§ Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 14, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (1A) and (2)"
§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—
- (a) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1B) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year; or
- (b) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year, he shall be a notice in writing served on that authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year.(1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.(1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.and the following amendments thereto:
- (a) leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert
- 'has in each of the two preceding financial years complied with either subsection (1B) or subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with either of those subsections in that financial year.'.
- (b) in subsection (a) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
- (c) in subsection (b) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'. Lords amendment No. 12.
§ Mr. Jenkin
This group of amendments results from undertakings that I gave on Report in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and supported by a number of my hon. Friends. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the exclusion from the general rate limitation scheme of authorities that have an established record of responsible self-restraint in their spending.
It has been said that it is paradoxical to propose exclusions from the operation of the general limitation scheme when the scheme is intended to apply to all authorities. I do not think that there is anything paradoxical about the proposition when one bears in mind the Bill's purposes. The Bill has two purposes—to protect ratepayers and to safeguard the Government's expenditure plans. I have said on many occasions that we envisage general rate limitation being brought into effect only where there is evidence of a significantly large number of local authorities starting to increase their spending and their rates in an unacceptable way.
Authorities that have an established record of low, responsible spending will not, almost by definition, impose excessive burdens on their ratepayers. They will not contribute to any general overspending which might lead to the introduction of a general rate limitation. When this matter was considered in the House before, the feeling was that it would be wrong—indeed pointless—to seek to impose rate limits on authorities that could demonstrate that they had, by their own efforts, maintained responsible spending levels.
852 This group of amendments, therefore, provides for authorities to be excluded from the operation of the general limitation scheme—if ever it were introduced—by reference to one or other of two alternative tests. They will be excluded either if they have spent at or below their expenditure targets in each of the previous three years, and are budgeting on that basis in the year in which the question of exemption falls to be determined; or if they have spent at or below GRE over the same period and in the year in question.
It is impossible to say how many authorities might, in the event, benefit from this concession. Presently we have only the evidence of past performance, and there is no way in which we can foretell what the position might be if and when we came to introduce the general limitation arrangements. However, on the evidence about expenditure in the years from 1981–82 to 1983–84, and from the provisional figures from 1984–85 budgets, it seems that a total of 220 authorities in England and 21 in Wales might have benefited from this exclusion had we to decide the matter today.
Therefore, the amendment represents a substantial modification to the proposals as they were originally put before the House. I know that a number of my hon. Friends felt that the Bill would be infinitely more acceptable if this exclusion was included, and no doubt they will welcome this group of amendments from another place.
§ Mr. Straw
I wish to speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 11.
As the Secretary of State said, Lords amendment No. 11 fulfils undertakings given to his hon. Friends on Report. We shall not vote against the amendment because it makes some progress, as far as it goes. However, the more that the general scheme is restricted, the thinner is the argument for the Bill, which is that it is necessary on macro-economic grounds to hold down total public expenditure. With the exclusion contained in part I, there is no way that the Bill can now be a vehicle to bring down the totality of local government expenditure by the £1,500 million that it has overshot the PESC White Paper——
§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman is making a charge based on something that we have never said. I specifically said many times in Committee that it was not our intention to use the Bill to claw back that expenditure.
§ Mr. Straw
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for repeating that, but he has advanced two arguments in support of the Bill. One was that the local ratepayers needed to be protected—even if the local ratepayer has expressed, through the ballot box, a clear wish not to be protected by the Secretary of State. The second argument, which the right hon. Gentleman advanced with considerable force, was that the Bill simply put into practice what he saw as a long-standing convention—that local authorities should comply with the public expenditure plans of central Government. The Bill, as drafted, is not a vehicle to put into practice the Government's plans.
The more conditions put into the Bill—and we welcome anything that restricts the Secretary of State's arbitrary powers—the more transparent becomes its purpose, which is simply to have a go at a number of authorities that happen to be Labour controlled. Lord Bellwin let the cat out of the bag when he said thata number of Labour councils are being taken over today by Marxist extremists."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 1984; Vol. 451, c. 844.]853 What utter nonsense. Labour authorities have been recently elected to preserve the jobs and services in their areas. On the whole, they have a more recent mandate than the Government. All that the Government can do in response is not to recognise the scale of the social and economic problems with which those Labour authorities are grappling. Instead, they resort to the crudest, vilest abuse of those authorities, their ratepayers and the voters who elected the authorities.
Our amendments seek to extend the restriction on the introduction of a general limitation of rates and precepts. They make the criterion of a three-year rather than a four-year compliance with either GRE or target, or a three-year run of target compliance and/or a three-year GRE compliance. Therefore, if an authority has in one year reached GRE and in another year reached target, but not necessarily both, it will be exempted from the scope of a general power of limitation imposed by part II.
I recollect that an amendment was tabled by Conservative Members on Report and withdrawn on the basis that the Secretary of State would introduce a similar amendment in another place. I believe that the amendment referred to a three-year run of compliance and not to a four-year run. The Secretary of State is nodding. Will he now explain why he has found it necessary to push for four years? In local authority terms, three years is a long time for compliance—especially with measures so difficult to comply with, as many authorities, both Conservative and Labour, have discovered.
I do not understand how the Secretary of State could accuse an authority of overspending in his terms when, in any year, that authority has either made GRE or its target. The fact that GRE and the target may not be the same is not the fault of the authority; it is a consequence of two sets of Government measures. GRE is plainly a measure of need, and if an authority is spending less than its GRE I cannot see how anybody, even the Government, could contend that that was overspending.
The target is the expenditure level that the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate, even where it is above or below GRE. If the target is above GRE, that is a statement by the Government that they accept that and will not penalise the authority by holding back on grant. The fact that there is a difference in the two measures arises from the different methodology. Why should an authority be penalised because of the capricious nature and accidental result of that methodology?
Some of our amendments may be destructive of the main purpose of the Bill, and we accept that. However, they are fully consistent with the spirit of the amendment that the Secretary of State accepted, in principle, on Report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting our amendments.
§ Mr. Meadowcroft
My noble Friend Lord Evans of Claughton commented that when this amendment was moved in the other place there were sighs of relief from the Government Benches. I suppose that one should congratulate the Government draftsmen on their immense resourcefulness in having been able to produce a form of words which bought off quite a section of the opposition to part II of the Bill.
The whole thing could, nevertheless, still be extremely capricious. The problem is that the GREs and targets are themselves determined by Government. The danger is that, having fixed the goal posts and having found 854 authorities that could score, it is always possible to shift the goal posts again. Bearing in mind the wording of the amendment, the targets and the GREs in question, it is strange that Portsmouth was not exempted from the restrictions involved.
The variables involved in local government and the different problems faced by authorities—be they the problems of demography, urban renewal or transportation—are, by multiplying them together, infinite. There is no way in which any imposed targets or levels of expenditure can be mathematically sound or politically enforceable in logic. Nevertheless, anything which ameliorates the Bill is to be welcomed, and for that reason we shall not oppose the amendment.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about the number of years involved. If part II of the Bill is to be imposed at some future date—which may not be that far off, if the Secretary of State has his way—it is conceivable that the three-year period will be the only period which will suffice to give local authorities a target to aim at as of now. If the right hon. Gentleman extended it to four, he would be going back in time to such an extent that it would have been monstrously unfair for local authorities not to have been aware that they might have these restrictions imposed on them.
It seems logical, therefore, to accept the shorter period—which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman originally had in mind—and not seek to impose the longer period, which could act retrospectively to such a degree as to be unfair even to those authorities which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to exempt. For those reasons, we shall support the amendment to the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. Chris Smith
I welcome the Lords amendment and more vigorously welcome the amendments to it moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) because anything that removes any local authority or group of local authorities from the provisions of the Bill and from its punitive aspects is to be welcomed. The sad fact that the local authorities that cover my constituency are not covered by these exclusion provisions is regrettable. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that other luckier, local authorities are covered.
There is a profound illogicality to the Government's case. The whole raison d'etre of the Bill is a selective scheme that the Government intend to use against what they call high-spending local authorities, and behind that, backing it up, is a general scheme that they originally intended to apply to all local authorities throughout the country.
The reasons that the Government have consistently advanced for having that general scheme in the first place are twofold. The first is the strange argument about the possibility of 80 or 100, or perhaps even more, local authorities being supposedly captured by wild-eyed extremists dedicated to passionate programmes of public spending. The Government thought that they needed the general scheme to capture those local authorities.
That argument totally ignored the point, consistently made by my hon. Friends, that if that was really what the Government were worried about, they should have considered using the selective scheme on those authorities as well as on the 16 or 20 which they perhaps have in mind at the moment for the selective scheme.
The second point that the Government consistently made was that they were worried about the overall level 855 of local government spending across the country and that, because of that, and because of the potential need to get that overall spending level down, they were reserving unto themselves the possibility of using the general powers.
However, the Government are now removing the concept of the general scheme in its entirety. They are simply putting into the Bill a back-up selective scheme to use as a base beyond the initial selective scheme, which they will consider bringing into operation if they do not get a sufficient reduction in what they call public expenditure by the use of the original scheme.
Therefore, the whole concept of part II of the Bill has been destroyed by the Government. That must be accepted because, by bringing forward this amendment in the Lords, the Government defeated the arguments that they used in the first place for having the general scheme in the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will have the honesty to admit that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also explain why, if that is the case, they are not intending simply to have the selective scheme, pure and simple, in the Bill, and—being absolutely honest about their intentions—saying that they will use the selective scheme more widely than they initially promised they would. That is, in effect, what will happen.
I have often said that the selective scheme is anathema to me, and that remains the case. But in welcoming what the Lords have done, and in saying in support of our amendments to the amendment that they should have gone further and excluded more local authorities, I hope that the Government will have the honesty to admit that they have abandoned altogether the idea of a general scheme applying across local authorities, and that they will be open and honest to the House about the extremely selective nature of the operation on which they are now embarked.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
I apologise for not having heard the totality of the debate on the amendment. I have been at work in a Select Committee.
The House may recall that on 28 March last a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled an amendment on Report which we believed enhanced part of the general principles of Conservative philosophy for the administration of local government. Our view was that while it might be excellent to accept assurances from Ministers about the law, because Ministers came and went, certain absolute assurances were better written into the legislation.
We were assured that part II of the Bill would not be applied to local authorities of any political nature which had, on the whole, co-operated with the Government and were following their guidelines. We felt that that assurance should be enshrined in the legislation. Although the amendment was not reached, I am pleased to say that it was possible to arrange a debate in which my right hon. Friend was able to give certain assurances that tied in with the concept that local authorities that co-operated with Government policy and controlled their expenditure would not be rate capped.
It was with great interest that I read the amendments tabled in another place. I thank my right hon. Friend for carrying through his assurances by setting them out in the Bill. I am told that thanks to the Department of the Environment are not quite as common these days as they might be and I underline the fact that my right hon. Friend 856 has complied with his undertaking and has gone further by examining more closely the amendment that was tabled by myself and others on Report. That amendment confined itself to dealing with the problem of local authorities that complied with the targets because we saw difficulties in dealing with those that had complied with GRE. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to accept the argument that authorities that comply with GRE as well as those that comply with targets should not be rate capped. That is the essence of the amendment.
The amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled on Report suggested that the record of compliance should be over two years. My right hon. Friend has seen fit to make it three years rather than two. Will he explain why he feels that that is necessary? I am certain that there must be a specific reason. With that sole query, I do no more than say that I think that the amendments tabled in another place will greatly improve the Bill.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House how many local authorities will be automatically excluded from rate capping as a result of the amendments. I estimated, before the amendments from another place had been tabled, that over 50 per cent. of all local authorities in England and Wales would be excluded and that the percentage was likely to rise within a year to about 85 per cent. How many authorities does my right hon. Friend think will now be excluded? It is important that local authorities should know because it is their objections that have created so much opposition to the Bill. It is extremely important that they should know that they will not be affected by the Bill.
Finally, it gives me great pleasure to know that the Government have been able to meet the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave to the House at an earlier stage.
§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to intervene.
I much appreciate the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I said while he was engaged in Select Committee business that the amendment owed itself to the efforts that he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends made on Report when they sought to write into the Bill a provision which is contained in the White Paper to the effect that, if the general scheme ever had to be introduced, levels would be set in such a way that authorities could generally be expected to contain their expenditure within them. We explained that that meant that the level of the general scheme would be such that authorities which were spending reasonably would not find it difficult to comply with the scheme. My hon. Friend felt that that explanation should not rest on a ministerial statement and should be embodied in the Bill and set out clearly so that the authorities would know where they stood. The amendments before us are the answer to my hon. Friend's argument.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that if the amendments were agreed to it would change the nature of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper makes it clear that we did not envisage in the general scheme putting any severe constraint upon the spending of responsible local authorities. We envisaged that levels would be set with which they would not find 857 it difficult to comply. The scheme recognises what we envisaged and removes reasonable spending authorities from its framework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked how many local authorities would be taken out of the scheme. This has to be determined on the past three years of spending and this year's budgets and the result might be quite different from the circumstances which would apply if the general scheme had to be introduced. On the basis of 1981–82 and 1983–84 spending and the 1984–85 budgets, it seems that 220 English authorities and 21 Welsh authorities will be excluded. That will be more than half of all English and Welsh authorities. That is a measure of the value of the amendment.
I should have liked very much to accept the amendment which was introduced by my hon. Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends on Report. He proposed a linkage to authorities' final accounts, but as they would not be known for a couple of years the amendment was not practicable. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the value of the amendment which is before us. We have gone further in one important respect than his amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) argued that we should take account of spending below GRE as well as spending below target, and that is what we have done.
The Opposition wish to extend the benefit of the exemption in two ways. First, they wish to allow authorities to swap between meeting their target and their GRE from year to year rather than establishing a consistent record of spending, as set against one of those measures, for the full period. Secondly, they propose that the relevant period should be reduced from three years to two years plus the current year.
I cannot accept either proposition. Our objective is to exclude from the general scheme authorities which have a consistent record of responsible spending. It does not seem satisfactory to propose that an authority which has taken advantage of the differences between GRE and target and has chosen the most advantageous spending figures in each year should thereby be excluded.
The Government are offering a considerable concession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has recognised, when it is set against the original proposition that all authorities should be within rate limitation. That is what was proposed in the Conservative party's manifesto. It is right that we should set a high standard for those who wish to be excluded. The amendments represent a considerable concession to local government and ratepayers are entitled to be assured that they will not be denied the protection of rate limitation unless the Government are sure that that protection is not necessary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton reminded us, he proposed that spending should be considered over two years. He considered that that would be sufficient. We 858 have carefully considered the length of the period to apply. We have come to the conclusion that three years is the minimum acceptable period, for a number of reasons. First, we want to feel sure that an exclusion from general rate limitation will not remove protection from ratepayers in an area where they are entitled to expect protection. That means that we must set a test of consistency in low spending. Against that background, we must be realistic in recognising—we saw this last year and this year—that in the short term it is possible for an authority to manipulate its accounts and to present its expenditure as being lower than it really is. An authority cannot do so over a prolonged period, because eventually events catch up with it, but it can do so over a short period. We must take account of that fact. Secondly, significant changes in an authority's spending behaviour may occur, for instance, if there is a change in its political control. We must recognise those facts in considering the appropriate period. I do not believe that the criteria proposed in the amendments moved in the other place are excessively restrictive. As I have said, more than half of all authorities presently meet those criteria. Now that those criteria are established—this point was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)—all authorities will know what the criteria are. I should not expect general rate limitation to be introduced in the next two or three years. We must first give the selective scheme time to work properly. We shall not have any element of retrospection in that period. From the moment the amendment was tabled in another place all authorities knew precisely what they needed to do to be excluded should the general scheme ever have to be introduced.
I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I hope that the House will accept the amendments in the form in which they have been returned to us from another place.
§ Mr. Straw
By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond.
We have listened carefully to the Secretary of State. His argument that it is wrong to leave authorities to choose between achieving a target or GRE is unacceptable. Target and GRE are measures of the Government's spending. It can hardly lie in the Government's mouth to criticise and condemn an authority for overspending when that authority has met either its target or GRE. It is not the fault of the authorities concerned that the methodology of GRE and target varies from year to year. The possibility, therefore, of an authority coming within a target or GRE will vary.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is unacceptable and we shall, therefore, press amendment (b) to a Division.
§ Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]859
Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end
(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—
(1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.
(1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
§ Read a Second time.
§ Amendment (b) proposed to the Lords amendment, line 6, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.—[Mr. Straw.]
§ Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 204.862
|Division No. 384]||[7.13 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Cunningham, Dr John|
|Alton, David||Dalyell, Tam|
|Anderson, Donald||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Deakins, Eric|
|Ashton, Joe||Dewar, Donald|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Dixon, Donald|
|Barron, Kevin||Dobson, Frank|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Dormand, Jack|
|Beggs, Roy||Douglas, Dick|
|Beith, A. J.||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Bell, Stuart||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Benn, Tony||Eastham, Ken|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Ewing, Harry|
|Blair, Anthony||Fatchett, Derek|
|Boyes, Roland||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Flannery, Martin|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Forrester, John|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Buchan, Norman||Foster, Derek|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Ian||George, Bruce|
|Canavan, Dennis||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Golding, John|
|Cartwright, John||Gould, Bryan|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Clarke, Thomas||Hamilton, James (M'well N)|
|Clay, Robert||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Hancock, Mr. Michael|
|Cohen, Harry||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Conlan, Bernard||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Corbett, Robin||Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Craigen, J. M.||Howells, Geraint|
|Crowther, Stan||Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Pendry, Tom|
|John, Brynmor||Penhaligon, David|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Pike, Peter|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Radice, Giles|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Redmond, M.|
|Lambie, David||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Lamond, James||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Leighton, Ronald||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Robertson, George|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Litherland, Robert||Rogers, Allan|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|McCrea, Rev William||Rowlands, Ted|
|McCusker, Harold||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Sheerman, Barry|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|McKelvey, William||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)|
|McTaggart, Robert||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|McWilliam, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Madden, Max||Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Maginnis, Ken||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Marek, Dr John||Soley, Clive|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Martin, Michael||Stott, Roger|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Strang, Gavin|
|Maxton, John||Straw, Jack|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Meacher, Michael||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Meadowcroft, Michael||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Michie, William||Tinn, James|
|Mikardo, Ian||Torney, Tom|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Wainwright, R.|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon James||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Wareing, Robert|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Weetch, Ken|
|Nellist, David||Welsh, Michael|
|Nicholson, J.||White, James|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wigley, Dafydd|
|O'Brien, William||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|O'Neill, Martin||Winnick, David|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Park, George||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Parry, Robert||Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Home Robertson.|
|Adley, Robert||Eyre, Sir Reginald|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Alexander, Richard||Fallon, Michael|
|Amess, David||Farr, Sir John|
|Ancram, Michael||Favell, Anthony|
|Arnold, Tom||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Ashby, David||Fletcher, Alexander|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Forman, Nigel|
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fox, Marcus|
|Bellingham, Henry||Franks, Cecil|
|Bendall, Vivian||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Freeman, Roger|
|Best, Keith||Galley, Roy|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Body, Richard||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Bottomley, Peter||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Greenway, Harry|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Gregory, Conal|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Ground, Patrick|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Grylls, Michael|
|Bright, Graham||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Brinton, Tim||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Browne, John||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Harris, David|
|Butterfill, John||Harvey, Robert|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Carttiss, Michael||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Cash, William||Hawkins, C. (High Peak)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hawksley, Warren|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hayward, Robert|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Henderson, Barry|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Cockeram, Eric||Hirst, Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Conway, Derek||Holt, Richard|
|Coombs, Simon||Hooson, Tom|
|Cope, John||Hordern, Peter|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Crouch, David||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Hubbard-Miles, Peter|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Dover, Den||Hunter, Andrew|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dunn, Robert||Irving, Charles|
|Durant, Tony||Jackson, Robert|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Eggar, Tim||Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Evennett, David||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Pawsey, James|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Key, Robert||Powley, John|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Price, Sir David|
|Knight, Gregory (Derby N)||Proctor, K Harvey|
|Knowles, Michael||Raffan, Keith|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Renton, Tim|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Lester, Jim||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Lilley, Peter||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant)||Rost, Peter|
|Luce, Richard||Ryder, Richard|
|McCrindle, Robert||St John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Maclean, David John||Shersby, Michael|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Silvester, Fred|
|Major, John||Sims, Roger|
|Malins, Humfrey||Skeet, T H H|
|Malone, Gerald||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Maples, John||Speller, Tony|
|Marland, Paul||Steen, Anthony|
|Marlow, Antony||Stern, Michael|
|Mates, Michael||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stokes, John|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Merchant, Piers||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Trippier, David|
|Moate, Roger||van Straubenzee, Sir W|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Viggers, Peter|
|Moore, John||Walden, George|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Watson, John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Normanton, Tom||Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Wood, Timothy|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S|
|Ottaway, Richard||Tellers for the Noes|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Mr David Hunt and Mr Archie Hamilton|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.[Special entry.]
§ Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.[Special entry.]