HC Deb 20 July 1978 vol 954 cc831-43

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to hear the full exposition by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) of his alternative to the Welsh Assembly. From what I heard of it, it sounded to me a great deal more attractive, much cheaper and no less democratic than the model proposed to us by the Secretary of State.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Development Agency has made a very good start. I freely acknowledge that my fears have not been fulfilled, and that my best hopes have been more than fulfilled, by the way in which it operates. Although in theory it would be desirable to provide for more effective democratic control over its operations—I shall argue to that effect—I have a nasty feeling that it would be much better to leave well alone and let it get on as it is getting on.

The Secretary of State accused my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) of not trusting the people of Wales. I know few more trustful chaps than my hon. Friend. I think that that trust is reciprocated by his constituents, who regularly re-elect him with increased majorities. There are a large number of people, certainly in my part of North Wales, who distrust the Labour Party of South Wales and have some reason to do so. It is this which partly animates my attitude towards the Bill.

I think that there is common ground on both sides of the House that we should like if possible to achieve more effective democratic control over the nominated bodies which proliferate in Wales. This is undoubtedly the strongest argument for having an elected Welsh Assembly. It was also, I think, the prime concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to find an alternative pattern for devolution. It was really from that point that we started, asking "How can we devise a body which will effectively provide democratic control over these very important, very effective, but so far undemocratically controlled nominated bodies?"

If the Assembly to be set up under the Bill provided for that kind of effective democratic control, that would go some way to disarm our other suspicions about, and objections to, the Assembly. But what has clearly emerged from all the debates on the Bill is that nobody really understands how the Assembly will work, how it will do the job that it is supposed to do. So far, the Government have entirely failed to convince us that it can be made to work.

In that connection, it seems to me that any possibility that the clause, whose deletion is proposed by the Lords amendment, could be made to work is entirely demolished by subsection (4), which says: The Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its powers under this section. The only remotely possible way in which the Assembly might be able to subsume the functions of these highly expert bodies and run them itself would be precisely through one of its committees, which might at least have time to acquire some expertise in the area. I see no possibility of the Assembly as a whole replacing the work done by these valuable bodies.

There emanates from the caluse a strong smell of the pork barrel. I am sure that the other place was entirely right to strike it out.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in advance destroyed what might have been my most powerful argument for the removal of the clause. I wanted to argue that all the nominated bodies pursued the objectives that they were set, with no regard whatever to political considerations. But by the appointments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made, particularly during recent months, he has gone a long way towards damaging that argument. None the less, I still consider that, despite some appointments which appear to have been made more on the grounds of political loyalty than of suitability for their posts, these bodies, particularly at official level, continue to do their job surprisingly well. It makes it very hard to believe that the kind of mechanism proposed in the clause can conceivably produce more efficient bodies or bodies of a higher integrity.

There is one question which has been tentatively asked and which I should like to put again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is to reply. What are the arrangements for the payment of Members of the Assembly who, through the mechanism of the clause, become members of the boards of the bodies whose functions they are to subsume? Whether or not there is financial advantage for members of the Assembly in taking over the bodies, there most certainly is political advantage. There is no doubt that membership of one of the boards will provide any Assemblyman who is doubtful about his possibility of re-election with an absolutely limitless opportunity for conferring political favours on districts, individuals or organisations. That seems to me the most damaging and dangerous aspect of the clause. I am sure that their Lordships were absolutely right to strike it out, and I very much hope that we shall uphold their decision.

Mr. Ian Grist (Cardiff, North)

I said yesterday that it sometimes seemed that the Secretary of State in supporting the creation of the Welsh Assembly put forward the idea of a review or reform of local government as his prime argument. Certainly, his secondary argument has been that the new Assembly will somehow or other democratise the dreaded nominated bodies which he keeps going on about and of which he has himself set up a goodly number.

It has always amazed me that we in Wales have for instance, the Land Authority for Wales, operating as a nominated body over the whole of Wales, as compared with the way in which the Community Land Act operates within England. It might be thought that the system operated more closely, although certainly not more efficiently, in England than in Wales. But now the authority can be seen to be tailor-made for takeover by the Assembly—there it is, an all-Wales nominated body ripe for the picking. Perhaps that was why it was set up in that way.

The Secretary of State is saying that we must have this greater form of democracy. But there is only one way of democratising these particular bodies, and that is to move over to the type of system enjoyed in the United States. We could elect these bodies either on a wholly regional basis or on a sub-regional basis. Presumably that would be a form of direct democracy, but to say that these bodies are democratised by replacing the Secretary of State's nomination with that of the Assembly, or that it democratises them by having them disappear entirely inside the Assembly and to be eaten up by the Assembly, is to make a mockery of the word.

It reminds me that some years ago I served in a plebiscite in the southern Cameroons. We had to tell the people of that particular colony that they were to become independent by choosing to join one of their two large neighbours. That was the way in which this little group of people became independent. They were to be lost inside the 7 million people of the Cameroun Republic or inside the 50 million people of the Republic of Nigeria. That was to make a mockery of the word "independence". Equally, it would make a mockery of the word "democracy" to say that the Assembly has taken over.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was slightly mistaken in his reading of subsection (4). Indeed, I think that the Secretary of State said that a Committee of the Assembly could take over the powers of one of the bodies of which the Assembly had taken charge. But, of course, this is a classic example of what is going on in the Bill all the time. As we said yesterday about reorganising local government, what could be more tempting for the Assembly than to get on with the job of looking at the nominated bodies to see which bits it can chop out, which ones it can absorb quickly and which bodies it can take over wholly? The Assembly will be able to do this early on, because it will not have that much to do too quickly.

Again, everyone is an expert on tourism and on the Arts Council, Gracious me, we are all experts on the Arts Council. Not so long ago we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee to prove it. We all know that it is rubbish to pay money for piles of bricks in the Tate Gallery, or whatever it may be. Therefore, I think that there will be a standing temptation for the Assemblymen to join in taking over those sorts of bodies. There is no doubt that without tax-raising and industrial powers, which will be retained by the Secretary of State, the Assemblymen will urgently want to take over the powers of the development agency. Quite clearly, they will want to operate these directly because they have been denied other powers. They will be trying to bring employment to their areas, something which they have been denied in any other part of the Bill. This is the only path open to them to achieve that end.

Mr. Dalyell

Naturally enough, the Assemblymen will want to fill their time. But, being human, they will not want to admit that they cannot do the job.

Mr. Grist

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is a two-headed problem here. If the Assembly takes over a particular body, will the Committee running that body be primarily party based or will it be based on the make-up of the whole Assembly? That opens up difficult avenues, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). If it is run on an overall, non- party basis, shall we have scenes reminiscent of what we now see going on in the Merthyr district council? They are scenes which I am sure no Welsh Member needs reminding of, because they are an absolute disgrace on the face of local government. There is the in-fighting and what one might almost call "petty political brawling" which one reads about in South Wales Echo. Will that be the sort of pattern which we shall see daily in the Welsh Assembly? Many of us fear that the body politic which has got into the Merthyr borough council will ensure that that is the way in which the Assembly will operate.

5.45 p.m.

However, the final catch—this is where conflict will continue to keep coming back to this place—is contained in clause 60 (3), which provides: An order under this section shall not be made except with the approval of the Secretary of State". That is as mild an approval as one could write into a Bill. But what happens if the Secretary of State does not give his approval or consent? What if a Conservative Secretary of State says "No" again and again? What happens if he will not accept the local government review, the takeover of part of the Arts Council, the takeover of the Land Authority for Wales, or the taking over of certain sections of the Welsh Develop- ment Agency? If he goes on saying "No", what then results? That is the question which has been raised throughout the debates.

As was said yesterday, there is conflict from beginning to end in both the Scotland and Wales Bills. They are not clearcut. They are constitutionally dangerous and divisive, and this is a prime example of precisely the situation we are facing.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards

By the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an interesting debate.

At one point the Secretary of State said that we should not worry too much about this clause because the Assembly could effectively do away with the bodies by simply appointing its own members to them. I thought that that was a pretty scandalous suggestion. He was almost encouraging the Assembly to take this course—not to consider the expertise of members, or their knowledge and experience of the subject, but to make straight appointments to the boards for political reasons. That, of course, would be possible, but I hope that it will not happen.

The Secretary of State talked about respect for the Welsh people. I have sufficient respect for the Welsh people to believe that they will not behave in such an improper way. But, of course, powers of appointment can be abused for political reasons under the present system. This is a subject on which the Secretary of State speaks with peculiar authority and experience.

But if the Assembly proceeded down that road, there would at least be some protections left, because the bodies would still exist. They would not have been wiped out by the Assembly and they would still be subject to the statutory rules and limitations imposed on them by the Acts of Parliament which set them up. They would still be quite distinct organisations whose performance could be judged quite separately from that of the Assembly as a whole.

The Scottish example was cited at another stage in the debate. But it is clear that in Scotland, although there is no clause similar to this, the Assembly would at least have to go through the whole process of legislation and justification before it did away with a particular body. No doubt there would be an opposition acting within that Assembly to ensure that the issue was properly and fully debated. Under the system proposed in this Bill, it can be done over a quiet cup of tea or a drink between the leader of the Executive Committee and the Secretary of State of the day.

My hon. Friend the Member for flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) asked an interesting question to which we are entitled to an answer: Will the Members of the Assembly be entitled to the salaries enjoyed at present by members of the particular bodies?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) also made an important point when he suggested that there was a great difference between a form of democracy which simply involved taking elected Members of an Assembly, who have been elected for general political reasons, and putting them on bodies, and electing people specifically to serve on bodies so that the electorate can judge for itself an individual's suitability for a particular appointment. That would be a genuine form of democracy. Perhaps we should look at it further. One can see many advantages in making appointments in this way.

The other question to which the Secretary of State must return is, what will happen in individual cases? So far he has made no specific reference to particular bodies, except in passing. As we have a limited list of bodies operating in Wales—it does not by any means include all the nominated bodies with responsibility in Wales—perhaps the Secretary of State could clarify this matter.

These bodies are the expert bodies, concerned with the arts and so on: the bodies concerned with matters of local control of the Health Service; and those concerned with economic matters. We should have a clear indication from the Secretary of State which of these bodies he thinks should be subsumed. We shall be interested to hear his explanation and the justification for his recommendations.

For example, it will be fascinating to hear why the Historic Buildings Council will perform more valuable duties if it consists of elected Members of the Assembly sitting as a Committee of the Assem- bly than of its present membership. It will also be fascinating to hear how community health councils will work if all they consist of is a committee sitting in Cardiff. It would cause tremendous uproar in my constituency if the community health council realised suddenly that it would be wiped off the face of the earth, and that there would be no body at local level to express local opinions about the operation of the Health Service.

Sir A. Meyer

My hon. Friend talks about these bodies sitting as a Committee of the Assembly. Surely that runs counter to clause 60(4). I thought they were not allowed to do that.

Mr. Edwards

Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify that. It will be even worse if the whole Assembly has to perform those functions sitting as an Assembly.

I turn to the question of the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. Does the Secretary of State really think that it will be a satisfactory arrangement for a Secretary of State and a Government based in this Parliament to issue specific directives on economic matters to the Assembly and instruct it on the way in which it should carry out economic policy in Wales?

Mr. John Morris

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. This has been an interesting discussion and, until the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), a temperate one.

I noticed his remark about my having experience of abusing my powers in the course of the appointments that I have made. I expected him to develop that remark, as he has done from time to time in the past. I noticed that he said recently that he would appoint Tories. That makes it quite clear how he will operate if he is ever Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore I hope that he will not put himself on any pedestal.

I have appointed a very wide range of people since I have been Secretary of State, and I am proud of my appointments. It is very odd that the hon. Member for Pembroke and the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) should pursue their vendetta against candidates whom they defeated at the previous election. It will come amiss in both Conway and Pembroke when the electors notice how these hon. Members have pursued and attacked the candidates in this way.

Mr. Edwards

Will the Secretary of State withdraw that remark? As usual, he speaks from either ignorance or malice. I have said specifically—and it has been reported in the local Press—that I make no criticism of a personal kind against Lord Parry. I have the highest regard for him and he is a good friend of mine. I hope that he will do a good job. Therefore, the Secretary of State should withdraw his totally unfounded assertion.

Mr. Morris

Of course I will not withdraw. The hon. Member has changed his mind because he has realised the mistake he has made. A few weeks ago he said that if one's name was Gordon Parry or Ednyfed Hudson Davies one got a job. That is what the hon. Member said. Now he realises that he made a mistake in pursuing this vendetta, and he is trying to crawl back. He has been found out, and the people of Conway and Pembroke will recognise that. There is no question of my withdrawing my remarks. He has pursued a vendetta from the hustings against two individuals.

It is no good the hon. Member saying that he has every respect for these men and they are good friends of his. Those are crocodile words, and he knows it. What is more, the people of Pembroke know it as well. Perhaps he should reread the speech he made three weeks ago and see exactly what he said.

We are talking about the power of subsuming and taking over. But the attack has been not on the narrow point of the amendment but on the wider point of the Assembly having anything to do with those bodies that are being devolved. That is what the debate has been about.

This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who is a very competent debater. But he put the classical case for the quango system. He was urging a perpetuation of quango land. He asked whether it was right for elected people to be members of bodies which were involved with allocating money in sensitive and delicate areas. That is the whole argument for democracy. This is the whole issue that I thought had been resolved.

I am sure that this argument was put in the 1880s when the power was transferred from quarter sessions and from poor law guardians at a later stage to local government. People elected by their own communities are fit and proper persons to take part in the allocation of money. I find it very odd that almost 100 years later my hon. Friend seeks to cast doubt on the issue whether local people can be trusted in this way. These are people elected by their own communities. They must ask for renewal of their mandates by their own local communities. When these people err and are found out, they are punished in more than one way.

I regret the remarks of the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), who made it abundantly clear that he did not trust the people of Wales. He implied that he did not trust local government, and I am sure that that is a reflection of his priorities. However, on the basis that we believe that the Welsh Assembly as elected by the people of Wales can be trusted, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 233.

Division No. 296] AYES [6.00 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Campbell, Ian
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bidwoll, Sydney Cant, R. B
Ashley, Jack Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Carmichael, Nell
Ashton, Joe Blenkinsop, Arthur Carter, Ray
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Booth, Rt Hon Albert Carter-Jonas, Lewis
Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham) Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Cartwright, John
Bagler, Gordon A. T. Boyden, James (Blsh Auck) Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Bain, Mrs Margaret Bradley, Tom Clemitson, Ivor
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Bray, Dr Jeremy Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Broughton, Sir Alfred Cohen, Stanley
Bates, All Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Coleman, Donald
Bean, R. E. Buchan, Norman Concannon, Rt Hon John
Belth, A. J. Buchanan, Richard Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Corbett, Robin
Cowans, Harry Jeger, Mrs Lena Radice, Giles
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Crfagen, Jim (Maryhill) John, Brynmor Reid, George
Crawshaw, Richard Johnson, James (Hull West) Richardson, Miss Jo
Cronin, John Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Cryer, Bob Jones, Alee (Rhondda) Robinson, Geoffrey
Cunnngham, G. (Islington S) Jones, Barry (East Flint) Roderick, Caerwyn
Cunningham, Dr J.(Whitsh) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Davidson, Arthur Judd. Frank Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Rooker, J. W.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Kelley, Richard Roper, John
Davies, Itot (Gower) Kerr, Russell Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Kilfedder, James Rowlands, Ted
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Kilroy-Silk, Robert Ryman, John
Dempsey, James Kinnock, Neil Sandelson, Neville
Dewar, Donald Lambie, David Sever, John
Doig, Peter Lamond, James Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand. J. D. Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Douglas Mann, Bruce Lee, John Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Eadle, Alex Lever, Rt Hon Harold Silverman, Julius
Edge, Geoff Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Skinner, Dennis
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Litterick, Tom Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Loyden, Eddie Snape, Peter
English, Michael Luard, Evan Spearing, Nigel
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lvon, Alexander (York) Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, John (Newton) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Stallard, A. W.
Ewlng, Harry (Stirling) McCartney, Hugh Steel, Rt Hon David
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. McDonald, Dr Oonagh Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Filch, Alan (Wigan) McElhone, Frank Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Flannery, Martin McKay, Allen (Penistone) Stoddart, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael MeGuire, Michael (Ince) Stott, Roger
Ford, Ben MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Forrester, John Maclennan, Robert Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Swain, Thomas
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McNamara, Kevin Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Freud, Clement Madden, Max Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Magee, Bryan Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Marks, Kenneth Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Thompson, George
Golding, John Maynard, Miss Joan Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Gould, Bryan Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Gourlay, Harry Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Tilley, John
Graham, Ted Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Tinn, James
Grant, John (Islington C) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Tomney, Frank
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Molloy, William Torney, Tom
Grocott, Bruce Moonman, Eric Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. Ward, Michael
Hardy, Peter Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Watkins, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Morton, George Watkinson, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Weetch, Ken
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Weitzman, David
Hayman, Mrs Helene Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Wellbeloved, James
Heffer, Eric S. Newens, Stanley Welsh, Andrew
Henderson, Douglas Noble, Mike White, James (Pollok)
Hooley, Frank Oakes, Gordon Whitehead, Phillip
Hooson, Emlyn Ogden, Eric Wigley, Dafydd
Horam, John O'Halloran, Michael Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Orbach, Maurice Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Ovenden, John Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Hucktield, Les Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Wilson. William (Coventry SE)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Padley, Walter Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Pardoe, John Woodall, Alec
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Park, George Woof, Robert
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Parker, John wrigglesworth, Ian
Hunter, Adam Pavitt, Laurie Young, David (Bolton E)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Perry, Ernest
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Prescott, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Price, C. (Lewisham W) M[...]eanh Dean and
Janner, Greville Price, William (Rugby) Mr. Frank R. White.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Adley, Robert Banks, Robert body, Richard
Aitken, Jonathan Bendall, Vivian Soscawen, Hon Robert
Alison, Michael Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Bottomley, Peter
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Benyon, W. Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Arnold, Tom Berry, Hon Anthony Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Atkins, Ft. Hon H (Spelthorne) Biften, John Braine, Sir Bernard
Awdry, Daniel Biggs-Davison, John Brittan, Leon
Saket. Kenneth Blaker. Peter Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Brooke, Hon Peter Heaeltine, Michael Parkinson, Cecil
Brotherton, Michael] Hicks, Robert Pattie, Geoffrey
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Higgins, Terence L. Pink, R. Bonner
Bryan, Sir Paul Hodgson, Robin Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Holland, Philip Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Bulmer, Esmond Hordern, Peter Price, David (Eastleigh)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Howell, David (Guildford) Prior, Rt Hon James
Carlisle, Mark Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Raison, Timothy
Clark, William (Croydon S) Hurd, Douglas Rathbone, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hutchison, Michael Clark Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Clegg, Walter Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Cockcroft, John James, David Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Jessel, Toby Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Cope, John Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rifkind, Malcolm
Comack, Patrick Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Corrie, John Jopling, Michael Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Costain, A. P. Kershaw, Anthony Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Kimball, Marcus Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Critchley, Julian King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Dalyell, Tarn Kitson, Sir Timothy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Knox, David Royle, Sir Anthony
Drayson, Burnaby Lamont, Norman Sainsbury, Tim
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Latham, Michael (Melton) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Durant, Tony Lawrence, Ivan Scott-Hopkins, James
Dykes, Hugh Lawson, Nigel Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lloyd, Ian Shepherd, Colin
Elliott, Sir William Luce, Richard Silvester, Fred
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) McCrindle, Robert Sims, Roger
Fairgrieve, Russell McCusker, H. Sinclair, Sir George
Farr. Jonn Macfarlane, Neil Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, Anthony MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Speed, Keith
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Spicer Jim (W Dorset)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Fookes, Miss Janet Madel, David Stainton, Keith
Forman, Nigel Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stanbrook, Ivor
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Marten, Neil Stanley, John
Fox, Marcus Mates, Michael Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Mather, Carol Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Maude, Angus Stokes, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Maudling Rt Hon Reginald Stradling Thomas, J.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Mawby, Ray Tapsell, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Glyn, Dr Alan Mayhew, Patrick Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Meyer, Sir Anthony Tebbit, Norman
Goodhart, Philip Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Temple-Morris, Peter
Coodhew, Victor Mills, Peter Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Goodlad, Alastair Miscampbell, Norman Townsend, Cyril D.
Gorst, John Molyneaux, James Trotter, Neville
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Monro, Hector van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Montgomery, Fergus Viggers, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Moore, John (Croydon C) Wakeham, John
Gray, Hamish More, Jasper (Ludlow) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Grieve, Percy Morgan, Geraint Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Griffiths, Eldon Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Grist, Ian Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Wall, Patrick
Grylls, Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Warren, Kenneth
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Weatherill, Bernard
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell) Neave, Airey Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Neubert, Michael Whitney, Raymond
Hampson, Dr Keith Newton, Tony Wiggin, Jerry
Hannam, John Normanton, Tom Winterton, Nicholas
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Nott, John Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Onslow, Cranley Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Haselhurst, Alan Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Younger, Hon George
Hastings, Stephen Osborn, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Page, John (Harrow West) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hawkins, Paul Page, Richard (Workington) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Paisley, Rev Ian Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Lords amendment no. 68 disagreed to.

Forward to