, Brynmor||Rowlands, Ted|
|Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Ryman, John|
|Cryer, Bob||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Judd, Frank||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)||Kaufman, Gerald||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kershaw, Anthony||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lamborn, Harry||Silverman, Julius|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Lamond, James||Skinner, Dennis|
|Doig, Peter||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Snape, Peter|
|Dormand, J. D.||Leadbitter, Ted||Spearing, Nigel|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Stallard, A. W.||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Stoddart, David||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Stott, Roger||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Strang, Gavin||Ward, Michael||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.||Watkins, David||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Watkinson, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Weetch, Ken||Woodall, Alec|
|Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Weitzman, David||Woof, Robert|
|Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Wellbeloved, James||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Tomlinson, John||White, James (Pollock)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Tomney, Frank||Whitehead, Phillip||Mr. James Tinn and|
|Torney, Tom||Whitlock, William||Mr. Joseph Harper.|
|Urwin, T. W.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.