HC Deb 23 March 1983 vol 39 cc966-77
Mr. Graham

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 29, line 20, after 'certificate', insert '(which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State'. The Under-Secretary of State has fairly demonstrated a method whereby the Government have been prepared not necessarily to change their mind after the Committee stage of the Bill but to reflect on a way in which the Bill can be refashioned in the light of what was discussed in Committee.

On Report the Opposition are faced with two choices. They can either simply repeat the substance of an amendment that was sought in Committee or suggest completely new amendments. I think that the Minister will agree that Labour Members have sought to concentrate on six main issues that had merit in Committee and which we still believe have some merit. That is why we have sought to introduce them today.

The Minister is right to say that the Bill has two main parts. One relates to the right-to-buy provisions, particularly for tenants of charitable housing, and the other relates to the building control system. When we debated the issues arising out of changes in the building control system, Labour Members dealt with three or four main matters about which we had been advised by professionals and others and which they wanted to see improved if the Bill were to become an Act. They advised us that the Bill ought not to have a Second Reading or a Third Reading.

One matter related to the raison d'etre of the Bill's reliance upon insurance principles. We shall have to go back to the professionals and say that we have failed in that respect. The second was the need to be clear that the Bill ensured that the independence of the approved inspector was beyond doubt. I shall have to go back to the professionals and say precisely the same. The third aspect on which we wanted amendment was the manner in which certain public bodies appeared to be specially favoured by the exceptions. We failed to move the Minister on that.

Last, but not least, in the hierarchy of the matters that have caused great unease outside the Committee is the way in which Ministers have sought to rely on secondary legislation at every possible opportunity. The Minister may have good technical grounds for doing this, but the Government have deliberately sought secondary means of bringing forward the detail rather than simply putting a word or two on the face of the Bill as primary legislation. The latter would have caused satisfaction outside and left beyond dispute precisely what the Government have in mind.

For example, on page 29 of the Bill, clause 28 says: Where an approved inspector is satisfied that any work specified in an initial notice given by him has been completed, he shall give—

  1. (a) to the local authority by whom the initial notice was accepted, and
  2. (b) to the person by whom the work was carried out, such certificate with respect to the completion".
All that we are seeking to do is to insert after "certificate" the words: which in the case of the local authority, shall include for record purposes plans containing such detail as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State. I am certain that the Minister will assure us that our amendment is unnecessary because the Bill contains, by prescription and by words in other clauses, that which we are seeking to achieve. In other words, there will be the provision that the plans finally deposited will need to contain all the detail that is required. The Minister may tell us that very early on we discussed detailed plans—on what is now clause 24—and the word "detail". The Minister reassured the Committee then that it was his intention to ensure by secondary legislation that plans would need to be accompanied by such detail as he would prescribe as necessary. In other words, we are not very far apart, and both sides of the House and those outside the House are seeking to achieve the recognition that it is valuable if the plans that are to form such a crucial part in these matters are accompanied by some detail.

I sought advice from outside the Committee, from among professionals as to what they would consider necessary detail. I told them that it was no good asking me to press for detailed plans and they must tell me the details they wanted. Unfortunately, if one professional gave a set of details that he considered would be essential, it would be different in part from the proposals of some of the others, certainly on structure, drawings and materials. However, the argument is not about the precise nature of the detail. We want the Bill to say that the plans when finally presented will be accompanied by such detail as is laid down in the prescribed regulations.

Hon. Members will know that the Minister and those in charge of the Bill are not backward in using prescribed forms. There are 56 occasions in the Bill when the world—which will have to make the Bill work—will have to wait until the Minister decides the precise detail and the manner in which he will use his powers. We are invited to await the detail of prescribed grounds, fees, form, details, time, notice, schemes, period, purpose, regulations and circumstances. The Opposition are worried that, when that body of prescribed details, forms and fees is presented, it is likely that we shall have to argue about them in great detail in a short time. We may have an hour and a half or three hours, but we shall have to go over all this again.

The tragedy is that we have sat in Committee for more than 100 hours and the Bill has been before the House since November, yet the professionals and councillors who will have to carry the burden must wait three or four months more to grapple with all the details. That is not fair.

If the Minister's advisers tell him that there is no need to accept this amendment, and he does not, he will be acting in the face of the wishes of many professionals. They see merit in the inclusion of these words. If the Minister accepts the amendment, they might look more kindly on the Bill's philosophy. Some people have persisted and will continue to persist in another place in the belief that the Minister may accept some of the amendments that he may not think are necessary because the professionals think they are.

At the moment, local authorities are the only repositories of information about buildings erected in their district. It was suggested in Committee that more than 90 per cent. of buildings depart to some extent from the original plans. I hope that the Minister will say that he understands our anxiety in this respect. Local building control offices are used as repositories of knowledge, not simply for the benefit of building inspectors but for developers, builders, architects, surveyors, planners and members of the public. The latter may go there saying that they have a little worry because their house seems to be in a special area. The building control officers can say, "Yes, we have dealt with a similar problem before. These are the plans that we used when we dealt with that problem in another place. This is how the builder got round the problem." The officer can go to drawers, boxes, or files—perhaps even microfilm these days—and find the necessary information. The local building control office is a place where men and women like to go because there they have free access to the experience and guidance that may have been accumulated over a century.

There are problems with the strata of the land in many parts of the country. In Committee, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) said about some of the problems that local building control offices have when there is mining subsidence. Such information gathering should continue.

The Opposition are least important in these matters—it is the fears of people outside that really matter. They feel that, with the Bill in its present form, there is a real possibility that the present high standing of the plans that finally make their way to local building control offices will be diminished. The Minister is well aware that the Bill does not require approved inspectors to retain plans except for their own files. I hope that the Minister can assure hon. Members and those outside the House that the present well-liked system will continue. We all know about the problems of asbestos and cement, and we wish to ensure that wherever information has been deposited—we can think of no better place than a council office—it is always available to the public.

10.30 pm

At present, about 400 local authorities are in a network of regional and national associations and can exchange their views. In future, the building regulation certifier may not be one local authority but 50, 60 or 100 professionals. In that case, experience may be disparate and it may be difficult for the public to draw upon it.

I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because it seeks to reassure the public that building plans, when finally deposited, are accompanied by such detail as may be prescribed. It is a small request, and I hope that the Minister can respond to it.

Mr. Litherland

This amendment seeks to ensure that plans will be submitted to a local authority when final certification is given, not just when the work reverts to the local authority. The Minister's argument that there is excessive bureaucracy is false, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, at present the local authority acts as a depository for information about buildings within its boundaries.

My hon. Friend mentioned asbestos. In the large development of deck access flats in Manchester, large quantities of asbestos were used. Without the plans, we could never have found out in which flats asbestos was present. It is of great benefit to the health of our citizens that we can obtain the necessary details at a central point. It is estimated that more than 90 per cent. of buildings differ from the original plans deposited. Planning is not static, but ever-changing, so it is essential that the information is collated and available when requested. Professionals and members of the public can use this facility, which is a mine of information. The information is all collated at one source. I understand that several thousand inquiries per week are received, and to fragment this information will lead eventually to utter confusion.

When someone is purchasing a house it is simple for the solicitor or whoever is acting for him to go to the local authority planning department to find out whether planning permission has been given. That applies not just to housing but to any building. We believe that all the information should be kept in one place so that everyone can gain access to it. Local authorities have gained expertise in these matters over many years. The facility to issue details and give expert help to all the people who go to the town hall would be lost. Plans have to be amended and kept up to date. In a document, NALGO makes the point that With the introduction of the approved inspector, there will be no requirement to provide plans to the local authority, as a result there will be a serious diminution in the information available to the public and professions, especially when wishing to make alterations to buildings in the future. The Bill, as currently drafted also does not oblige the approved inspector to retain the plans once a final certificate has been issued except"— as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has said— for his own personal records. The amendment as now drafted will ensure that in future approved inspectors will have to provide plans to local authorities as prescribed by the Secretary of State. The amount of information contained in these plans will be set out in regulations and need only be sufficient to ensure that the local authority continues to be a repository of information for the future. I cannot see any reason why the public cannot have this facility for their information and protection. We dealt with this subject in detail in Committee and, as has been said, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) gave a number of examples where it would be essential to have the plans in case of a disaster.

I can give an example of an area in my constituency where it is essential to have the plans to see what went wrong with an estate that is now being demolished. We are seeking legal advice as to who is responsible for the faults. The original plans of the development will have to be studied. If private individuals can retain the plans, and they are then scattered around, the system that was built up for the public's information and safety will be thrown into confusion. I support the amendment.

Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. In theory, it is extraordinarily good, but in practice it is unbelievably unrealistic. Is the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) suggesting that for every house built on an estate of 1,000 houses there should be 1,000 plans deposited with the local authority?

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to know what is in a building. He spoke about plans, but most of his speech should have been about specifications. For example, he referred to asbestos. It is unlikely that the type of asbestos used will be shown on the plan. It will probably just say that it is asbestos sheet. However, the specifications would give details. The specifications are also easier to store. The amendment does not specify how long the plans should be kept. Is it 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years? Where will they be stored? Who is to have access to them?

Advice should be given to every architect who designs a building to keep sufficient plans that could be consulted should anything go wrong with the building. I think that architects do that automatically, anyway. If they do not keep the plans, they have to resurvey the property and redraw them. There is no point in imposing a legal obligation on them.

The amendment has good intentions, but it is not worth the additional expense that would be entailed.

Mr. Welsh

I must tell the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) that plans are already deposited with local authorities. There are thousands of inquiries each week about those plans. I would be the last to say that those inquiries were necessarily justified—they may have been made in fun. But business men who make such inquiries, and spend money on sending architects to study the plans, do so to gain knowledge of an area. It could be a mining area, a swamp area or a clay area. Surely it is better for the contractor or anyone else—

Sir A. Costain

Has the hon. Gentleman ever seen a plan that shows a clay area? Has he ever seen a plan deposited with a local authority that gives such information?

Mr. Welsh

I have seen plans for mining areas that give a tremendous amount of information about the workings below ground. I was chairman of the architect's department in the Doncaster metropolitan borough, which has the largest acreage in the country, and chairman of the planning department and also involved in the technical services and engineering branch. I have a little knowledge—but not a lot—of the matter. In Doncaster there was a sub-committee to examine special buildings. I was not the chairman but left the operation to three people, together with my architect and planner, to consider the details and report back to me. Because of that operation we made few mistakes. In fact, private enterprise took advantage of advice from my planners and architects. Even the National Coal Board took advantage of that advice, which was based on plans deposited with the local authority. Amendment No. 63 merely seeks to ensure a similar system.

10.45 pm

I should have thought that the Minister would be grateful to have this knowledge. Building control and planning does not include all the information, but there have been times when we have failed by not having enough information. One recalls Higher Lune, which cost us a new swimming bath at the beautiful colliery village of Askern. Thank God we knew the strata and what was involved so that it cost only £125,000 to put right. We knew that because there was sufficient detail in the plans. That is just one example of how beneficial this is for local authorities. If plans and information as to materials and so on were available for private enterprise, we could protect that sector as well.

Sir Albert Costain

The hon. Gentleman makes my case with more clarity than I did. He admits that the plans were available. I could not agree more that one needs geological plans for the substrata, but I do not believe that every house plan in his constituency should include all that information—and if all that information is not included the plans are of little value for his purpose.

Mr. Welsh

It would be wrong to enter into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman about this, but it is surely correct to make certain that we have the material. What is wrong with ensuring that people and buildings are protected? I see nothing wrong with that, but I see something wrong with not protecting them. If some kiddie lost his life because this was not done, I should be very hurt. The cost of administration is well worth it if it saves one kiddie's life.

We are simply trying to ensure that protection. In a free society we are entitled to do that. That may not be so in totalitarian states, but that is a different kettle of fish. This is a free society. We pass laws of the land and the most important aspect of the law is to see that no one is hurt. That is final and important. We seek to ensure that no one is hurt by the legislation. It may not come in for years. On the other hand, it just may come in and that protection is worth all the money in the world. It is vital.

If the approved officer is the only person in possession of the documents and can throw them away—it is entirely up to him whether he keeps them—we may find ourselves in a very embarrassing situation. We simply seek assurance. We won a couple of points in Committee, and, as I have said to the Minister before, it is a wise man who can change his mind and only a fool who cannot. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to this small amendment to guarantee some protection for people by ensuring that the plans are with the local authority. In any area, most people rightly hold the local authority in high esteem in matters of public safety, just as the national Government are held in high esteem in these matters.

I hope that on this rare occasion the Minister will accept the amendment.

Sir George Young

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) rightly said that the Opposition took exception to various aspects of the Bill, but I am surprised that he has alighted on this matter, which seems to raise no major issue of principle. The matter was dealt with adequately in Committee, and the Opposition did not press it to a Division on that occasion. I am also rather surprised that, having criticised us for providing in the Bill that The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe, the hon. Gentleman then tables an amendment which says, in effect, exactly that.

Amendment No. 63 would require an approved inspector, when he gives a final certificate in respect of work, to provide the local authority with plans of the work for record purposes. The Secretary of State would be able to prescribe the details contained in such plans and so, in effect, the plans would be "as built" plans. We see no need for a local authority to receive plans for record purposes. The amendment would impose not only an onerous and, possibly, expensive obligation on building owners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) rightly pointed out, but would provide a wholly new function for local authorities.

As I explained in Committee, local authorities do not receive such plans for record purposes under the existing system and we see no reason why they should do so under certification. It was suggested on two occasions that this might help people to identify some suspect materials, but building plans would not show the composition of materials that had been used in a particular building, so it would not enable people to tackle that problem.

At the moment, local authorities receive full plans, but before the work is started. A building does not have to be built in accordance with the plans; it has to be built in accordance with the building regulations. As the hon. Member for Edmonton conceded, the vast majority of buildings depart in varying degrees from the plans deposited. In other words, the plans kept by the local authority at the time are not necessarily accurate plans of the building that has been erected, so the amendment would not parallel any provision that currently exists. It is not clear why the local authority would want the plans. If people want the plans of a building, the owner would have them, the certifier would have kept them, and I expect that various other professionals who had been associated with it would also have kept them. So the records are available if they are needed for any purpose.

I am sorry to end the final debate on Report in this tone, but we cannot accept the amendment. It would be a bureaucratic initiative for very little public gain. It would not perform the function that has been outlined by Members who have spoken in favour of it. The information, if it is needed, is available elsewhere. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Graham

I am sorry that the Minister has used the argument that what we are asking for is not at present the vogue. Under the present system, local authorities are not obliged to receive and build up a library of plans of work as built. In the next few months we are contemplating a radical change in the present system and in all sorts of relationships. The Minister may believe that the present efficiency and service to the community of local authority building control departments will continue without change. Surely the whole raison d'être of this part of the Bill, if there is anything to it, is that there will be a new set-up. If the Minister is saying, as he and his colleagues have said more than once, that it is a matter of choice and that the individual developer can choose either the old route or the new route and that there is no question of force, it is obvious that the Government hope, by one means or another, to encourage people to use the new route.

We shall oppose the new route, but if the new route is established we shall examine what that means in practice. The Minister said that there is no need for the council to be obliged to be the repository of plans. The Minister said that owners, certifiers and professionals will have their own plans which will be available. Who says that they will be available? Who says that the owner will keep his plans and will not destroy them? Who says that the professional, who has a library of plans, will keep them and will not sell them, throw them away or forget all about them? One relies on the possibility that some individuals, out of the goodness of their hearts, keep detailed plans of the work that has been done and are willing to make them available to the public. If that is how we are to go on, I fear for the safety of a great many people.

This is perhaps the last opportunity to discuss this important change. The Minister should know that those currently involved in local government building control arrangements are more than a little fearful about the number of times that they will be left to carry the can when, under the new arrangements, approved inspectors, for one reason or another, not necessarily through dereliction, have departed the scene.

In Committee, as shown in column 1904 of the Official Report, the Minister set out the three ways in which a final certificate should be given. One of them was in the event of the local authority having to take over the approved inspector's responsibilities. The manner in which it takes over the work is set out in other clauses. The Minister for Housing and Construction said in Committee that the Government could envisage few occasions when the authority would have to take over. Those closest to him must have said that in their opinion the approved inspector, whether an architect, an engineer or any other professional, was unlikely to cause the authority to take over.

The building control officers, the Society of Chief Building Control Officers and, more importantly, NALGO have provided us with a great deal of briefing. Their knowledge of those who are likely to become approved inspectors causes them to make the assessment that the authority will have to pick up the tab on more occasions than the Minister foresees.

We are asking only for that which the Minister has already promised. On an earlier occasion the Minister said that it would be his intention to prescribe the detail that would need to accompany the initial plans. We are asking only that the final certificate shall be accompanied by the detail that is prescribed. We are asking for the same range of detail that the Minister has told us will accompany the initial notice.

We are disappointed that the Minister, who has always been courteous and fair, has failed to understand the anxiety of those upon whom we all rely, the public servants and private professionals, who feel that the amendment would be helpful. We accept that it may be costly, but if there is another Summerland disaster, with grave derelictions of duty and waivers of building byelaws, it may well be said "It is a pity that the depositing of plans and details to the local authority was not insisted upon." It would then be far too late to say that at 11 o'clock on 23 March the House had the opportunity to do something about it. We are satisfied that this is a proper amendment and we shall press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 262.

Division No. 101] 1:10.58 pm
Abse, Leo Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Allaun, Frank English, Michael
Alton, David Ennals, Rt Hon David
Anderson, Donald Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Evans, John (Newton)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Ewing, Harry
Ashton, Joe Faulds, Andrew
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Flannery, Martin
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Ford, Ben
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) Foulkes, George
Beith, A. J. Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Freud, Clement
Bidwell, Sydney Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Golding, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy Graham, Ted
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) Haynes, Frank
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Buchan, Norman Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Home Robertson, John
Canavan, Dennis Hooley, Frank
Cant, R. B. Howell, Rt Hon D.
Carmichael, Neil Hoyle, Douglas
Cartwright, John Huckfield, Les
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Coleman, Donald Janner, Hon Greville
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Crowther, Stan John, Brynmor
Cryer, Bob Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cunliffe, Lawrence Kerr, Russell
Dalyell, Tam Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Davidson, Arthur Lambie, David
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Lamond, James
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) Leadbitter, Ted
Deakins, Eric Leighton, Ronald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Dixon, Donald Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Dobson, Frank Litherland, Robert
Dormand, Jack McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Douglas, Dick McElhone, Mrs Helen
Dubs, Alfred McKelvey, William
Dunnett, Jack McTaggart, Robert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Eadie, Alex Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Maynard, Miss Joan Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mikardo, Ian Silverman, Julius
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Skinner, Dennis
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Spearing, Nigel
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)
Newens, Stanley Spriggs, Leslie
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Stallard, A. W.
Ogden, Eric Steel, Rt Hon David
O'Halloran, Michael Stoddart, David
O'Neill, Martin Strang, Gavin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Straw, Jack
Park, George Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Parker, John Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert Tilley, John
Penhaligon, David Torney, Tom
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Price, C. (Lewisham W) Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Race, Reg Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Richardson, Jo Wardell, Gareth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Welsh, Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle) White, Frank R.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Whitlock, William
Robertson, George Wigley, Dafydd
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Roper, John Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted Woodall, Alec
Ryman, John Wright, Sheila
Sever, John Young, David (Bolton E)
Sheerman, Barry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. Tellers for the Ayes:
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Dr. Edmund Marshall and
Short, Mrs Renée Mr. George Morton.
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Aitken, Jonathan Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Alexander, Richard Chapman, Sydney
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Churchill, W. S.
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Ancram, Michael Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Arnold, Tom Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Aspinwall, Jack Clegg, Sir Walter
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Cockeram, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Colvin, Michael
Banks, Robert Corrie, John
Bendall, Vivian Costain, Sir Albert
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) Cranborne, Viscount
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Critchley, Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony Crouch, David
Best, Keith Dickens, Geoffrey
Bevan, David Gilroy Dorrell, Stephen
Biffen, Rt Hon John Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Blackburn, John Durant, Tony
Body, Richard Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Eggar, Tim
Bowden, Andrew Emery, Sir Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Eyre, Reginald
Braine, Sir Bernard Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bright, Graham Faith, Mrs Sheila
Brinton, Tim Farr, John
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon Finsberg, Geoffrey
Brooke, Hon Peter Fisher, Sir Nigel
Brotherton, Michael Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bruce-Gardyne, John Fookes, Miss Janet
Bryan, Sir Paul Forman, Nigel
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Buck, Antony Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Budgen, Nick Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Burden, Sir Frederick Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Butcher, John Gardner, Sir Edward
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Glyn, Dr Alan
Goodhart, Sir Philip Monro, Sir Hector
Goodlad, Alastair Montgomery, Fergus
Gow, Ian Moore, John
Gower, Sir Raymond Morgan, Geraint
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Greenway, Harry Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Grist, Ian Mudd, David
Grylls, Michael Murphy, Christopher
Gummer, John Selwyn Myles, David
Hamilton, Hon A. Neale, Gerrard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Needham, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith Nelson, Anthony
Hannam, John Neubert, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan Newton, Tony
Hastings, Stephen Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Osborn, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul Page, John (Harrow, West)
Hayhoe, Barney Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Heddle, John Parris, Matthew
Henderson, Barry Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hicks, Robert Patten, John (Oxford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Pattie, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Pawsey, James
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Percival, Sir Ian
Hooson, Tom Pink, R. Bonner
Hordern, Peter Pollock, Alexander
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) Porter, Barry
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hunt, David (Wirral) Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Prior, Rt Hon James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Proctor, K. Harvey
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman Rathbone, Tim
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Renton, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kimball, Sir Marcus Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
King, Rt Hon Tom Rossi, Hugh
Kitson, Sir Timothy Rost, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill Royle, Sir Anthony
Knox, David Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Lang, Ian Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Langford-Holt, Sir John Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Latham, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lawrence, Ivan Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lee, John Shepherd, Richard
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Silvester, Fred
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sims, Roger
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland) Skeet, T. H. H.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Loveridge, John Speed, Keith
Luce, Richard Speller, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas Spence, John
McCrindle, Robert Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Macfarlane, Neil Sproat, Iain
MacGregor, John Squire, Robin
Mac Kay, John (Argyll) Stainton, Keith
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Stanbrook, Ivor
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Stanley, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Steen, Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert Stevens, Martin
Major, John Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Marland, Paul Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stokes, John
Mates, Michael Stradling Thomas, J.
Mather, Carol Tapsell, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mawby, Ray Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Temple-Morris, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mellor, David Thompson, Donald
Meyer, Sir Anthony Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Thornton, Malcolm
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Miscampbell, Norman van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Moate, Roger Viggers, Peter
Waddington, David Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Wakeham, John Whitney, Raymond
Waldegrave, Hon William Wickenden, Keith
Walker, B. (Perth) Wiggin, Jerry
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Wall, Sir Patrick Winterton, Nicholas
Waller, Gary Wolfson, Mark
Walters, Dennis Young, Sir George (Acton)
Ward, John Younger, Rt Hon George
Warren, Kenneth
Watson, John Tellers for the Noes:
Wells, Bowen Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Wheeler, John Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion.

Forward to