THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS' COMBINED PENSION FUND

HC Deb 09 June 1981 vol 6 cc293-301 'The trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund may, with the consent of three quarters of the number of the industrial training boards whose officers and servants are eligible to benefit from the Fund, make such amendments of the rules of the Fund as they think fit.'.—[Mr. Peter Morrison].

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and other hon. Members will know, under the present rules of the ITB pension fund the trustees need the consent of all the ITBs to any significant change of the rules. Any board, irrespective of size and importance, can veto a change, whether to benefits provided under the scheme, to the procedures for running the fund, or to any other substantive matter covered by the rules. The new clause secures that the trustees need the consent of only three-quarters of the boards to any change in the rules.

The trustees asked us to make that change. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the trustees met yesterday. Seven were present and four were member trustees representing staff, including all the union nominees. They were all in favour of changing the rules in the way proposed. They believe that the change will facilitate their job, particularly at a time when a number of boards may be wound up and some rearrangement of the fund may be needed to ensure viability.

In the normal course of events I would not recommend to the House that we should legislate in this way to vary one provision of what is effectively a voluntary contract. However, this is an unusual case. The unanimity rule, which makes sense for a fund where there is one employer whose agreement to proposals from the trustees should rightly be obtained before there are major changes, is not desirable where there are 24 employers of varying sizes. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that rule was drawn up before the boards were created.

I would not recommend the change either if I felt that there was a risk that the trustees would seek to act in a way that diminished the rights of boards or their staff. The trustees are themselves nominees of boards and staff. We are providing that they should not be able to change the rules without a three-quarters majority of the board. We believe that those are adequate safeguards. Accordingly, I recommend the new clause.

A possible future problem, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware relates to rule 305, which provides for the subdivision of the fund. On the advice of their actuary, the trustees will want to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards that may have been wound up, and an open fund for the pensions of the staff of boards that are retained. For a separate fund to be set up, the trustees believe that they need the consent of all boards. It is possible that perhaps one board could completely destroy what was in the minds of the Trustees in the best interests of all those involved. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. For that reason, I recommend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Harold Walker

The chairman of the trustees, Mr. Hunter Jones, who is also chairman of the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board, wrote to me as long ago as the middle of April about the problem that the Bill had created for the managers of the pension fund It is a matter of regret and legitimate criticism on our part that the new clause appeared on the Amendment Paper only last week. After the lapse of all that time we are left with completely inadequate time to consult those within the fund and those who will be affected by the changes in it.

The matter is extremely technical and difficult. We are dealing with proposals that might affect the retirement provision for many thousands of people. It is also important that the House should bear in mind that the fund is a non-statutory arrangement. It is a voluntary arrangement, freely entered into by the boards and their staffs. It is extremely odd that a Government whose principal argument in favour of the measure has been the superiority of the voluntary arrangements over statutory provisions should now be asking the House to approve a statutory intervention into a totally voluntary arrangement.

The unanimity rule to which the Minister referred was not required by statute, but was agreed by the 24 boards, the trustees of the fund and the eventual beneficiaries of the fund. In the same way in which they freely entered into that arrangement, they should be left freely to change it if it is found that difficulties are likely to arise as a consequence of the Bill.

One can only assume that the changes that are contemplated, about which we have been told nothing, are likely to be objected to by some of the boards. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Minister to seek the change. If some changes were not likely to receive the approbation of the boards, there would be no need for the Government to table the new clause. We are entitled to ask: "What are the changes about which the trustees are so anxious and which they fear may be jeopardised if the change is not made?" We have not been given the answer.

We cannot overlook the point that while the departure from the unanimity rule may be necessary for the changes that the trustees now have in mind, the letter that the Under-Secretary sent to Mr. Hunter Jones on 2 June should be considered. He said then: The arrangements which I have outlined should appeal to every surviving board"— the phrase "every surviving board" should be noted— since the entire cost would otherwise fall to be shared between them. However I accept that the rule could cause difficulty and delay in connection with the winding up of boards and that there is a case for changing the rule on more general grounds. In other words, the arrangements might be helpful in the future. They would make it easier to change any of the rules.

The House must note that the consent that we are being asked to approve is one that will be given by the boards.

We must not overlook the fact that in that context the boards are the employers. In other words, we are merely being asked to consent to the approval of three-quarters of the employers. The beneficiaries, trade unions and members of staff are being given no say in that matter.

I understand that there are 14 trustees and that only two of them are trade union representatives. I know from my time at the Department that that has been a matter of some anxiety on the part of the trade unions representing the staffs. We are entitled to ask the Minister what consultation took place, before the proposal was put on the Amendment Paper, with the staffs affected or their representatives. Have the unions been consulted?

It is clear that the employers among the trustees, and the boards as employers, can combine to worsen the pension and redundancy provisions that have been secured over the years by collective bargaining. For example, we know that many employers are resentful about the index linking of pension arrangements for the staff. There is no doubt that many of them would anxiously consider a stronger opportunity to break that link in the future. What will be the rights of the ex-employees of the boards that the Ministers are contemplating abolishing and will be defunct? Will they have any say about pension arrangements that will affect future entitlement?

Is there a mechanism to prevent future decisions from having a retrospective effect on ex-employees of boards that have been wound up? Furthermore, what about the three-quarters of the boards that may survive? How can there be three-quarters of 19, 17, 15, seven or five? We are entitled to know what numbers we are talking about.

I recognise that the fund is facing difficulties as a result of what the Government have said, and not least because of something that they had not even touched on. We are talking not merely of straight pension arrangements. There is also the redundancy pension enhancement provision. The Minister may be waiting until we reach amendment No. 14 to say something about the extent to which the Government are prepared to underwrite the sums involved in the redundancy enhancement provision, which will be triggered off the moment that the Secretary of State starts to wield his axe.

I am mindful that there are difficulties, but it is no part of the Opposition's task to help the Government out of the problems that they have created by their unwise measure. Unless we have more convincing statements, notwithstanding what the Minister said about the trustees meeting yesterday, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Hooley

The new clause is technical, but it concerns an important and sensitive matter. Some employers have been alarmed about the consequencies that the winding up of ITBs will have on pension funds and their responsibilities. The CBI or the chambers of commerce have put a figure of £35 million on the cost to them of a major axeing of the ITBs to preserve pension rights of ITB staff.

The new clause is fairly sweeping.

Mr. Harold Walker

So that there is no misunderstanding, I point out that the letter from Mr. Hunter Jones of 14 April referred to the sum of £35 million only in respect of the provision to which I referred—the redundancy pension enhancement. It is not the total cost of the accrued pension rights. It is merely that one liability if every board disappeared. Mr. Hunter Jones said: If every board were to disappear it is estimated that the combined cost of underwriting this particular liability"— that is the redundancy pension enhancement scheme— would exceed £35 million. Doubtless a much greater sum would be required to provide for the whole of the accrued pension fund liabilities.

Mr. Hooley

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is a technical matter. The details are complicated and perhaps not widely understood. I do not claim to be competent to argue the details of pension funds.

There is no doubt that employers are profoundly worried about the consequences for pension funds of the winding up of ITBs. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has spelt out one consequence. The concern may eventually inhibit the mass destruction of the ITBs, which at one stage was contemplated by the Secretary of State and for which he will still have powers under the Bill.

I am not entirely clear whether the three-quarters rule applies to the existing industrial boards or whether it will be three-quarters of those that remain after some have been axed. At what stage does it apply and at what stage does it cease to apply? Can the existing rules be amended on the basis of a three-quarters assent of the existing boards, and subsequently on the basis of assent of the then existing boards, which may by that time have been reduced to eight or nine? It is a sweeping clause, which could have many consequences.

5.45 pm

The Minister hinted that the trade union trustees had no objection to the arrangement. I assure him that the TUC has powerful objections. For example, the combined ITB pension fund rules state that no changes may be made that adversely affect an individual member of the pension fund, which is a common provision in pension fund rules. The protection may have to be changed in the case of ITB employees made redundant when ITBs are wound up or merged, which would be opposed by the affiliated unions.

The new clause would enable the trustees to amend the rules as they thought fit. It gives them absolute, unfettered discretion to make changes once they have the assent of three-quarters of the ITBs. The proportion chosen is curious. I do not have at my finger tips the number of employees of each board or the number of workers for whom they are responsible, but the number varies from millions down to a few thousand. The six biggest boards may dissent, but the 18 smallest ones, with a minority of workers and employers, may agree, and they could overrule the wishes of the largest boards. I cannot understand a provision under which large organisations, with a great many employees, responsible for a wide range of workers, can have their wishes overruled by smaller organisations, which, even combined, do not cover the same number of employers or have the same degree of responsibility.

My other point concerns the voting powers of the trustees. My right hon. Friend said that there were 14 trustees, of which two were trade union nominees. Given the three-quarters rule, does it mean that the rules can be changed by a simple majority of the trustees? Do we need a vote of only seven, plus the casting vote of the chairman, for the trustees to make a change in the rules? Can they make changes related to indexation of pensions, the level of pension with regard to the number of years of service, and so on?

Pension rules are enormously complicated and important to the people whom they affect. We want to know not only what the safeguards will be for consent by the ITBs but what they are against a small number of trustees —seven out of only 14–fundamentally changing the rules, against possible dissent by seven or even four or five of their colleagues, which would be equally unsatisfactory.

I am concerned about the phrase such amendments of the rules …as they think fit in relation to level of pension, indexation, qualifications, qualifying period of service and amount of pension. The whole range of the rules can apparently be amended under the clause, provided that a group of ITBs agree. The House should not enact such a sweeping clause in this form.

Mr. Peter Morrison

I agree that this is a technical and difficult matter, but I assure the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that, coupled with the money resolution and amendment No. 14, to which we shall come later, this is a genuine attempt to ensure that past, present and future beneficiaries of the ITB pension fund, in the event of those ITBs no longer being in existence, can benefit in full. It is a genuine attempt to ensure that all employees of the pension fund can participate as they have in the past.

I accept entirely that it took a little time, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, as soon as we had formulated the money resolution, the new clause and the amendment we got them to him, so as to give him as much time as possible. It was a complicated matter and I admit that I still find it so.

On the specific point put by both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend —the number of ITBs that might be left —we rehearsed that argument in Committee and no doubt shall continue to rehearse it today. As my right hon. Friend said in the debate on the earlier new clause, we have come to no decisions. The "three quarters" means exactly what it says. It means that at least 75 per cent. need to vote in favour.

I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that the pension fund trustees envisage, on the advice of their actuary, that they will be likely to want to subdivide the fund, to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards which have been wound up and an open fund for the pensions of staff of boards which are retained. I think that the reasons for that will be obvious.

In the event that one board actually objected to that and the trustees could not do it, as I understand it, they would not see their way to ensuring that the potential beneficiaries could benefit in the way that I think all hon. Members would wish them to benefit. That is why, at the behest of the trustees, we tabled the new clause.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation. As I said in opening the debate, the three trade union representatives were present at yesterday's meeting and wholly concurred with the Government's proposal. When I was originally approached, I assumed that I was being approached on behalf of all the trustees and not just the chairman, so I imagine that consultation had taken place there, too.

In conclusion, I assure the House that we are attempting to do what is best for past, present and indeed future employees of training boards.

Mr. Robert Taylor

The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that the pensions are index linked. Has there so far been any liability to public funds to top up the fund? I am always told that it is impossible to have a funded index-linked scheme. If there has been no occasion to top up the fund so far, is there any contingent liability upon public funds to do so in future?

Mr. Morrison

As my hon. Friend will realise, that is a related aspect of amendment No. 14, which we shall reach later. I shall therefore be able to reply to him then.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 187.

Division No. 212]	[5.54 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Eyre, Reginald
Alexander, Richard	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Ancram, Michael	Fairgrieve, Russell
Arnold, Tom	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)	Farr, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)	Fell, Anthony
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Biggs-Davison, John	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Blackburn, John	Fry, Peter
Body, Richard	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Andrew	Glyn, Dr Alan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Goodhart, Philip
Braine, Sir Bernard	Goodlad, Alastair
Bright, Graham	Gorst, John
Brittan, Leon	Gow, Ian
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gower, Sir Raymond
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Greenway, Harry
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Grist, Ian
Buck, Antony	Grylls, Michael
Budgen, Nick	Hamilton, Hon A.
Bulmer, Esmond	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Burden, Sir Frederick	Hannam, John
Butcher, John	Haselhurst, Alan
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Hawksley, Warren
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hayhoe, Barney
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Hicks, Robert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Chapman, Sydney	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hooson, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hordern, Peter
Cockeram, Eric	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Colvin, Michael	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Corrie, John	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Costain, Sir Albert	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Critchley, Julian	Jessel, Toby
Crouch, David	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Dorrell, Stephen	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Kershaw, Anthony
Dover, Denshore	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Durant, Tony	Knight, Mrs Jill
Dykes, Hugh	Knox, David
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lamont, Norman
Eggar, Tim	Lang, Ian

Langford-Holt, Sir John	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Latham, Michael	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel	Rifkind, Malcolm
Lee, John	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Le Merchant, Spencer	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Rossi, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Rost, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Loveridge, John	Scott, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Macfarlane, Neil	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
MacGregor, John	Shelton, William (Streatham)
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.	Shepherd, Richard
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)	Silvester, Fred
McQuarrie, Albert	Sims, Roger
Madel, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Major, John	Speed, Keith
Marland, Paul	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Marlow, Tony	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Sproat, lain
Mather, Carol	Squire, Robin
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus	Stanbrook, Ivor
Mawby, Ray	Steen, Anthony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stevens, Martin
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mayhew, Patrick	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Mellor, David	Stokes, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Tapsell, Peter
Mills, lain (Meriden)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Moate, Roger	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Monro, Hector	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moore, John	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Thompson, Donald
Murphy, Christopher	Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Myles, David	Thornton, Malcolm
Neale, Gerrard	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Needham, Richard	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Nelson, Anthony	Trippier, David
Neubert, Michael	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Newton, Tony	Viggers, Peter
Normanton, Tom	Waddington, David
Onslow, Cranley	Wakeham, John
Osborn, John	Waldegrave, Hon William
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Walker, B. (Perth)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Waller, Gary
Parkinson, Cecil	Ward, John
Parris, Matthew	Warren, Kenneth
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Wells, Bowen
Percival, Sir Ian	Wheeler, John
Pink, R. Bonner	Whitney, Raymond
Pollock, Alexander	Wickenden, Keith
Porter, Barry	Wilkinson, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Wolfson, Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Proctor, K. Harvey	Younger, Rt Hon George
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Rathbone, Tim	Tellers for the Ayes:
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Mr. John Cope and
Renton, Tim	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Rhodes James, Robert

NOES
Adams, Allen	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Allaun, Frank	Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Anderson, Donald	Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Buchan, Norman
Beith, A. J.	Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)
Bennett, Andrew (Sf'kp't N)	Campbell, Ian
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Carmichael, Neil
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)	Carter-Jones, Lewis
Bradley, Tom	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Cohen, Stanley	McCartney, Hugh
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Conlan, Bernard	McElhone, Frank
Cook, Robin F.	McKelvey, William
Cowans, Harry	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Craigen, J. M.	McTaggart, Robert
Crowther, J. S.	Magee, Bryan
Cryer, Bob	Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Dalyell, Tam	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Deakins, Eric	Maxton, John
Dempsey, James	Maynard, Miss Joan
Dewar, Donald	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Dixon, Donald	Mikardo, Ian
Dobson, Frank	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dormand, Jack	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dubs, Alfred	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Dunn, James A.	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Eastham, Ken	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)	Morton, George
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
English, Michael	Newens, Stanley
Ennals, Rt Hon David	O'Halloran, Michael
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	O'Neill, Martin
Evans, John (Newton)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ewing, Harry	Palmer, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew	Parry, Robert
Field, Frank	Pendry, Tom
Fitch, Alan	Penhaligon, David
Flannery, Martin	Prescott, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Richardson, Jo
Ford, Ben	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Forrester, John	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Foster, Derek	Robertson, George
Foulkes, George	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Rooker, J. W.
George, Bruce	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Golding, John	Sandelson, Neville
Gourlay, Harry	Sheerman, Barry
Graham, Ted	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, John (Islington C)	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Silverman, Julius
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Skinner, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Snape, Peter
Haynes, Frank	Soley, Clive
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Spearing, Nigel
Heffer, Eric S.	Spriggs, Leslie
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)	Stallard, A. W.
Home Robertson, John	Steel, Rt Hon David
Homewood, William	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Hooley, Frank	Stoddart, David
Howell, Rt Hon D.	Stott, Roger
Howells, Geraint	Strang, Gavin
Huckfield, Les	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Janner, Hon Greville	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
John, Brynmor	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Tilley, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Kerr, Russell	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Kilfedder, James A.	Wainwright, H.(Colne V)
Lamond, James	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Leighton, Ronald	Welsh, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan	White, Frank R.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Whitehead, Phillip
Litherland, Robert	Whitlock, William
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Wigley, Dafydd
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H,ton)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)	Tellers for the Noes:
Winnick, David	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Woodall, Alec	Mr. Joseph Dean
Woolmer, Kenneth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.