Clause 6

HC Deb 04 February 1981 vol 998 cc364-77

POWERS TO PROMOTE CAREERS IN INDUSTRY ETC.

Mr. Douglas

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 4.

The effects of this amendment would be rather devastating, because it seeks to remove the whole clause. The reason for tabling the amendment was partly probing and partly disappointment in the knowledge that the Government were content to part so vehemently and significantly from the recommendations of the Finniston report.

It is as well to remind ourselves of what Sir Monty and his colleagues recommended in that report. One of the key phrases in the report appears in page 3 where Sir Monty attempts to define rather succinctly the engineering dimension. He said: the engineering dimension—that is the effectiveness of manufacturing organisations in translating engineering expertise into the production and marketing of competitive products through efficient production processes. That may seem rather flamboyant, but it goes far beyond education and training. Although there is an attempt in the clause to dress this up, it goes far beyond the remit of the clause.

We level other objections at the Government's proposals arising from the Finniston report. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Industry tried to gloss it over in Committee, the plain fact is that the Finniston report wanted this body to be a statutory body with statutory powers for registration purposes. Opposition Members would not be wise to depart from that analysis.

In the intervening weeks and months since the publication of the Finniston report and the consultations, engineering institutions and the Council of Engineering Institutions have reasserted themselves. The Government have in many ways partly caved in to the views emanating from those bodies.

I do not suggest that those bodies have harmed their professions. It would be wrong of me to make such a suggestion. However, if we want to condition the atmosphere to enhance the status of engineer, we must create a statutory body. The Government's current proposals for a body created by charter are not sufficient. I shall not go into detail on this matter, but I believe that, under a little pressure, the Government have conceded the point by putting the draft proposal for a charter in the Library.

9.15 pm

There seems to be no valid reason why those proposals should not be embodied in a statute. There is one key area in which the Government have already run into difficulty.

The draft charter, in page 5, states: The individuals who, immediately before the date when the register is established, are registered in any section of the register maintained by the Engineers Registration Board shall be registered in the corresponding section of the first mentioned register. That is difficult to get over at this time of night. But is the Council of Engineering Institutions, the custodian of the register, willing to give up the information to the new Engineering Council or will it resist giving such information? If so, what power have the Government to ensure that the Council of Engineering Institutions passes on the necessary information?

The Government are seeking to create another charter body which the existing body will view not as primus inter pares but as one with which it is co-equal. That will not do. We shall run into difficulties if we go along that road.

There are other minor points on which I should like to be satisfied relating to this new body that is to be created. There is no provision in this draft charter for an annual report to Parliament. That may not seem important in view of all the business that we have to do, but it was important to Sir Monty Finniston and his colleagues that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the workings of the engineering authority. It may be that the Government have in mind getting a report.

There is a parsimonious provision of Government funds. In reality, no new funds will flow to this body. I do not want to digress too much. We have had speeches about North Sea oil and the revenue flowing from that to the Exchequer. We know that will amount to about £4,500 million in the current year and that it will increase. However, we are not proposing to devote any new funds to this important body to enhance the upstream, thrusting activity of the engineering dimension and the status of the engineering profession. Even if the funds are slight, what opportunity—I put it mildly as a member of the Public Accounts Committee—will the Comptroller and Auditor General have to examine the accounts of this proposed body?

I have purposely tried to be brief. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should pay more attention. The hon. Gentleman, having been born in Greenock, ought to know something about engineering. Therefore, he should pay attention when a Scot is talking about the engineering industry and its importance to the United Kingdom's economy.

I am concerned, albeit briefly, to express our disappointment at the Government's inadequate response to the Finniston recommendations. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) will want to make some points from his experience and background in promoting the Finniston report and his studies since.

I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will have another think and will come to the conclusions that their proposals are inadequate. We need a statutory body to co-ordinate and bring together all these aspects to enhance the importance of engineering in modern times so that we may reassert ourselves as a leading industrial nation.

Mr. John Ward (Poole)

It would be easy to go over the Finniston debate again tonight. I made clear in that debate that I was opposed to many of the recommendations of Finniston, and I remain so.

I declare an interest, as a chartered engineer and an elected member of the Council of Engineering Institutions. I believe that the good parts of the Finniston report—those parts that both sides of the House would wish to promote—can be carried forward only if they have the support of the engineering profession. There is much good will from the engineering profession, but it is not willing to go along with an organisation which it thinks will lack independence from external interference, not have any assurance of maintaining professional standards, and does not seem to take enough note of the experience and expertise that is already available in the engineering institutions. Moreover, the polls that have been carried out by the engineering institutions show that many of the 200,000 members of those institutions are still against the charter.

Some of those fears could be overcome by calm discussion round a table. The engineering profession and the professional institutions are anxious to co-operate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to get an organisation that will benefit engineering in the near and long-term future. They fear that the organisation that is proposed could become a vehicle for nationalisation by a less enlightened Government than this one. They believe that if a vehicle for nationalisation is needed, the party opposite is capable of devising one without any help from this side of the House.

The first members of the Engineering Council will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and they will then be asked to devise byelaws under which their successors should be elected. I am a charitable man in these matters, but those who are appointed by the Secretary of State in the first place might be less than human if they did not see their image in their successors. I hope that, even at this late stage, my right hon. Friend will meet the heads of the professional engineering institutions—all 16 have rejected the proposed charter—and see whether there can be some common ground between him and them.

I repeat that there is much good will for what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but there is much concern that by going along with his present ideas they will be providing hostages to fortune. Above all, they want to help him not to set up yet another Government quango. They want to be independent financially and in their professional judgment. We should support that view.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, North-East)

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) declared his interest as a chartered engineer and as a member of the Council of Engineering Institutions. I also declare an interest. I am a chartered engineer and a Fellow of two bodies that are affiliated to the Council of Engineering Institutions. I regret that the hon. Gentleman introduced a party note into his speech. We have had many discussions on the Finniston report almost entirely on a non-party basis, and I hope that it will remain that way.

As the House knows, I have taken a close interest in Finniston from the very beginning; indeed, it was partly at my suggestion perhaps that the committee was appointed. In Standing Committee I made a complaint that I have often made which is that the new council should have been set up by statute, as a matter of constitutional decency. The Secretary of State, with his great willingness always to listen, if not to act, nevertheless accepted the views of the engineering institutions in so far as they were expressed through the CEI and the four presidents that it should be done by means of the Privy Council.

I objected and object very strongly to that. It is a clumsy and bad procedure. In Standing Committee, the point I made was that the House was invited by the Secretary of State in this Bill to make funds available, by loan guarantees or otherwise, to his Privy Council body without the Standing Committee having knowledge at that time of what would constitute the responsibilities and powers of the authority.

Through the various channels open to me, I saw the first draft of the Royal Charter. I believe that it is now in its revised form available from the Library, but rather late in the day; it was not available to the Standing Committee. I was not impressed by the first draft Royal Charter. It seemed then to be very little improvement on what exists already through the CEI. It is generally agreed that the CEI has not made a very great success of its job over the years mainly because the component bodies would not give it authority.

Since that time of the first draft there have been further consultations. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has now to some extent broken the spell that the leaders of the engineering institutions cast upon him when he met them on 2 July. The truth is that they wanted just the minimum of change, if any change at all; they certainly did not want changes of the sweeping nature recommended by Finniston. But some forceful criticisms have been made of the first draft, through a series of consultations. They are not just criticisms by the engineering institutions, which hold one point of view, but criticisms made by industry, by the employers' side and by the trade unions, and particularly by those staff unions which organise chartered engineers. I have often made the point that the average chartered engineer in this country is an employee and not an employer.

Those criticisms of the first draft have had some effect, I believe, on the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He has now brought forward an amended draft, which is a considerable improvement, I admit, on the first draft, though I would have preferred it to be done by statute. But nothing, I fear, will ever bring the Council of Engineering Institutions into agreement with anything that the Secretary of State does, because at heart it does not want any change. It fought against the setting up of the Finniston committee. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new draft does not please the Council of Engineering Institutions since it has moved further away from its outlook.

I have here a letter from the Council of Engineering Institutions that was written on 28 January 1981 to the Secretary of State. Hon. Members such as myself are obliged to read this kind of thing to the House, because there has been no comprehensive Bill with a Committee stage. In the course of that letter the CEI stated: We look forward to an opportunity, even at this late hour, for further discussion with your Department,"— the discussions have been going on for months— and we believe that this will have your support. But if such discussion is to be constructive and fruitful, it must be the aim to recast the Charter to take adequately into account the representations made in our letter of 22 October. Continuing exchanges on points of detail in the existing draft would serve little if any useful purpose. We must most emphatically stress that to persist with the Charter in its present form would carry with it a serious risk of creating unworkable relationships between the new council and the existing Institutions. In other words, this is a plain threat of non co-operation if they do not get their way.

9.30 pm

Mr. Ward

In the interests of clarity, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to explain to the House that the letter is from the 16 corporation presidents as well as the chairman of the CEI.

Mr. Palmer

I know that. They are equally mistaken. The error spreads itself.

The Secretary of State has leaned over backwards to conciliate and to meet the points of the engineering institutions. He must equally keep in mind the views of industry and the trade unions. If, in the end, the engineering institutions—one must not suppose that the councils and officials that run these institutions necessarily speak for the rank and file because they do not—will not co-operate, he will have no alternative but to withdraw what he proposes now in this Bill and bring in a comprehensive Bill that would give the authority of Parliament to the necessary change recommended by Finniston over the whole field. Complete breakdown now would be unthinkable.

Dr. John Cunningham

I begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) concluded. If the Secretary of State had done what my hon. Friend has suggested in the first place, we would not be sitting here this evening. When we discussed the clause in Committee, we were asked to discuss something that had not even been made public. The Committee was asked to accept something that it had not even seen. That was a rather unusual state of affairs, to say the least. The Government have moved a little way since that time. They have at least published the latest in a number of drafts of their proposed charter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East and, indeed, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) have stated, this proposal from the Government has no friends and no supporters. It has had none to date in this House. It has none among the engineering institutions themselves. That is not surprising.

What the Government propose, as hon. Members have indicated, is a long way from Finniston. It does not have much in common with what Finniston recommended. Perhaps if it did, the engineering institutions would still be opposed to it. That is not the point. What the Government suggest has no teeth. It does not require a statutory registration. It makes no definitive statement about finance. It is a series of very general proposals—I refer to clause 6 as a whole, but it is also true, in some measure, of the charter—which a number of people feel are not only inadequate but almost an affront to the engineering institutions themselves.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will state clearly who is in favour of the Government's proposals. We asked him this question in Committee. I repeat it now. Is the Committee of Vice-Chancellors in favour, or against, what is suggested? Is the CBI in favour? Or does it still adhere of the view of the 16 institutions responsible for the letter to which all hon. Members seem to have a copy? Is the Engineering Employers' Federation in favour of these proposals? Or is the federation, like most people, against them?

I shall quote one sentence from the letter from the institutions of 28 January: It follows that the present draft remains unacceptable. Nothing could be clearer than that. The institutions will not concede whatever control they exercise over the title "Chartered Engineer" to the new body that the Government propose.

What about the financial provisions? It is unusual for hon. Members on the Government Benches to be asked to vote for general enabling measures. If that was proposed by the Opposition, the Government would be up in arms. Conservative Members are also being asked to support financial provisions about which we have no details. We should like to know more about them.

What is so awful about a proposal not only to have statutory registration but to have a statutory body to govern engineering introduced in a Bill? For example, the General Medical Council, which is highly respected, acts as a safeguard in the public interest and even exerts considerable influence over Government funding for medical training. It is a well established body. It is a good precedent, which we recommend to the Government for consideration. The GMC also involves a great deal of self-government for the medical profession. Such a provision would go some way towards meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) and the points raised by the institutions. Why should engineers not be treated in a similar way?

Clause 6 is not acceptable, as we made clear in Committee, and neither are the specific provisions for engineering. The Secretary of State should think again. I believe that the proposals will be severely mauled in another place and the Government may be forced to think again. They should therefore be gracious and make eleventh hour changes. It is not a party political argument. It is important to take this opportunity to get the situation right for engineering, which in turn is important for our future industrial prosperity.

The Secretary of State would be hard pressed to point to anything in the clause that remotely resembles a motive for change. Unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, we shall vote against the clause.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor)

I shall start with three points on which I believe we agree. We agree that it is not a party matter. There are disagreements about certain aspects of the Finniston approach and our approach. Some of the disagreements are greatly exaggerated. There is much more welcome for the course that we are following than would appear from this short debate.

Nothing that I may say later will diminish my agreement with the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) about the importance of promoting engineering, and the engineering dimension. I dealt with that in Committee, but I should like to make it clear again. I entirely agree with the wider concept of the engineering dimension. We are now discussing the structural approach that should be taken to achieve that.

9.45 pm

I hope that we agree that there is much in the Finniston report—which we have widely welcomed—which is of great value and which is being pursued in other ways. This evening, we have picked out one important aspect of the Finniston report. Much of what was said in the Finniston report is being followed up. This disagreement does not, therefore, diminish the value of that report.

I turn to the specific effect of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline. It seeks to delete the whole of clause 6. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman wishes to reopen the debate on the type of body involved. However, the amendment would remove two provisions which are comparatively small, but not unimportant. The first provision provides specific statutory cover for the financial support which this and previous Administrations have given for certain industrial/education activities—to which some of my hon. Friends referred in the earlier debate—which are aimed at improving the mutual understanding between industry and education, particularly at school level.

Until now, that support has been provided under the authority of the Appropriation Act. However it is an established principle—and I should have thought welcomed by this House—that statutory authority should be sought at the first convenient opportunity for recurring items of expenditure. The Bill would provide that in the first part of its proposal. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose that opportunity by rejecting the clause.

The clause enables the Secretary of State to provide certain forms of support for the proposed chartered engineering body. As I made clear in Committee, our intention is that the body should be self-financing, but we are taking powers in this clause to guarantee loans to the body from the private sector during the initial period when it is set up, and, if it proves absolutely necessary, to make grants available to it during that initial period until it has become self-supporting.

The effect of the amendment would, therefore, be that existing expenditure on industrial-education activities would continue to be made solely under the authority of the Appropriation Act. I am sure that I do not need to persuade hon. Members that this would be unsatisfactory. Secondly, the Secretary of State would not be empowered—

Dr. John Cunningham

We understand what the Under-Secretary is saying. Nothing would be lost by that. We are asking the Government to go away and think again. That could be put right and no one would be short of money.

Mr. MacGregor

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's point is central to the debate and I shall take it up later. If the clause were lost, I suppose that we could provide the money for the chartered engineering body under an Appropriation Act but—for the reasons I have given—it would be regarded as unsatisfactory. Therefore, the amendment might well prevent the body from becoming established.

I turn to the basic arguments that have been put forward.

Mr. Douglas

How long have these sums been made available to the organisations under the Appropriation Act? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the difficulties involved if the Government review the situation and correct it in the other place?

Mr. MacGregor

I am not sure about the length of time, but a number of years are involved. We are taking advantage of this opportunity to put that right. As regards the hon. Gentleman's second question, I hope that I shall demonstrate why we feel that it is right to proceed in this way and not to lose the advantage of the limited power contained in the second part of the clause.

In Committee we heard the argument about the distinction between a statutory and a chartered body authority. That is the substance of the Opposition's criticism. I shall not go over the whole of that ground again, as I am anxious to make progress. However, the most important point is that the consultations that we engaged in earlier last year—Opposition Members agree that they were fairly extensive—did not show agreement—that has been made clear tonight—-but a clear desire for a new body. There was also a strong feeling that once set up it should work independently of Government and should build on existing practice where possible.

9.45 pm

The independence of Government argument is an important one. I recall the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) reading a passage from a letter that criticised some aspects of our proposals but made clear that the author—a very distinguished gentleman— supported the independence argument. That has been widely advanced by many others apart from the institutions which have responded to the consultations. It is important to recognise that it is a widely held view, a majority view, and that we are responding to it.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven exaggerated somewhat when he said that we are a long way from Finniston. He knows that the Finniston report did not propose any statutory powers for the new statutory authority. It was proposing an authority that in addition could report to Parliament. We believe that it is right for this body to be independent of the Government and that we have adopted the route that will enable that to happen.

The hon. Gentleman asked me who is in favour of the approach that the Government are taking. Inevitably, we have had the Opposition's views and the disagreements have been expressed. However, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom Universities, the Engineering Employers Federation and the CBI all support the draft charter. There is quite widespread support for the charter.

Dr. John Cunningham

Only recently.

Mr. MacGregor

The hon. Gentleman knows that the draft has been circulated comparatively recently.

Mr. Palmer

When the Minister referred to the bodies that support the draft charter, which draft does he mean? There have been so many drafts.

Mr. MacGregor

Only one has been circulated widely. At an earlier stage a draft was circulated to only a few individuals to try to arrive at a format that would be circulated more widely. The one that has been circulated more widely is the draft circular of 23 January, a copy of which has been put in the Library. That was done, as the hon. Gentleman knows, at the request of himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven in the debate in Committee. I have responded to that by putting the draft charter in the Library. I did so as soon as it was circulated elsewhere.

I continue with the arguments that we rehearsed in Committee on the distinction between a statutory and chartered body approach. I have referred already to the wide consultation that we undertook. The response indicated a clear majority view and demonstrated that there would be widespread opposition to a statutory body, which would be thought to represent excessive Government involvement in the regulation of the engineering profession.

It is important that we make progress with the new body, in the light of the Finniston report. If we are to do that, it is important that we carry as wide a body of opinion with us as possible. It is important that we carry with us as much co-operation as possible, including those who have not been mentioned so often tonight—namely, the employers, who will have to play an important role in getting the new body off the ground. It is significant that the CBI is supporting the draft charter.

There is a difference of view, but the opposition to the chartered approach has had more support in the House than reflects the views outside the House of a group much wider than engineers but including, I suspect, many engineers.

I turn to some specific issues. The hon. Member for Dunfermline argued that in the light of the chartered engineer title it would be more satisfactory to put that into statutory form. As I have explained, we want to proceed by agreement. There are some final matters to clear up that we are discussing with the Council of Engineering Institutions and other leading institutions. There is a widespread desire to adopt the chartered engineer title under the new arrangements, and we are hoping to facilitate that.

It would be unfortunate if the new body had to set up new qualifications and titles for engineers, which is what the Finniston report suggested. Legislation would not have helped, because the Finniston report gave its authority no powers. We believe that the best way is to proceed by agreement.

The hon. Gentleman asked about an annual report to Parliament and led me to believe that he thought that it would lead inevitably to an annual opportunity to discuss in Parliament the progress of the body. He knows only too well that there are so many candidates for discussion in the House that not all of them, by any means, can be accommodated in any one year. That must be a matter for the Leader of the House. But this is a point that I should be happy to consider possibly including in the charter. Again, as I have said, we want to get as much agreement as possible. One possible course would be to insist that copies of the annual report were deposited in the Library. But it is certainly a point that I should be happy to consider.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline referred to the fact that no new funds, as recommended by Finniston, apart from the possible funds that the Government may have to guarantee in the earlier stages, were being put to the new authority. It is easy to keep proposing new activities for which extra funds should be voted, but the hon. Gentleman knows only too well the difficult climate in which we operate in relation to public expenditure. Therefore, one has to take a view of priorities, quite apart from the fact that there are other reasons for taking the course that we are taking on the chartered body approach.

One of my hon. Friends mentioned a number of fears that are being voiced—in a somewhat exaggerated way, as I hope to prove—among the engineering institutions, or at least among the leaders of these institutions. There is some evidence that quite a lot of engineers themselves do not support the views at present being put forward. First, the fear that has been expressed that the Royal Charter body might become the vehicle for nationalisation of the professions seems to me to be quite unjustified. I cannot see how that could possibly be the case. I believe, however, that there has been much misunderstanding of the position with regard to the charter. I had hoped that the speech that I made in Committee—and I know how little attention is often paid to Standing Committee speeches—would have been circulated with the charter. Some of those who have seen that speech since expressing their original fears have now admitted that their fears have been removed altogether or to a large extent diminished. I therefore believe that one or two points that have been picked out of the charter, or even an earlier draft of the charter, have been used to suggest greater Government interference than actually would be the case in the charter itself.

With regard to the professional judgment of engineers, nothing that we are proposing will affect the importance of professional judgment. As my hon. Friend will know, however, there are wider considerations behind the setting up of the new body.

My hon. Friend made two further points. First, he had fears that the people whom the Government appointed for the first three years would be self-perpetuating and that this would in itself indicate how the Government would continue to retain control. I must make clear that the reason for the Government doing this in the first instance is to get the new body off the ground with as wide agreement as possible and in as objective a way as possible.

Dr. John Cunningham

How will the new body get off the ground if the Council of Engineering Institutions refuses to concede its control over the title of "chartered engineer"?

Mr. MacGregor

As I indicated earlier, I believe that this is an area in which progress can still be made, where some of the misunderstandings about the charter and the Government's approach can really be thrashed out. We have had from the various organisations 280 suggestions for the chairman and members of the new council, which I believe indicates the degree of support which exists for the approach that we suggest. Finally, we are still awaiting the detailed comments of the institutions and others to whom the draft charter has been circulated. Clearly, those detailed comments will be taken into account.

I think that I have already dealt with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) in relation to the draft charter. I hope that he will realise why the draft charter was not before the Standing Committee on 15 January, because it was not actually circulated until 23 January when we placed it in the Library. I understand his objections. We have already debated them at considerable length, as the hon. Gentleman has discussed them within the engineering profession, though not always with full support.

It is now important to get on with the initiative that was set up under Finniston, to establish as much agreement as we can and to get the new body set up.

I made a number of points in Committee which I believe would set at ease many of the fears of the engineering institutions. I should therefore like, in conclusion, briefly to repeat some of them. Since the matter was debated in Committee there has been considerable comment in the press and outside, much of which I believe to be based upon a misunderstanding of the Government's position. Nothing in the Government's proposals is intended to diminish the importance of the role of the engineering profession or its institutions.

The proposed council will consult the engineering institutions, and so far as possible work through those institutions which can satisfactorily apply the standards determined by the council. Although the Government will appoint the first chairman and members, they will do so in such a way as to reflect the very broad range of interests involved. Thereafter, the council will act in its own right under the charter, and, as can be seen from the draft, there is no question of the Government being given powers to direct the work of the council.

We would expect, and, indeed, intend, that any future proposals put forward to the Privy Council by this body for its future constitution would reflect that same balance of interests; and, indeed, that there would be full consultation before such recommendations are made. Without this, the council itself could not possibly fulfil its objectives in the future. I stress again the great importance which we attach to the regulation of the engineering profession in this regard, taken in the wider context of national economic needs, which Sir Monty Finniston himself so eloquently defined in his excellent report.

It is for this most important reason, which goes to the very heart of the matter, that we seek a genuine consensus to move forward, and a commitment from employers, the educational system, the individual engineer, and his representatives.

I hope that I have made the Government's intentions perfectly clear, so that this House and all those concerned may be under no misapprehensions, and that on this basis we may all move forward together in this important matter. We will obviously welcome detailed amendments to the proposals we have already made and we look forward to receiving them, but we must now make progress on the broad basis established, and with that in mind I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 152.

Division No. 62	[9.56 pm
AYES
Alton,David	HomeRobertson,John
Armstrong, RtHon Ernest	Homewood,William
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Howells,Geraint
Bagier,Gordon A.T.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Beith, A. J.	John,Brynmor
Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Bidwell,Sydney	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh 'dda)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Buchan,Norman	Kerr, Russell
Callaghan,Jim(Midd't'n&p)	Lambie,David
Campbell-Savours,Dale	Lamond,James
Carter-Jones Lewis	Leadbitter,Ted
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)	Leighton,Ronald
Coleman, Donald	Lestor, MissJoan
Conlan,Bernard	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cowans, Harry	Litherland,Robert
Crowther,J.S.	Lofthouse,Geoffrey
Cryer,Bob	McCartney,Hugh
Cunliffe,Lawrence	McDonald,DrOonagh
Cunningham, DrJ.(W'h'n)	McElhone,Frank
Dalyell,Tam	McGuire,Michael(lnce)
Davidson,Arthur	McKay,Allen(Penistone)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	McMahon,Andrew
Davis, T. (B'ham.Stechf'd)	McNally,Thomas
Dixon,Donald	McNamara,Kevin
Dormand,Jack	Marks,Kenneth
Douglas,Dick	Marshall,D(G'gowS'ton,)
Douglas-Mann,Bruce	Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Maxton,John
Dunn, James A.	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Eastham, Ken	Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby)
Evans, John (Newton)	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Ewing,Harry	Mulley,Rt Hon Frederick
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Foster, Derek	Palmer,Arthur
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Penhaligon,David
Freud,Clement	Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Garrett, John (NorwichS)	Prescott,John
George, Bruce	Roberts, Ernest (HackneyN)
Golding,John	Rowlands,Ted
Graham,Ted	Silkin,Rt Hon J.(Deptford)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Skinner,Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Spearing,Nigel
Hardy, Peter	Spriggs,Leslie
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Steel, RtHon David
Haynes, Frank	Stoddart,David
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)	Thomas,Dafydd(Merioneth)

Thorne, Stan(PrestonSouth)	Whitlock,William
Tinn, James	Wigley,Dafydd
Wainwright,R.(ColneV)	Winnick,David
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Welsh,Michael	Tellers for the Ayes: White, Frank R.
White, Frank R	Mr. Joseph Dean and
Whitehead,Phillip	Mr. George Morton.
NOES
Ancram,Michael	LeMarchant,Spencer
Atkins, RtHonH. (S'thorne)	Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Atkinson,David(B'rn'th,E)	Lloyd, ian(Havant& W'loo)
Banks,Robert	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Benyon,Thomas(A' don)	Loveridge,John
Berry, HonAnthony	Lyell,Nicholas
Best, Keith	Macfarlane,Neil
Bevan, David Gilroy	MacGregor,John
Biggs-Davison,John	MacKay,John(Argyll)
Boscawen,HonRobert	McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)
Bright,Graham	Madel, David
Brinton,Tim	Major,john
Brooke, Hon Peter	Marten,Neil(Banbury)
Brotherton,Michael	Mather,Carol
Brown,M.(BriggandScun)	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Bruce-Gardyne,John	Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Bryan,SirPaul	Meyer,SirAnthony
Bulmer,Esmond	Miller,Hal(B'grove)
Butcher,John	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Carlisle.John(Luton West)	Mills, Peter(West Devon)
Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)	Moate,Roger
Chapman,Sydney	Montgomery, Fergus
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)
Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)	Murphy,Christopher
Clegg,SirWalter	Myles, David
Cockeram,Eric	Neale,Gerrard
Colvin,Michael	Needham,Richard
Cope,John	Nelson,Anthony
Cranborne,Viscount	Newton,Tony
Crouch,David	Normanton.Tom
Dean, Paul(North Somerset)	Onslow,Cranley
Dorrell,Stephen	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Dover,Denshore	Page, Richard (SWHerts)
Dunn,Robert(Dartford)	Parris,Matthew
Dykes, Hugh	Patten, John(Oxford)
Fairgrieve,Russell	Pollock,Alexander
Faith, MrsSheila	Porter,Barry
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles	Rathbone,Tim
Forman,Nigel	Renton,Tim
Garel-Jones,Tristan	RhysWilliams,SirBrandon
Glyn,DrAlan	Ridley,HonNicholas
Goodhart,Philip	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Goodlad,Alastair	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Gorst,John	Rossi, Hugh
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)	Rost, Peter
Grist, Ian	Sainsbury,HonTimothy
Grylls,Michael	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hamilton, Hon A.	Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)	Sims, Roger
Hampson,DrKeith	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hawkins,Paul	Smith,Dudley
Hawksley,Warren	Speller,Tony
Henderson,Barry	Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)
Hill,James	Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Hogg.HonDouglasGr'th'm)	Sproat,lan
Holland,Philip(Carlton)	Stainton,Keith
Hordern,Peter	Stanbrook,lvor
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)	Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)
JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey	Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)
Jopling,Rt HonMichael	StradlingThomas,J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)
Kaberry,SirDonald	Tebbit,Norman
Kershaw,SirAnthony	Thompson,Donald
Kilfedder,James A.	Thornton,Malcolm
King, Rt Hon Tom	Townend,John(Bridlington)
Knight,MrsJill	Viggers,Peter
Knox, David	Waddington,David
Lang, Ian	Waldegrave,HonWilliam
Langford-Holt,SirJohn	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Wall,Patrick	Williams,D. (Montgomery)
Ward,John	Wolfson,Mark
Warren, Kenneth	Young, SirGeorge(Acton)
Watson,John
Wells,Bowen	Tellers for the Noes:
Wheeler,John	Lord James Douglas Hamilton
Wickenden,Keith	and Mr. Selwyn Gummer

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.