HC Deb 11 November 1980 vol 992 cc330-47

Lords amendment: No. 65 in page 55, line 22, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection 3(A) below,

Mr. King

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 6669 and the correction thereto.

Mr. King

Amendments Nos. 65, 68 and 69 are technical. It might have been inferred from the wording of the Bill that authorities receiving payments would be able to use them for purposes outside those for which they have statutory powers. The amendments clarify that they are not entitled to make payments for those things for which they do not have statutory authority.

Amendment No. 66 was introduced by the Opposition in the House of Lords and provided that Ministers may not make an allocation to an authority later than 1 November if the authority is not agreeable to receiving it. It is an unusual amendment, but, in a spirit of compromise, we were happy to accept it.

Amendment No. 67 was introduced to exempt from the prescribed expenditure profits from trading undertakings. On reflection, the Government agreed to accept it.

Mr. Oakes

You have indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we may discuss the following manuscript amendments to Lords amendment No. 67:

In page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)" and insert "(d) and (e)".

In page 58, line 44, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)".

The amendments have been tabled by the Opposition to get the Government out of a hole that they dug for themselves. In essence the amendments that we are discussing give the right to a local authority that runs one of the many trading undertakings that are discussed in this part of the Bill to use the profits of that undertaking either to advance the undertaking itself or for other purposes, but not to have that sum of money deducted from its capital allocations. That is a principle that the Conservative exponents of private enterprise, or past exponents of public enterprise, should heartily applaud.

If someone is making a profit it should not be taken away from him by the Government when the enterprise is flourishing, whether it be a private or public enterprise. We see a great deal of common sense in that philosophy, and I hope that Conservative Members see it also.

The Minister, in an offhand manner—I shall not use the word cavalier—said that the amendment was moved in another place and consequently accepted by the Government. The amendment was moved in Committee on behalf of all the associations. The Minister roundly denounced it, and rejected it with the aid of his majority. It was moved again and spoken to on Report, but again the Government introduced their Whips and their majority to beat it down. Now, because their Lordships have moved almost the same amendment, and because of political convenience, the Government have decided to accept it. They dare not fight with their Lordships about the Bill. They have put themselves into that dire position because of their timetable for the Bill.

The Lords' amendment moved and accepted in another place, despite the Government's wishes, goes much further than the amendment that was tabled by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee. It includes any civic catering undertaking. We did not have the temerity to include that, but their Lordships did, and it was accepted. We did not include any exhibition—that is a wide terminology—but their Lordships did so, and the amendment was carried in another place. Although the Government had said in Committee and on Report that our amendment was wrong and not in accord with their policy, for some strange reason they are now prepared to accept not only amendments almost identical to ours but further amendments put forward in another place.

Mr. Keith Best (Anglesey)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Bellwin was very sympathetic, certainly towards what was then amendment No. 107? If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that, and if he has not had the opportunity to read the Official Report of the noble Lord's speech, I can assist him because I have a copy with me.

Mr. Oakes

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me, because I do not have in front of me the Official Report of the debate in the other place, but I understood that, no matter how sympathetic Lord Bellwin may have been to the amendment, the Whips in the other place tried to vote it down, but lost. Because they lost, the Government are now constrained to accept the amendment.

I think that the amendment makes good sense. I cannot quote the noble Lord, but I listened to the radio reports of the debate and I can say that the Government were told that the undertakings in question were examples of enterprise, which a Conservative Government should support. They were told that they should not penalise enterprise, whether by a public authority or a private individual. That should make good sense to Conservative hon. Members.

Mr. King

We are accepting the amendment.

Mr. Oakes

That is because the Government were beaten in the other place. It is not that they accepted the amendment there. They cannot vote the amendment down in this Chamber, because they dare not, for fear of the Bill's returning to the Lords.

The amendment seems to embody self-evident truth. It is supported by all the local authority organisations, because it is a common-sense amendment with wide implications for local authorities.

Lord Hill of Luton was clearly concerned about the airport in the constituency that he represented in this House. That is why he moved the amendment. As with so much else in the Bill, the Government did not do their job properly, so the House must make the difficult decision whether to pass legislation that is inoperable.

Mr. King


Mr. Oakes

It is the function—indeed, the duty—of Parliament to pass legislation that is operable, and not to fear the consequences of the Opposition's manuscript amendment having to return to the other place for it to reconsider the matter. That is our bounden duty as hon. Members. All that my amendment seeks to do is to get the Government out of the hole that they have dug for themselves by their inefficiency. Having been defeated in the other place, they then did not amend the Bill properly to cover their undertakings there.

The question of airports is crucial. Within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) there is the biggest, and I would say the best, airport in the country—certainly outside London, and probably vying with the London airports. On 6 November, worried about the discrepancy that he could see, my right hon. Friend asked the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services: if he will make a statement on the implications of the amendment made in the House of Lords to clause 68 of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which would permit a local authority to increase its expenditure allocations by the amount of the profits of a trading undertaking, such at an airport"—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 658.] That is a fair and proper question. The right hon. Gentleman replied: The amendment to clause 68 (now cause 72) of the Bill to permit an authority to increase its expenditure by the amount of profits on a trading undertaking will permit increased capital expenditure by certain local authorities. It will not, however, permit the national ceiling"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

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

Mr. Oakes

The reply continues: It will not, however, permit the national ceiling on the aggregate of local authority capital expenditure to be increased."—[Official Report, 6 November 1980; Vol. 991 c. 685.] Where are we in view of that reply to my right hon. Friend who is obviously vitally concerned about the great and important Manchester airport in his constituency?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised a point of order earlier today on the whole question of what the Government were doing, or were not doing, as the case may be.

I understand that there have been communications between Government officials at the Department of the Environment and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, I believe, with the Association of District Councils, which is equally concerned about, I was going to say, a hiatus in the Bill. It is not a hiatus. It is a wrong clause. The Government have made a mistake which they now have the opportunity to put right in accordance with what they said in the other place and in accordance with the wishes of the other place. The Opposition are seeking to get the Government out of that hole.

The effect of the manuscript amendment is rather technical. To save the time of the House, I shall read what the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has said rather than try to interpret it. The AMA states: When the Bill was in the Lords an important principle was established for local authorities to finance capital expenditure from the profits of their trading undertakings without such expenditure counting against their annual allocation for capital expenditure. Thus, places like Luton, with a profitable airport, to give one example, would have uninhibited use of the profits generated by the airport to use those profits for airport improvements, if they so wished, with a view to making the airport even more profitable. An appropriate provision was written into the Bill, now Clause 63(3)(e) of the latest version. The Government opposed this provision but the vote went against them. The Government made it dear at Report Stage that they accepted the position and indeed included some of their own consequential amendments. What was overlooked, however, was that certain further consequential amendments were needed to Clause 63(6) and Clause 69(1)(a). What in effect the former provision says is that any overspend in capital expenditure in the year has to come off next year's allocation. To prevent in regard to expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 63(3)(e), subsection (6), in addition to specifying paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of subsection (3), should also specify paragraph (e) of subsection (3). Clause 69 is the one that gives the Secretary of State power to give directions in relation to capital expenditure where the same consequential amendment is needed. I understand that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, having discovered this error in the Bill, contacted the Department of the Environment and was assured that the technically defective clause should not operate in such a way as to frustrate the Government's acceptance of the amendment inserted in the other place. But the Department said that it was too late to amend the Bill because it would mean that the whole Bill amended in this way would have to be returned to the other place. That is what we are about. That is why we are sitting here. We are dealing with their Lordships' amendments. If we consider that there is a defect in one of those amendments, it is our duty to say so clearly and to put it right.

The solution found by the Department was a most ingenious one. The solution which the Department had in mind was to provide an additional allocation of expenditure for the authorities affected. I hope that at least the Minister will assure the House that that additional expenditure really will go to the authorities concerned. I hope that he says so clearly in this House.

That is not the point, however. We touch upon a very important constitutional issue here. I have outlined to the House a defect in the Bill. We have the opportunity, the power and the duty as a House of Commons to put that right. It is our job to send it back to the other place, where I have no doubt their Lordships will accept the amendment which we propose.

I am not asking for an assurance about the devious means suggested by the Department to the AMA, though I hope that the Minister will say that he will adopt that method. I am seeking much more than that. I am asking the Minister to say that the Government have made a mistake. They have made a number of mistakes in the Bill. Half our discussion today has been about mistakes. We made mistakes. Printers made mistakes. All sorts of people made mistakes in the haste to get five years' legislation through in five months. This is another mistake. We have the opportunity to put it right. I ask the Minister to say "We thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to put it right. We accept the manuscript amendment, and we shall send the Bill back to the other place with the amendment so that the defect may be corrected."

Mr. Charles Morrison

I hope that the state of Government legislation has not become so chaotic that it is necessary at this late stage of legislating on this Bill to accept a manuscript amendment. It may be that in practice what the Government propose in the Bill will prove wrong. If that happens, it will be up to the Government to come back to the House and ask for amending legislation. I cannot believe that it is right at this stage to accept a manuscript amendment, even though it is moved by someone with the experience of the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes).

The right hon. Member said that the Government had been constrained to accept Lords amendment No. 67. That is not so. They have not been constrained to accept it. They have decided very sensibly that another place has done what it is meant to do and improved the legislation.

Having said that, I must admit that I regret that the Government, either in this House or in another place, were not prepared to draft clause 63 more flexibly. It is not uninteresting to note that once again a proposed clause demonstrates a certain contradiction in the attitude of the Government towards local government.

Looking at the long title of the Bill, we see that it is entitled An Act to relax controls over local government. However, a little later, the long title points out that the Act is also for controlling the expenditure of local authorities. I do not think that the two can be reconciled. Nevertheless, the Government have tried to reconcile these two contradictions within the Bill, and that is one of the reasons why some of us have considerable doubts about some of its provisions.

It is relevant, even at this late stage, to note that even after all the debate on the Bill and this part in particular in this House and another place, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils remain extremely perturbed about the effect of clause 63 and the related provisions in part VIII. It is still felt that the principal effect of the new system proposed in the clause will be to end the existing freedom of local authorities to supplement capital spending direct from the rates without recourse to borrowing. It is still felt that the existing loan sanction agreements have proved effective in the past in controlling total capital spending. It is still felt that the new proposals have significant disadvantages. In particular, they will treat the capital spending allocations of local authorities one year at a time, yet, as we all know, capital expenditure must by its nature be planned over a period of years.

The local authority associations remain extremely perturbed about the provisions in part VIII. Although I believe that at this late stage we can but go along with what is proposed, and we can but accept the amendments that have come from another place as a means of introducing a little more flexibility than was originally proposed, on the other hand the fact remains that the local authority associations have grave doubts about the capital expenditure provisions.

It is right that a marker should now be put down that many of us in the House, apart from people in local government, will look carefully at the way in which these provisions work out in practice. If the fears that have been expressed about them prove well founded, there is no doubt whatever that there will be great pressure from the House and from local government for further amending legislation.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) for his kindly reference to my keen interest in this important debate. He referred to my parliamentary question of 6 November and to the Minister's reply. The Minister's reply to me has revived fears about the Government's intentions with regard to the trading undertakings of local authorities. In particular, there is concern among my constituents about the future development of Manchester international airport, where a great many of the people whom I represent are employed.

Our airport is a highly successful enterprise of the first importance, not just to Greater Manchester, but to a very much wider area. Indeed, it is not too much to say that it is now an enterprise of national importance. Again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for marking the significance of the airport in national terms. Those concerned were deeply concerned about the effect of the Bill in its original form on the future development of the airport. The relief that greeted the inclusion of what is now clause 72 has been replaced by renewed concern.

10.15 pm

My right hon. Friend said that the Government were in a hole. Our amendment gives reassurance and practical help to local authorities. I want a plain assurance from the Minister of State that the Bill will not damage the future development of Manchester international airport. We need an unequivocal statement from the Minister. He knows that there is concern, and if he is any doubt he should consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I am not satisfied that there has been proper co-ordination between the two Departments on this important issue. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. As I said, I want from him an unequivocal statement that the future development of Manchester international airport will not be damaged by the Bill.

Mr. Best

I welcome the amendments moved in the other place by the noble Lord Hill, who in his distinguished career managed to notch up the position of Minister for Welsh Affairs in 1961–62, so, naturally, I follow what he said closely.

The amendment demonstrates the old dilemma of democracy, the question of the reconcilability or otherwise—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has doubts about whether they can be reconciled—between local autonomy and the need for the Government to control local government expenditure. It is an uneasy relationship, and I am not convinced that it is reconcilable. I welcome the amendment because it is an attempt to achieve that.

I accept the need for this Government to control overall local government expenditure, but the amendment points to the fact, which is cardinal, that the Government should not interfere in trade undertakings that are entered into by local authorities, especially when consideration for payment is given which requires the loss of, or prejudice to, an existing amenity. I refer particularly to the Anglesey marine terminal at Amlwch in my constituency. It has a single buoy mooring that can take any tanker that has so far been constructed of more than 500,000 tons, whereas the Mersey can take only a fully laden tanker of 90,000 tons. The oil is then pumped 78 miles by underground pipeline to the Stanlow refinery.

A Private Member's Bill was introduced in the House, which led to the Anglesey Marine Terminal Act 1972. I pay tribute to my predecessor in the House, now Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who played a significant part in the promotion of that Bill.

Lord Hill moved the amendment in the other place on the basis of a point of principle namely, that where a local authority undertaking makes a profit the local authority should be permitted to deal with that profit as it thinks best in relation to the needs of its community. He pointed to the fact that this principle obtained in the way in which the Government put pressure on nationalised industries to find capital for development from their profits, and in the way in which a private operator hoped to function, in that he should find the cash for his developments from the profits from his undertaking.

I am optimistic that the amendment covers a trading undertaking such as the Anglesey marine terminal, and I am encouraged in that view by a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in which he said: We would regard the harbour at Amlwch as being within the definition of a trading undertaking. Therefore, any profits arising in a year from the operation of the harbour may be used to supplement Ynys Mon borough council's capital expenditure allocation. This is not a small matter. Shell pays about £500,000 a year to Ynys Mon borough council in respect of the Anglesey marine terminal. I said earlier that this was an undertaking entered into by the local authority which might prejudice a local amenity. That is right. The inhabitants, through their representatives on the borough council, accepted that there was a danger of oil spillage and other unpleasant occurrences and the quid pro quo was a generous annual payment from Shell. That money has been used by the local authority to support local charitable, cultural and sporting organisations and, on the capital side, to encourage recreation centres or sports centres in places such as Holyhead and Amlwch.

I welcome the amendment, which is realistic. I am glad that the Government have accepted it, because it points the way towards realism in local government. It is a marker in the direction of continued autonomy of local government, which many of us on the Conservative Benches would like to see.

Mr. Graham Bright (Luton, East)

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has accepted the amendment tabled by Lord Hill. I also welcome it on behalf of my constituency, which houses Luton airport. Luton airport last year made a profit of about £2½ million. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that the legislation, as it is set out at the moment, will not mean that Luton is penalised in any way for spending that £2½ million on the development of the airport by having its allocation in future years cut down.

The point mentioned by the Opposition is a technical one. I welcome the spirit in which the Government have accepted the amendment, but we should like the Secretary of State to tell us exactly how he will operate particularly the references in clause 63 at page 56, lines 12 to 13. It is a little difficult to understand how it will operate, and this has caused some concern to my borough council.

Mr. King

I should like to respond to to the comments which have been made and particularly to reply to the two manuscript amendments.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said. What is the point of having a revising Chamber if we do not pay attention to its revisions? This is a matter that was pressed on the Government in Committee and on Report. We resisted it, but we continued to consider the matter. It was then further pressed on us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) referred to what my noble Friend said about it in the House of Lords. We had recommended against it, but, the House of Lords having taken its decision, and as it was a finely balanced issue, the Government decided to respect the view of the House of Lords. I make no apologies for doing so.

I listened very carefully to what was said about the operation of the scheme. We shall be watching the implementation of it very carefully.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked for a blanket undertaking about the future of Manchester airport, which I am not in a position to give him tonight. Let me simply say that, in terms of the Bill, the capital controls and the use of profits, as provided for under the amendment the airport will not be caught by the capital controls. It will therefore be within the discretion of the Manchester authorities to use those profits. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that is as far as I can go, because the matter is relevant to the amendment that we are discussing. I say that because, from the way in which he put the first question to me, I thought that I was being asked to give a blanket guarantee about the everlasting existence of Manchester airport, about which I am not able to speak tonight. But in so far as the Bill affects the capital controls, that is the assurance that I can give.

Mr. Alfred Morris

Perhaps I may remind the Minister of what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade said about Manchester international airport. He was extremely anxious that nothing should hinder the development of the airport. What I wanted was an assurance that nothing in the Bill would contradict what the Secretary of State for Trade said he wanted when he discussed the future of the airport.

Mr. King

I have tried to give my assurance on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I hope that that covers it.

I listened with interest also to what my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey said about the oil terminal. I know the close interest that he has taken in this matter. Obviously, I appreciate the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) in this matter as well.

Perhaps I might express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). He thinks that the Government are in a hole—I do not feel particularly in a hole at present—and he has been doing his best to help us out. I very much appreciate his offer, but we do not need it, because we do not happen to be in the sort of hole that he seems to think we are in. Various discussions on this matter are going on, and there have been some ingenious attempts to identify a technical loophole.

This is not a problem in the drafting of the Bill. One important distinction about the profits from trading undertakings is that they are normally not available until after the year in which they are produced. We have decided, therefore, that the best way to deal with this is to make an allocation to cover expenditure, financed from trading profits when they are known. Clause 63(3)(c) enables such allocations to be made. That means, therefore, that if that administrative arrangement is dealt with in that way, that meets the situation. I can give an assurance that that is the way in which we intended to do it and that we shall cover trading profits, and that the spirit of the amendment will be fully honoured in the administration of the Bill when, as we hope, it becomes an Act.

Mr. Oakes

I cannot accept that. First, I thought that at least the Minister of State would have made it clear to local authority associations and local authorities that the spirit of what the noble Lords decided would be carried out. I am not happy that the Minister has even done that, bearing in mind the written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the reply that the Minister gave him in the House today, that he cannot give any undertaking to Manchester airport that would be in accordance with the spirit of the amendment in another place, which is defective and which we have tried to put right.

I should like to give a little anecdote to the House. The predecessor of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I worked on the Bill of

which the hon. Member spoke. It was a very happy Bill in many respects for me, because I was the Whip on that Bill. We came up regularly at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning and twice we failed to get the Bill through. That was a great advantage to me because it ensured that my hon. Friends would never make me a Whip again. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Amlwch terminal is of considerable benefit to the island of Anglesey, an island which I love very dearly.

I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) will support not just the amendment made in another place, but the manuscript amendment that I have tabled, because, I repeat, what we are doing as a House is trying to put this matter right—it is our last chance to put it right—and to put into legislative effect what their Lordships intended, but which would not be in effect because of the defects that I outlined, defects that apparently the Government, or officials of the Government admitted to the AMA and then tried to put right in some roundabout way. We are talking about different years. The Government are saying that they will try to put right the defect in a subsequent year on their undertaking. This is the House of Commons; this is one of the Houses of Parliament. We are legislating. Let us legislate correctly. If this issue should go back to the other place for further consideration, let us have the courage and the guts to send it there and not be dependent on the timetable that the Government are so desperately worried about.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 agreed to.

Consequential amendment proposed, in page 56, line 8, leave out "and (d)"and insert "(d) and (e)"—[Mr. Oakes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 106. Noes 149.

Division No. 496] AYES [10.31 pm
Allaun, Frank Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Carmichael, Neil
Alton, David Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S) Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Beith, A. J. Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Campbell-Savours, Dale Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cant, R. B. Cook, Robin F.
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill) Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire) Palmer, Arthur
Crowther, J. S. Home Robertson, John Park, George
Cryer, Bob Homewood, William Parry, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hooley, Frank Penhaligon, David
Cunningham, George (Islington S) Howells, Geraint Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Richardson, Jo
Dempsey, James John, Brynmor Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Dixon, Donald Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Robertson, George
Dobson, Frank Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda) Rooker, J. W.
Dormand, Jack Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Roper, John
Dubs, Alfred Kilfedder, James A. Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lamborn, Harry Silverman, Julius
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Leighton, Ronald Soley, Clive
Eastham, Ken Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Spearing, Nigel
Evans, John (Newton) Litherland, Robert Spriggs, Leslie
Ewing, Harry McDonald, Dr Oonagh Steel, Rt Hon David
Field, Frank McElhone, Frank Stott, Roger
Flannery, Martin McGuire, Michael (Ince) Straw, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McKelvey, William Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Tilley, John
Forrester, John McNamara, Kevin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foster, Derek Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Watkins, David
Foulkes, George Maynard, Miss Joan Welsh, Michael
Graham, Ted Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Wigley, Dafydd
Grant, George (Morpeth) Molyneaux, James Winnick, David
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (wythenshaw) Woolmer, Kenneth
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hardy, Peter Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Mr. George Morton and
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter O'Neill, Martin Mr. James Tinn.
Haynes, Frank Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ancram, Michael Fox, Marcus Morris, Michael (Northampton, Stn)
Atkins, Robert (Preston North) Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Gardiner, George (Reigate) Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Bendall, Vivian Garel-Jones, Tristan Murphy, Christopher
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Gray, Hamish Myles, David
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Neale, Gerrard
Berry, Hon Anthony Grist, Ian Needham, Richard
Best, Keith Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) Nelson, Anthony
Bevan, David Gilroy Hampson, Dr Keith Neubert, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John Hawkins, Paul Newton, Tony
Blackburn, John Hawksley, Warren Onslow, Cranley
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hayhoe, Barney Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Sir Bernard Heddle, John Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Bright, Graham Hicks, Robert Parris, Matthew
Brinton, Tim Hill, James Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Brooke, Hon Peter Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) Pawsey, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) Hooson, Tom Porter, Barry
Bruce-Gardyne, John Hordern, Peter Proctor, K. Harvey
Bulmer, Esmond Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Raison, Timothy
Butcher, John Hurd, Hon Douglas Rathbone, Tim
Cadbury, Jocelyn Jessel, Toby Rifkind, Malcolm
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Kershaw, Anthony Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) King, Rt Hon Tom Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Chapman, Sydney Lamont, Norman Rost, Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Lang, Ian Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Latham, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Cockeram, Eric Lawrence, Ivan Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Colvin, Michael Lawson, Nigel Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Cope, John Le Marchant, Spencer Shersby, Michael
Costain, Sir Albert Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Sims, Roger
Cranborne, Viscount Lester, Jim (Beeston) Skeet, T. H. H.
Critchley, Julian Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Speed, Keith
Crouch, David Lyell, Nicholas Squire, Robin
Dean, Paul (North Somerset) Macfarlane, Neil Stainton, Keith
Dorrell, Stephen MacGregor, John Stanbrook, Ivor
Dover, Denshore McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) McQuarrie, Albert Stradling Thomas, J.
Egger, Tim Major, John Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Emery, Peter Marlow, Tony Tebbit, Norman
Fairgrieve, Russell Mather, Carol Thompson, Donald
Faith, Mrs Shella Mawhinney, Dr Brian Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Mellor, David Townend, John (Bridlington)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Meyer, Sir Anthony Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) Trippler, David
Fookes, Miss Janet Mills, Iain (Meriden) Waller, Gary
Forman, Nigel Moate, Roger Ward, John
Warren, Kenneth Whitney, Raymond Young, Sit George (Acton)
Watson, John Wickendon, Keith
Wells, John (Maidstone) Wiggin, Jerry TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery) Mr. David Waddington and
Wheeler, John Wolfson, Mark Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69 agreed to.

Forward to