§ '(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers of an Executive and of an Authority as the case may be—
- (a) so to arrange the affairs of the Executive and any of its subsidiaries as to achieve a surplus of revenues to aid the efficient operation of the Executive during such period as they determine to be appropriate and
- (b) to retain any such surplus or proportion of such surplus as is referred to in (a) above for use for such purpose and at such time as they think fit.
§ (2) Where any Executive retains such surplus as is mentioned in (b) above, the Secretary of State in giving guidance under section 4 above shall not be entitled to take into account the amount of any such surplus.'. — [Mr. Robert Hughes.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.6.15 pm
§ Mr. Robert Hughes
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the position with regard to reserves in local authority accounts in relation to transport matters. It is perfectly normal for surpluses to be set aside from time to time for expenditure at some unspecified time in the future. Many undertakings, especially transport undertakings, are extremely prudent in putting surpluses in reserve for the future acquisition of plant or equipment or to take care of 183 their capital account. That is a perfectly prudent way in which to proceed and one would expect it to achieve the Secretary of State's approval.
The Bill as drafted, however, seems to be deficient in relation to the way in which surpluses can be used. Indeed, it is not even clear that surpluses may be set aside for future use. As we understand the Bill, if a surplus is built up over a 12-month period it must be spent within the following 12 months. It seems unreasonable that a passenger transport undertaking should have no control at all over its reserves and no ability to plan its accounts.
The difficulty is that as a result of the disclosure provisions in the Bill the Secretary of State will know the state of the accounts of the PTA or PTE concerned. It will thus be open to him to intervene with regard to the use of reserves.
I shall not go through the whole Bill but it is clear that the Secretary of State is not simply taking a general power to say what he thinks expenditure levels should be; he is taking the power to intervene in every aspect of local government transport policy. He is taking the right to interfere directly with the running of the executive and the judgments of the PTA. That is wholly wrong. If he believes, as he seems to, in local authorities acting reasonably and sensibly, he should give them the powers to do that.
I envisage circumstances in which an authority may have built up a reserve for any purpose, but the Secretary of State will have considerable powers through the Bill to tell it how to use those reserves, irrespective of whether that is what it wants. He will issue guidance to local authorities. As they must take it into account, if they refuse his advice, the PTA or the PTE might be challenged in the courts.
If new clause 2 is accepted, it will be clear that an executive will be empowered to achieve a surplus, to retain it and, where a surplus is repaid, the Secretary of State will not be entitled to take account of that surplus in his figures when he issues guidance. The new clause is eminently sensible. I can see no reason why the Secretary of State should refuse to accept it and I therefore commend it to the House.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre)
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I gave the Government's reaction to new clause 2 and the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I shall try to reply in straightforward and commonsense terms to the hon. Gentleman's points.
Executives are able to create a reserve if they wish to use surpluses, although they would be doing that at the ratepayers' expense. If that reserve were used to support revenue expenditure, such expenditure would have to be authorised under the plan and come within the protected expenditure level.
The main purpose of new clause 2 and the redefined financial duty is to strengthen the financial disciplines of the executive to operate commercially. The fault with the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that new clause 2 would undermine that necessary financial discipline. It would enable the executive to use ratepayers' money to build up a surplus which could then be used for any purpose that it thought fit.
§ Mr. Cowans
New clause 2 is reasonable. Before the Under-Secretary of State for Transport spoke, I thought that it would go through with the speed of light, judging from the speeches of some Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that it was right and proper that local authorities should be able to spend their own money. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), much of whose speech I agreed with, made a strong plea for standard concessionary fares and for local authorities to use their finances in their own areas according to need. As an ex-local authority man, I agree with what he said, but the hon. Members for Edgbaston and Wellingborough voted with the Government.
Life is made difficult when one thing is said in the Chamber—the version that is read outside—but when it comes to a Division the diametrically opposite view is presented. It is nonsensical when hon. Members allegedly support a course of action in the House, but when the chips are down, they ensure that that course of action cannot take place. I have heard of people riding two horses at the same time, but that is ridiculous.
The Minister has a chance to get off the hook. New clause 2 is eminently reasonable and ties in nicely with new clause 1 which the Government did not have the sense to support. New clause 1 provided for when a local authority was forced by the Government to go to the market to borrow. The only solution to a contingency that the Secretary of State could provide was to borrow. If the Secretary of State believes that it is good business to go to the market at an especially bad time when it makes more economic sense to use the capital that one already has, I suggest that the business men and women are on this side of the House and not, as is often said, on the Conservative Benches.
It seems that the Secretary of State wants it both ways, the Bill could become an Act that remains in force for the next 100 years. That is often forgotten. If a local authority manages its affairs so that it can achieve a surplus, it seems abundantly sensible that that surplus should be utilised for the benefit of the people in the community whence it came, in the form, for example, of concessionary fares which the hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned.
What will happen if a prudent authority manages, even within this nonsense of a Bill, to make a surplus? The Secretary of State will immediately claw it back. Where is the incentive in that for any local authority to make a surplus?
The Secretary of State has the audacity to stand up as the champion of the ratepayers. The only ratepayers that we hear about from Conservative Members are industrial ratepayers. Time and again it is the industrial ratepayers, not the domestic ones, whose case has been made by Conservative Members. It is always the industrial ratepayer who is disfranchised and does not have the "dough". We hear little about the other people called domestic ratepayers.
The new clause provides an opportunity to redress the balance. If the Minister of State went to his industrial ratepayers—he might mention it casually to the domestic ratepayers too—he might find that they agreed with the new clause. If a surplus accumulated by an authority was ploughed back into its transport undertaking, it could provide a better transport system; industries might 185 therefore have more customers and they would make better profits. Does that not make sense? The Secretary of State says that if an authority makes a surplus he will penalise it and claw back the surplus under the protected expenditure level. No local authority would have an incentive to make a surplus.
The proposal of the Minister is nonsense in anybody's terms. It is not good commercial practice. It is the same as saying to an industry which gets a grant from the Government to build a factory that if it is successful they will take back the grant out of the overall surplus. The Government do not do that. Why, therefore, would it not be sensible to treat transport authorities in the same way?
I do not see why the Government cannot accept the new clause. It would not destroy the intent behind the Bill. I oppose the whole Bill. Unfortunately, my hon. Friends and I find ourselves in the tragic situation of trying to make something better out of patent nonsense. I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I am renowned in the House for my brevity, although I might lose that record quickly.
If a local authority made a surplus, it could, by budgeting sensibly, restore many of the things that the Secretary of State has taken away. It could reintroduce children's fares at a level less than that laid down by the Secretary of State. Many businesses invest their surpluses. By the new clause we want a local authority to have the right to invest any surplus within the community from which it came. Surely that is reasonable. I cannot see that it destroys the political dogma with which the Bill is invested.
If a local authority knew that it could use a surplus within its area, that would be a great incentive. For instance, a local authority might introduce a concessionary free travel system such as is operated in Tyne and Wear.
Because section 15(3) of the Transport Act 1968 is to be phased out, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows all about, some of the things which would have been provided under it might be provided out of a surplus, giving the community a much better service. It might be possible to have advanced technology which might not be submitted under the protected expenditure level but which was desirable within the area. Surely that would be sound practice.
The tragedy of the Bill is that, far from protecting the industrial ratepayer, which the Secretary of State imagines it will do, the opposite will be the case. Instead of a surplus being used for the benefit of the industries which have paid the rates, it will be taken back by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That will do nothing for the industrial ratepayers within that area: it will not do much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer because what was a large amount for the community from which it came would be peanuts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
One could argue that this proposal does not make a major political point but it would restore to local authorities two things taken away by the Secretary of State: first, the incentive to make a surplus which could be invested in the community and, secondly and most important, the power for a local authority to make decisions in the interests of the community without the heavy dead hand of the Secretary of State being placed upon it. Local authorities would welcome that. I am amazed that the Minister does not welcome it. If he sent the proposal to the Confederation of British Industry, it might say that it would be good practice. Perhaps that is why he would not send it to that body.
§ Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Much would depend on how surpluses were utilised. I want to draw attention to how some of the loss has been made through the distribution by West Midlands county council of this infamous pink pamphlet. On the admission of the council the pamphlet has cost ratepayers £73,308, for printing, distribution, putting on hoardings and many items which are not specified. This was done on the ratepayers' behalf, so-called.
One million of these documents and advertisements in the press have enjoined my constituents and other constituents in the west midlands, at my expense as a west midlands ratepayer, to save local buses and trains on four grounds. People are asked to agree with these statements:I am against further rises in local bus and rail fares.I do not want service cuts—that would cause me considerable problems.I object to the Transport Bill in its present form. I would like to see more public money made available to support public transport in the West Midlands.Those are the four loaded statements which this infamous document puts to ratepayers. If money accumulated under the provisions of the new clause turned into a surplus, it might be spent in this manner. It is upon these grounds that I maintain that the spending of the surplus by the local authority would be out of order.
My constituents have said several things about the pamphlet. One of them said:I support the view that we would be well rid of the West Midlands county council and their wasteful spending ways.The council has probably spent over £100,000, with indirect costs. We have argued in the House whether it is right or proper for the Government to spend £1 million on propaganda. Here is an example of at least one-tenth of that sum having been spent without reference to the public, from either surpluses or losses. Therefore, surpluses accumulated, if any—to date the West Midlands transport authority has been dealing only in losses—could be used in that offensive manner.
Another constituent wrote:I read the attached with increasing anger. We as individuals, manufacturing industry and a country cannot afford luxuries, which include excessive subsidies. Please do all you can to prevent those 'lunatics' at county hall increasing rates for 'political' purposes.I recently commuted to work on the Birmingham bus system, clean, fast, efficient but no passengers! Keep up the good work. The medicine is not palatable—but it is curing the patient.Another constituent, objected strongly in similar terms to ratepayers' money being spent, whether out of surpluses, as would happen if the clause were passed, or out of accumulated losses. Therefore, to support that policy the county council will raise fares by about £15 million. A fine against it of £25 million will be encouraged. Therefore, there will be an increase in costs of about £40 million because of the campaign, which will wipe out the proposed rate reduction of 12½ per cent. to be made by the district council. Of that £15 million reduction proposed by the district council, £4 million would have been invested in education and would have led to many people being employed as teachers.
§ Mr. Cowans
I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He seems to be deriding the West Midlands county council's leaflet. If he wants to do so, that is his prerogative. Will he explain the difference between the West Midlands county council sending a 187 leaflet to its electorate and the Secretary of State sending a letter to my constituents? The only difference is that at least in the council's leaflet there were little boxes so that people could show what they thought. There were none in the Secretary of State's letter, which was produced at the taxpayers' expense.
§ Mr. Bevan
There was also a letter sent out in July by the Secretary of State inviting all local authorities to discuss his Bill. The reaction from the hon. Gentleman's authority and every other authority was nil. No one came forward during that long period until the issue of the Bill and the White Paper. The authorities did not bother to discuss it or suggest the amendments that are now being moved. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I and others are extremely sceptical about the Opposition's new clauses.
Another of my constituents, objecting to the infamous documents that were issued at such colossal cost to the ratepayer without his knowledge, said that he was ashamed at the enclosed leaflet and felt that it was inappropriate that it should be issued. He had not completed the form and did not intend to do so. He thought that the use of public money in this way was outrageous.
If that was the way in which any accumulated surpluses were spent by either the authority or the executive, all Conservative Members would have to vote accordingly against the amendment.
Out of the circulation of about 50,000 leaflets to my constituents, about 150 have been returned. Another 90 have been returned with names in a long list, but without addresses. Out of the 150, at least 26 have been returned in which some of the four boxes have not been filled in, or none. The questions in the leaflet are not synonymous. One cannot be both against rises in local bus and rail fares and not want service cuts. Many people have not signed one or the other of wanting service cuts or objecting to the Bill in its present form. If that is the reaction of my 50,000 constituents, with only 100 of them bothering to fill in the form, many of them objecting and only partially filling in the forms—
§ Mr. Cowans
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to read out letters of this nature? I have received a petition signed by 150,000 people who are diametrically opposed to the Government's proposals. I shall not attempt to read out all their letters. I should welcome your ruling.
§ Mr. Bevan
I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to read out anything like 150,000 letters.
The fact is that my constituents could not be bothered to fill in the forms after the West Midlands county council had spent over £73,000 in issuing them. Those who bothered to write letters nearly universally condemned what had been done. One takes seriously the points that they made, especially that of a lady who described herself as possessing only two bicycles as a means of transport. She said:I support the view that we would be well rid of the West Midlands county council and their wasteful spending ways.188 Therefore when I answer the handful of people who bothered to fill in the forms I shall bear in mind new clause 2, which proposes that an executive should spend its surpluses as it likes. Under the present administration in the west midlands there is a glaring example of how a transport authority spends its losses, to the detriment of the ratepayers and the travelling public.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State carefully to consider the leaflets, which were framed with loaded questions, to see what action he can take, contrary to the action suggested in the new clause 2, which will prevent that frivolous and deceitful way of spending ratepayers' money.
§ Mr. Bevan
There was a reference to that matter in Prime Minister's Question Time today, when my right hon. Friend pointed out that it was the Labour Government who set the precedent of spending taxpayers' money to support publicity campaigns. However, I have no more to say about that.
We must view with great scepticism the import of clauses such as new clause 2, which purports to apportion money in the way in which an authority would wish. Therefore, I shall support the Government in opposing the new clause.
§ Mr. Cryer
It takes one's breath away to hear a Conservative Member object to expenditure by the West Midlands county council on explaining the position to their constituents and asking for a response when that same Government supporter was no doubt bellowing out support for and affirmation of the proposal of the Secretary of States for Defence to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money—not £70,000—on a campaign of spurious defence propaganda which would be better entered, in my view, in the electoral returning officer's books as election expenditure this year.
§ Mr. Cryer
All I can say is that I am pleased that the Government have been caught out because, if not, the money would have been spent long ago. I am pleased that the criticisms we have raised have stopped what is not a carefully prepared assessment to which the public are asked to respond but a political propaganda campaign which the Secretary of State for Defence is trying to mount with the aid of a slick advertising organisation such as Saatchi and Saatchi.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
My hon. Friend is wrong. If it were Saatchi and Saatchi, there might be some point in the exercise. Is he not aware that it is going to J. Walter Thompson, an American firm? The Prime Minister says that we should buy British, but the Government are to give £1 million to an American advertising agency.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We seem to be straying from the subject of the new clause to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will now address his remarks.
§ Mr. Cryer
I am coming straight to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mentioned a public relations campaign run by a firm "like" Saatchi and Saatchi because I know that that is not the firm involved.
If an executive or an authority were able to use a surplus, it would help the campaign to buy British. If it had a surplus and felt, in the absence of bus grants, for example, which are being phased out, that it wanted to replace some of the fleet, it might well help Metro Cammell Weyman in the con-stituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), which badly needs the orders.
In Committee I pointed out that Bristol buses were making Leyland, having phased out the make of Bristol. A couple of days ago came the announcement that Bristol was closing down. It would be very helpful if PTAs had the right to spend surpluses on new vehicles and perhaps help to finance new developments in transport by this means.
What I find amazing is any suggestion that the Government should not accept this new clause. For instance, the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has been forced by Government fiat to bring forward from the reserves—in effect, the surplus of past years—nearly £4 million in order to finance the support for the bus services which it wants to give in 1983–84. In spite of being able to do that, the authority will still have to raise fares to make up a difference of £10 million between the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State and the expenditure which the passenger transport authority wishes to incur in order to maintain bus services in West Yorkshire. The Government have forced it to cut back, but in order to preserve the services at their bare minimum they have had to use a past surplus.
It seems eminently reasonable that the new clause should be accepted by the Government to allow local authorities to do just that sort of thing because, as has been pointed out time and time again in Committee, if local authorities are not allowed to finance services in this sort of way services will be cut, services such as those to hospitals and those in rural areas. It is very reasonable, therefore, for a passenger transport authority to examine its resources and see how best it can keep those services going.
In these circumstances, a surplus could be used whilst being disregarded by the Secretary of State in his calculation of the degree of support. It is extraoridinary that the Secretary of State has approved the action of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council in using a surplus in this fashion, when all this is doing is putting into primary legislation the administrative approval of the Department of Transport. That means greater parliamentary accountability, which I would consider a positive step forward, rather than simply leaving matters to be decided in Whitehall. It would give the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council the right to allocate its funds instead of having to go cap in hand to the Department to ask for permission. If this Bill gets through, that cap-in-hand process will be repeated time and again because the essence of this legislation is that Whitehall knows best.
§ Mr. Cowans
The situation is worse because if this new clause is not carried then the Secretary of State can be very selective as to where he makes a decision. The new clause would prevent that political selection.
§ Mr. Cryer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the case of West Yorkshire, for example, the bus services are 190 financed from fare revenue to the tune of over 70 per cent. It may well be that, for historic reasons, the Secretary of State will accept that as reasonable. West Yorkshire wants to move towards greater support so that fares fall rather than rise, so that greater use is made of buses and so that there are more opportunities for people to travel. However, the Secretary of State will undoubtedly attack the real pillars of achievement in passenger transport such as South Yorkshire, which has given significant support to bus services for a number of years. This is accepted by the electorate of that area and it has resulted in superb low-fare bus services which are widely used and appreciated by working men and women and their families.
If the clause is not accepted, the Secretary of State will be able to bring selective political judgment to bear against those Labour-controlled local authorities that are carrying out Labour policy with obvious success both at elections and in greater numbers of people using the services. This is clear evidence of the success of Labour's transport policy. This is what the Secretary of State wishes to stop. If this new clause is not passed then he will use his powers selectively and, in my view, vindictively against Labour-controlled authorities.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes
One wonders whether Ministers actually read the speeches that they deliver before or after they have delivered them. In the many hours we have spent in Committee, on almost every amendment and in almost every debate—the same has happened today—we have been advised that local authorities should follow good commercial practice in transport. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) nodding his head in agreement. Yet when we have a new clause which actually puts the PTA in the position of behaving in a good, sound, commercial fashion, we find it is not allowed to do so. Every reasonable commercial organisation that I know builds up a reserve as a contingency fund against unexpected costs or to buy capital equipment in the future. That is over and above the proper procedure in a commercial company of running a depreciation account. That is good commercial practice. However, that is not what the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State says. The Under-Secretary of State says that if the new clause is accepted it will weaken the local authority's financial discipline, but it will do the very reverse It seeks to strengthen the financial discipline of the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive.
I do not understand why a passenger transport authority or metropolitan county is singled out and cannot have reserves. In general, local authorities are entitled to build up reserves and to use them as they think fit. The dead hand of the Secretary of State is to touch every aspect of local authority transport policy.
We should at least be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for making it perfectly clear that the passenger transport authority or the passenger transport executive cannot carry reserves. Before this debate, there was some doubt about the ability to carry them, but the situation is now clear. The Under-Secretary of State said that an authority could build up a surplus during a financial year but that when setting the protected expenditure level for the next financial year, he would deduct the amount of the reserves. I should explain that the protected expenditure 191 level is the amount of money that the Secretary of State believes that a local authority should provide in rate support for transport services.
The Under-Secretary of State cannot say that the money can be held in reserve, but that it will then be taken away and that the authority will be open to challenge in court for having the temerity to hold a reserve. It could be prejudicial to the ratepayer's interest to hold a reserve. The Secretary of State wants authorities not to keep money in reserve and to accrue some income from the interest, but to borrow money at the excessive rates of interest that have existed under this Government. That cannot be in the ratepayer's interest. If it is a particularly bad winner and an authority has excessive costs to bear, it cannot hold a reserve to deal with such a contingency. It must expend the reserve and then borrow money. The only person to benefit from borrowing is the moneylender. Indeed, we all know the Government's great respect for moneylenders.
§ Mr. Hughes
I can understand why the Argentines incurred the Prime Minister's wrath. However, I do not know what the metropolitan counties have done to incur her wrath and to be treated in the same way. All responsibility is being taken from them.
It has been shown time after time that local authorities do not have the last word. The first, middle and last words all rest with the Secretary of State and with his determination of what a local authority and passenger transport authority can do. They are not allowed to carry reserves. That shows how he is interfering in local democracy. I invite the House to support the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes.228, Noes 288194
|Division No. 55]||[7.4 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Carmichael, Neil|
|Adams, Allen||Cartwright, John|
|Allaun, Frank||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Alton, David||Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)|
|Anderson, Donald||Cohen, Stanley|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Coleman, Donald|
|Ashton, Joe||Conlan, Bernard|
|Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)||Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Crowther, Stan|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Cryer, Bob|
|Beith, A. J.||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Dalyell, Tarn|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Davidson, Arthur|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)|
|Bradley, Tom||Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Deakins, Eric|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)|
|Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)||Dewar, Donald|
|Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)||Dixon, Donald|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Dobson, Frank|
|Buchan, Norman||Dormand, Jack|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Dubs, Alfred|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Campbell, Ian||Dunnett, Jack|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Cant, R. B.||Eadie, Alex|
|Eastham, Ken||Meacher, Michael|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|English, Michael||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Ewing, Harry||Morton, George|
|Faulds, Andrew||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland|
|Field, Frank||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Fitch, Alan||Newens, Stanley|
|Flannery, Martin||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Forrester, John||Ogden, Eric|
|Foster, Derek||O' Halloran, Michael|
|Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)||O'Neill, Martin|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Freud, Clement||Park, George|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Parker, John|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Parry, Robert|
|George, Bruce||Penhaligon, David|
|Ginsburg, David||Pitt, William Henry|
|Golding, John||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Race, Reg|
|Graham, Ted||Radice, Giles|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Richardson, Jo|
|Hardy, Peter||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Harman, Harriet (Peckham)||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Robertson, George|
|Haynes, Frank||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Rodgers, Rt Hon William|
|Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)||Roper, John|
|Home Robertson, John||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Homewood, William||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Horam, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Sever, John|
|Huckfield, Les||Sheerman, Barry|
|Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Short, Mrs Renée|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|John, Brynmor||Silverman, Julius|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Snape, Peter|
|Kerr, Russell||Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Lambie, David||Stallard, A. W.|
|Lamond, James||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Leighton, Ronald||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)||Stoddart, David|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Stott, Roger|
|Litherland, Robert||Strang, Gavin|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Straw, Jack|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|McElhone, Mrs Helen||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Tilley, John|
|McKelvey, William||Tinn, James|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Torney, Tom|
|Maclennan, Robert||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|McNally, Thomas||Wainwright, R. (Colne V)|
|McTaggart, Robert||Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)|
|McWilliam, John||Warden, Gareth|
|Magee, Bryan||Weetch, Ken|
|Marks, Kenneth||Wellbeloved, James|
|Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)||Welsh, Michael|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Whitlock, William|
|Maxton, John||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)||Wright, Sheila|
|Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Winnick, David||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Woodall, Alec||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Woolmer, Kenneth||Mr. Harry Cowans.|
|Adley, Robert||Fairgrieve, Sir Russell|
|Alexander, Richard||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Farr, John|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Fell, Sir Anthony|
|Ancram, Michael||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Arnold, Tom||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston N)||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)||Forman, Nigel|
|Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Fry, Peter|
|Bendall, Vivian||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Gardner, Sir Edward|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Best, Keith||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Goodhew, Sir Victor|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Gorst, John|
|Blackburn, John||Gow, Ian|
|Blaker, Peter||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Body, Richard||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gray, Rt Hon Hamish|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Greenway, Harry|
|Bowden, Andrew||Grieve, Percy|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Grist, Ian|
|Bright, Graham||Grylls, Michael|
|Brinton, Tim||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hannam, John|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hawkins, Sir Paul|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.||Hawksley, Warren|
|Buck, Antony||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Budgen, Nick||Heath, Rt Hon Edward|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Heddle, John|
|Butcher, John||Henderson, Barry|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hicks, Robert|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul||Hill, James|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Holland, Philip (Carlton)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Hooson, Tom|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Colvin, Michael||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Cope, John||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Corrie, John||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Critchley, Julian||Jessel, Toby|
|Crouch, David||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Dover, Denshore||Kimball, Sir Marcus|
|Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Durant, Tony||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Knight, Mrs Jill|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Knox, David|
|Eggar, Tim||Lamont, Norman|
|Elliott, Sir William||Lang, Ian|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Eyre, Reginald||Latham, Michael|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Lee, John||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)||Rossi, Hugh|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||Rost, Peter|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.|
|Loveridge, John||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lyell, Nicholas||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|McCrindle, Robert||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|MacGregor, John||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Shepherd, Richard|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M,||Shersby, Michael|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Silvester, Fred|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Smith, Dudley|
|Madel, David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Major, John||Speed, Keith|
|Marland, Paul||Speller, Tony|
|Marlow, Antony||Spence, John|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Marten, Rt Hon Neil||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mates, Michael||Sproat, Iain|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Squire, Robin|
|Maw by, Ray||Stainton, Keith|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stan brook, Ivor|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Stanley, John|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Steen, Anthony|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Stevens, Martin|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Stokes, John|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Moate, Roger||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Moore, John||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Morgan, Geraint||Thompson, Donald|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Trippier, David|
|Myles, David||Trotter, Neville|
|Neale, Gerrard||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Needham, Richard||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Neubert, Michael||Viggers, Peter|
|Newton, Tony||Waddington, David|
|Normanton, Tom||Wakeham, John|
|Nott, Rt Hon Sir John||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Onslow, Cranley||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Osborn, John||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Page, Richard (SW Herts)||Waller, Gary|
|Parris, Matthew||Walters, Dennis|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Watson, John|
|Pawsey, James||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Wheeler, John|
|Peyton, Rt Hon John||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Pollock, Alexander||Whitney, Raymond|
|Porter, Barry||Wickenden, Keith|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)||Wilkinson, John|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Williams, D. (Montgomery)|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rathbone, Tim||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Mr. Carol Mather and|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Mr. Robert Boscawen.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.