§
Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'but no such order shall be made until a Royal Commission to inquire into the re-organisation of local government in Greater London and in the areas of the metropolitan counties has issued a report on that matter.'—[Dr. Cunningham.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 317.
988Division No. 284] | [11.14 pm |
AYES | |
Abse, Leo | Fisher, Mark |
Anderson, Donald | Flannery, Martin |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Forrester, John |
Ashdown, Paddy | Foster, Derek |
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Foulkes, George |
Ashton, Joe | Fraser, J. (Norwood) |
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | George, Bruce |
Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Godman, Dr Norman |
Barnett, Guy | Golding, John |
Barron, Kevin | Gourlay, Harry |
Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Ground, Patrick |
Beith, A. J. | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) |
Bell, Stuart | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
Benn, Tony | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Haynes, Frank |
Bermingham, Gerald | Heffer, Eric S. |
Bidwell, Sydney | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
Blair, Anthony | Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) |
Boyes, Roland | Home Robertson, John |
Bray, Dr Jeremy | Howells, Geraint |
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Hoyle, Douglas |
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) | Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) |
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Hughes, Roy (Newport East) |
Buchan, Norman | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
Caborn, Richard | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Janner, Hon Greville |
Campbell, Ian | John, Brynmor |
Campbell-Savours, Dale | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
Clarke, Thomas | Kirkwood, Archibald |
Clay, Robert | Lamond, James |
Clwyd, Ms Ann | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
Cohen, Harry | Litherland, Robert |
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
Conlan, Bernard | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
Corbett, Robin | McKelvey, William |
Corbyn, Jeremy | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
Cowans, Harry | Maclennan, Robert |
Craigen, J. M. | McNamara, Kevin |
Cunningham, Dr John | McWilliam, John |
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Madden, Max |
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Marek, Dr John |
Deakins, Eric | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
Dewar, Donald | Martin, Michael |
Dixon, Donald | Maxton, John |
Dobson, Frank | Maynard, Miss Joan |
Dormand, Jack | Meacher, Michael |
Douglas, Dick | Michie, William |
Dubs, Alfred | Mikardo, Ian |
Duffy, A. E. P. | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
Ewing, Harry | Nellist, David |
Faulds, Andrew | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | O'Brien, William |
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | O'Neill, Martin |
Park, George | Skinner, Dennis |
Parry, Robert | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
Patchett, Terry | Snape, Peter |
Pendry, Tom | Spearing, Nigel |
Penhaligon, David | Steel, Rt Hon David |
Pike, Peter | Stott, Roger |
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Strang, Gavin |
Prescott, John | Straw, Jack |
Radice, Giles | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
Randall, Stuart | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
Redmond, M. | Tinn, James |
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) | Torney, Tom |
Richardson, Ms Jo | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) | Wainwright, R. |
Robertson, George | Wallace, James |
Rogers, Allan | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
Rooker, J. W. | Wareing, Robert |
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) | Weetch, Ken |
Rowlands, Ted | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
Sedgemore, Brian | Winnick, David |
Sheerman, Barry | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. | |
Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Tellers for the Ayes: |
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) | Mr. James Hamilton arid |
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) | Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe. |
Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
NOES | |
Adley, Robert | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
Aitken, Jonathan | Chope, Christopher |
Alexander, Richard | Churchill, W. S. |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
Amess, David | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcfiffe) |
Arnold, Tom | Clegg, Sir Walter |
Ashby, David | Cockeram, Eric |
Aspinwall, Jack | Colvin, Michael |
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Coombs, Simon |
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Cope, John |
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Corrie, John |
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Couchman, James |
Batiste, Spencer | Cranborne, Viscount |
Beggs, Roy | Crouch, David |
Bellingham, Henry | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
Bendall, Vivian | Dicks, Terry |
Berry, Sir Anthony | Dorrell, Stephen |
Best, Keith | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
Bevan, David Gilroy | Dover, Den |
Biffen, Rt Hon John | Dunn, Robert |
Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Eggar, Tim |
Body, Richard | Evennett, David |
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
Bottomley, Peter | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Fallon, Michael |
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Farr, John |
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Favell, Anthony |
Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
Braine, Sir Bernard | Fletcher, Alexander |
Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Fookes, Miss Janet |
Bright, Graham | Forman, Nigel |
Brinton, Tim | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) |
Brooke, Hon Peter | Forth, Eric |
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
Browne, John | Fox, Marcus |
Bruinvels, Peter | Franks, Cecil |
Bryan, Sir Paul | Freeman, Roger |
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Gale, Roger |
Buck, Sir Antony | Galley, Roy |
Budgen, Nick | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
Bulmer, Esmond | Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) |
Burt, Alistair | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
Butcher, John | Glyn, Dr Alan |
Butler, Hon Adam | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
Butterfill, John | Goodlad, Alastair |
Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Gow, Ian |
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
Carttiss, Michael | Greenway, Harry |
Cash, William | Gregory, Conal |
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds) | Malone, Gerald |
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Maples, John |
Grist, Ian | Marland, Paul |
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Marlow, Antony |
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Mates, Michael |
Hanley, Jeremy | Maude, Hon Francis |
Hannam, John | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
Hargreaves, Kenneth | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
Harris, David | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Mellor, David |
Haselhurst, Alan | Merchant, Piers |
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
Hawksley, Warren | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
Hayes, J. | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
Hayhoe, Barney | Moate, Roger |
Heathcoat-Amory, David | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
Heddle, John | Montgomery, Fergus |
Henderson, Barry | Moore, John |
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
Hickmet, Richard | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
Hind, Kenneth | Moynihan, Hon C. |
Hirst, Michael | Neale, Gerrard |
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Needham, Richard |
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Nelson, Anthony |
Holt, Richard | Neubert, Michael |
Hooson, Tom | Newton, Tony |
Hordern, Peter | Nicholls, Patrick |
Howard, Michael | Normanton, Tom |
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Norris, Steven |
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Onslow, Cranley |
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Oppenheim, Philip |
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Ottaway, Richard |
Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
Hunt, David (Wirral) | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Parris, Matthew |
Hunter, Andrew | Patten, John (Oxford) |
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Pattie, Geoffrey |
Irving, Charles | Pawsey, James |
Jackson, Robert | Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Porter, Barry |
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Powell, William (Corby) |
Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Powley, John |
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Price, Sir David |
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Prior, Rt Hon James |
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Proctor, K. Harvey |
Key, Robert | Raffan, Keith |
Kilfedder, James A. | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Renton, Tim |
King, Rt Hon Tom | Rhodes James, Robert |
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
Knowles, Michael | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
Lamont, Norman | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
Lang, Ian | Roe, Mrs Marion |
Latham, Michael | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) |
Lawler, Geoffrey | Rost, Peter |
Lawrence, Ivan | Rowe, Andrew |
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Ryder, Richard |
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
Lightbown, David | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
Lilley, Peter | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. |
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Scott, Nicholas |
Lord, Michael | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
Lyell, Nicholas | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
McCrea, Rev William | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
McCurley, Mrs Anna | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
Macfarlane, Neil | Shersby, Michael |
MacGregor, John | Silvester, Fred |
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Sims, Roger |
Maclean, David John | Skeet, T. H. H. |
Madel, David | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
Maginnis, Ken | Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S) |
Major, John | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
Malins, Humfrey | Speller, Tony |
Spencer, Derek | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Viggers, Peter |
Squire, Robin | Waddington, David |
Stanbrook, Ivor | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
Stanley, John | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Stern, Michael | Walden, George |
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Walker, Cecil (Belfast N) |
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) | Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) |
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) | Waller, Gary |
Stokes, John | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
Stradling Thomas, J. | Warren, Kenneth |
Sumberg, David | Watson, John |
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Watts, John |
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
Temple-Morris, Peter | Wheeler, John |
Terlezki, Stefan | Whitfield, John |
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. | Wiggin, Jerry |
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter | Wolfson, Mark |
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Wood, Timothy |
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) | Woodcock, Michael |
Thornton, Malcolm | Yeo, Tim |
Thurnham, Peter | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
Townend, John (Bridlington) | |
Tracey, Richard | Tellers for the Noes: |
Trippier, David | Mr. Carol Mather and |
Trotter, Neville | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
Twinn, Dr Ian |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The First Deputy ChairmanWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'and supplementary' and insert `supplementary and consequential'.
No. 8, in page 2, line 2, leave out from `as' to `including' in line 3 and insert
`are necessary for the purposes of the Order'.
§ Mr. CarlileAmendment No. 51 deals with clause 1(3) which gives quite staggering powers to the Secretary of State to amend important legislation at will. We are concerned with the fundamental constitutional rights of the British public in large conurbations—the right of the public to vote, to be represented, and to have regular and democratic elections of accountable representatives.
In any state for which British constitutional lawyers have written constitutions in recent years the sort of rights which are contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and in the Representation of the People Act 1983 have been enshrined. No constitutional lawyer worth his salt would ever countenance putting this type of provision into the constitution of a new democracy which he was planning. It is an outrage and an insult to the House and an insult to the British public that the Government are seeking to include this type of sweeping power in the Bill and thus to do away with fundamental constitutional rights.
The Local Government Act 1972, which clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to amend at will, contains no fewer than 274 sections and 30 schedules. He can meddle about with those and tinker with his electoral spanner, or, perhaps more appositely, he can put his spanner in the electoral works. The Representation of the People Act contains 207 sections and 9 schedules. Therefore, we are giving the Secretary of State the power to play about in the way that he thinks fit with 481 statutory 989 sections and 39 schedules. It is quite wrong to give the Secretary of State power, by order, to amend any of those sections and schedules as he chooses. It is worth noting that that power was never given in the Local Government Act or in the Representation of the People Act and that an attempt is being made to slip them into a Bill purporting to deal with interim provisions.
11.30 pm
It is right to ask how the Minister would exercise these powers to amend. For example, would he introduce proportional representation, which is so dear to the hearts of my right hon. and hon. Friends? Somehow I doubt it. Would he go to the other extreme and follow the Polish lead by restricting the number of candidates in local elections to two, to be approved by him or by some local official? In fairness to the. Minister, I doubt that, too.
But we should not have to speculate about how he would exercise these powers affecting constitutional rights. We should be able to see in draft statutory form how he anticipates acting. We should be able to see now how the Secretary of State may wish to exercise these immense constitutional powers never given before in modern times. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show us any respectable precedent in any respectable democracy in modern times in which such powers have been given. These powers give the Secretary of State the authority of a Caesar but with the ability to knife the constitution with the thrust of a Brutus.
The Government have dealt with these statutory provisions in the wrong way. They have taken the wrong starting point. The substantive legislation should have come first. There has been indecent haste to reject the precedents—the Local Government Acts of 1963 and 1972—in both of which the electoral provisions appear in the primary legislation. In modern times, the House has never been asked to deal in this way with electoral and constitutional matters of this import.
The House is used where necessary to dealing with electoral problems late in the day. I cite as an example the very late decision reached about the arrangements for European elections — a wrong decision in the event. Liberal Members feel outraged that the Government have taken such high-handed actions, the repercussions of which will be felt by millions of people who will live in uncertainty about future electoral arrangements and will, I am sure, look with contempt upon a Government and a Secretary of State who have been prepared to act in such a high-handed fashion.
§ Dr. David ClarkOn Second Reading and again in Committee, one theme running through the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions has been that of worry about our democratic ideals. Many Opposition Members feel that the Bill is one of a long line of anti-democratic measures introduced by the Government.
As we have no written constitution, we depend for our freedom on Acts of Parliament and other sources. It is only right and proper, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, that we should pay special attention to a Bill that might affect the constitutional or electoral rights of the people. It is ironic that the Government, who wax so eloquently about freedom, especially freedom in Poland and East Germany, are not prepared to pay the same attention to Britain. One source of our freedom are the 990 Representation of the People Acts, which have been fundamental in guaranteeing our voting system and electoral rights.
Clause 1(3) gives the Secretary of State the power if he thinks it "necessary or expedient" to modify any part of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Opposition maintain that that:,s too draconian a power to give to any man or woman. We realise that the Secretary of State would have to bring an order before the House, but with this Government it is plain that, no matter what the arguments are, that would be a mere formality. Earlier today someone said that we now have an elective dictatorship.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to modifications necessary to the elections to the seven authorities that we are discussing. We believe that there should be no doubts about the clause, so our amendments seek to make any changes to the Local Government Act or the Representation of the People Act intra vires if they are necessary for the purposes of any order under the Bill. In amendment No. 7 the word "and" is crucial, because for anything to be intra vires all three points in the amendments would have to be met—it would have to be transitional, supplementary and consequential—and we would thus provide an additional safeguard and an essential limitation on the powers of the Secretary of State.
I hope that the Minister can accommodate our wishes in this respect, because he must recognise, from the strength of feeling on his side, that the Government do not have a good reputation in defending democratic ideals. ft would be a great reassurance to many people if they would concede these points.
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)As I voted against Second Reading of the Bill and for the previous amendment, I should briefly explain the reasons that led me to do so.
This amendment raises a point of principle that goes to the heart of my argument. My basic objection to the Bill is not that it paves the way for the abolition of the GLC—I should be happy to see it abolished—but that it subverts the Government's greatest achievement, which is the restoration of the individual's sense of responsibility for his actions and choices. If that restoration of a sense of responsibility is to be long-lasting, it must be exercised continually, not sporadically. It is not enough for the elector to elect a Conservative Government with a massive majority and a mandate, and then sit back for five years and leave it to the Government to keep down prices, to cause industry to be competitive, and to stop local authorities being extravagant.
If the Government want the idea of individual responsibility to apply also in local government — as they must—they should arrange matters so that voters in local government elections are brought up sharply against the consequences of their votes. They should be made to realise that, if they want nursery classes, swimming pools and free public transport, they will all have to pay higher rates. When they choose their councillors, they will have to balance what amenities they want against what they are prepared to pay for. This will happen only if there is a proper reform of the rating system.
Almost any of the reforms that were considered and rejected would have done something towards improving the sense of individual responsibility. Instead of tackling 991 this fundamental defect, the Government are doing the opposite of what is needed. They are doing everything possible to weaken the sense of individual responsibility, and to encourage people to think that, having voted in a Conservative Government, they can sit back and leave it to them.
The Government have introduced rate capping so that the Government, not the electors, will clobber the more extravagant councils. The Government will abolish the most extravagant councils, and will stifle the democratic process in the most extravagant councils, thus preventing the electors of London and of the other metropolitan boroughs from using their votes.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment. He must relate what he is saying to the amendment.
§ Sir Anthony MeyerI come to the amendment now.
In preventing the electors from using their votes, the Secretary of State is taking to himself in the clause powers to prevent their doing many other things. He is using these powers to prevent their expressing a verdict on spendthrift councils. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the polls show a greatly weakened sense of individual responsibility among the London voters.
I am not against the abolition of the Greater London council, nor, for that matter, the abolition of any of the other tiers of local government in England or Wales. I want to be sure that such of their functions as are necessary to be continued are effectively exercised, and subject to democratic control. That does not yet appear to be the case in London.
I am totally opposed to this measure. Looking through the list of amendments selected, and particularly the amendment before the Committee that seems to raise in an acute form the issue of principle here involved, I can envisage no occasion when I shall feel able to support the Government in the Lobby during the proceedings on the Bill, and few occasions on which I shall refrain from voting against them.
§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Poplar)It would be wrong of me to comment on the explication de vote of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). I shall therefore confine my comments to one or two brief remarks about the amendments before the Committee. They can be brief, because there is little to add to the cogent arguments and clear explanations given by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am worried, as they are, about the fact that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque on which he can write virtually any powers for himself that he chooses to write. I cannot recall—if I am wrong, I ask some more experienced right hon. or hon. Member to correct me—any other statutory provision made during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament that gives such wide, unlimited and undefined powers to a Minister.
I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomery will forgive me for saying that I thought that he understated the case. He described the powers in subsection (3) as the powers of a Caesar. For a great deal of the time of the Roman empire, the Caesars did not have powers as wide as are contained in subsection (3), although they did for 992 parts of the time. In the history of the Roman empire, the relative powers of the executive and of the legislature varied a good deal from time to time, and, for long periods, no Caesar could get anywhere near the powers contained in subsection (3).
Those powers are greater than are within the grasp of the politburo of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. They are greater than the powers within the grasp of General Pinochet of Chile. They are very wide indeed. As has been pointed out, as long as the Secretary of State, all by his little self, thinks that something is necessary or expedient, that is good enough. No other criterion is applied to decide whether a given provision in an order made under this clause is necessary and desirable, or unnecessary and injurious. No other test is applied. The only test is the ipse dixit of the Secretary of State. He makes words mean what he chooses them to mean.
We are back in that sort of wonderland with this clause. It is a gross abuse of democratic principle and practice. It is also a gross abuse of the British parliamentary tradition. I find it hard to understand how any hon. Member, who by definition thinks a great deal of this House — otherwise he would not have sought to come here—can conceivably vote for something that trenches on the rights, privileges and powers of the House as this subsection does. We should get rid of it, but if we cannot do that, the fallback position set out in the other two amendments—of which the second is much better than the first—would at least provide us with some limitation, albeit not very strong, on the arbitrary and capricious powers that the Secretary of State is giving himself. I hope that the House concurs with that view, and will vote accordingly.
§ Mr. SpearingAt the end of the previous debate I was out of order in a disorderly manner. However, I make no apology for that, because in a press release after the Second Reading debate, I said that this Bill had a whiff of totalitarianism about it. I was shocked and surprised to hear the Secretary of State make a statement that was patently untrue, when he said that the local authorities, of the GLC, were handing back powers to existing authorities. We all know that a lot of quangos are to take over powers that have been held by an elected authority in London for 100 years. If a Secretary of State, in a democratically elected Parliament, does not know that, every Conservative Member had better watch out. There is more than a whiff of totalitarianism around in this Bill.
The Minister will no doubt say that that point relates to subsection (2), because that subsection, which immediately precedes the subsection that is the subject of this debate, relates to the repeal of large parts of this Bill and possibly their revival. As the Bill states:
any enactment repealed by this Act shall revive on the coming into force of the order.That refers not only to the Bill, but to other Acts that have been repealed. That is an extraordinary provision. The subsection states that legislation can be repealed by an Order in Council — not by another Bill — and that a revival of repealed Acts can also be brought about by means of an Order in Council.I accept that on some occasions — the European Communities Act has been mentioned—such a device is by general consent accepted as necessary. I believe that both subsections (2) and (3) are unnecessary. Subsection 993 (2) may be necessary from the Government's point of view to enable them to withdraw the Bill if they do not get a Second Reading for the projected legislation. That will be their fault for putting this Bill before the House in advance of the other legislation. Subsection (2) is unnecessary, as is the Bill.
Subsection (3) which the amendment would delete, builds upon subsection (2), which is bad enough because it provides that the Bill can be repealed or revived by order. Subsection (3), with which it must be read, goes much further. It uses the words:
An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972".That is included, not just as an afterthought, but as a specific power in case of doubt. It means that all sorts of other provisions in all sorts of other Acts, not just the Local Government Act 1972, can be included at that time by an order under the clause.Unless the Minister can tell us to the contrary, the powers taken in the two subsections state that if there is need for revival or repeal, at that point the Minister, by order, can include any provision of any sort. That power is totally unnecessary. Why not let it be confined to the purposes of the Bill? Why must it include any other provision? Even if I accepted subsection (2) for the sake of argument—which I do not—why is not subsection (3) tightly drawn to apply to statutes repealed or revived? Why must it go beyond that?
§ Mr. Tony BanksThe Secretary of State said that the reason for the abolition of the GLC had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's personal feelings towards its leader. He said that he did not think that I would believe him. That is the only time in this debate that he has been correct. I do not believe him. Nothing will convince me.
I realise that we cannot take any assurances from the Minister even if he says that our worst fears are unfounded. This part of the Bill gives the Secretary of State unbridled powers to do whatsoever he wishes. Frankly, it is one further example of the arrogance of power on the Government Benches. It was not a member of the Labour party who referred to the rate-capping legislation as being an example of an elective dictatorship. Those words are likely to continue in political currency for a long time because that is precisely what we are faced with. Here again is a classic example of the wherewithal whereby the elective dictatorship can be exercised.
As I understand it, under this part of the Bill the Secretary of State can do anything he wishes. I am sure that he would wish to restrict the ability of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to spend money on advertising their cause. Moneys that are spent by the GLC on grants are paid under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is specifically mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, it follows that when this Bill goes through, the Government will restrict the ability of authorities like the GLC to spend any money on advertising on what they consider to be party political matters — something of great debate — or on grants to organisations and groups of which they do not approve.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State whether my fears are unfounded or unjustified. I shall be interested to hear what he thinks about that. If he were to say to the Committee that he can give a categorical assurance that there will be no 994 interference with section 137 expenditure, I would be more content, but I must suspect that he cannot give that assurance.
In an earlier debate there was reference to the amount of money that the GLC is spending on advertising. Lest any Conservative Members might have base thoughts going through their minds, the sweat shirt that I am wearing was paid for by myself; my hon. Friends have paid for similar garments that they are wearing. These sweat shirts are available at a nominal price to Conservative Members if they are prepared to wear them in the Chamber. I hope therefore, that no one will accuse us of trying to put forward party political propaganda in the Chamber.
The GLC will continue to use its powers under the 1.972 Act to explain to Londoners precisely what the Government are doing. It is necessary to do this because we are not getting the facts from the Government. They are deliberately suppressing information that would be valuable to hon. Members on both sides of the Corrunittee. We know about the submissions in regard to Cmnd. 9063. We have not been given the opportunity to look at information which Ministers have had, so there has always been a readiness to restrict access to information.
A great campaign has been waged by Tory newspapers —The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—to put strong arguments against the continuation of the GLC It has been necessary for bodies like the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to explain the case to their electorate. They have done it so successfully that there is massive opposition in London to the Government's proposals. Much of that opposition has come about because of the success of the GLC's campaign. Conservative Members might consider that that is party political, but it is not. All that expenditure has been cleared through the GLC's legal department and I dare any Conservative Member to say that any of it has been illegal, because it has not been illegal, as I suspect they know.
In this part of the Bill power will be vested in the Secretary of State to stop all that if he so wishes. I am sure that the Secretary of State, who is desperately anxious to cloak his miserable argument with respectability, would be prepared to descend even further into the gutter to try to prevent hon. Members and Londoners from having free access to information. The Government do not have a case. The have failed palpably to produce any valid argument for their proposals. Having lost the arguments in the Chamber and outside, and using this subsection of the Bill, the Government will attempt to restrict the ability of the GLC and other bodies to continue to tell the truth. As soon as the Government stop telling lies about the GLC, the GLC will stop telling the truth about the Government.
§ 12 midnight
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)I am sorry that I did not rise to my feet a little more quickly to achieve the balance that you like, Mr. Armstrong. I was so mesmerised by the sweat shirt of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that I failed to get into the fray quickly enough.
When I read the clause and the amendments on the Notice Paper, I thought it might be proper for the Committee to press the Government to agree to the amendments. The clause reads in a way that suggests that 995 the Secretary of State can do anything that he wishes. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) used the analogy of Caesar.
With respect to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, I can only conclude that he is not experienced in reading legislation. If we study the Bill, it is clear that what the Secretary of State is entitled to do under subsection (3) is precisely limited by three things. First, it is limited by the long title of the Bill, which makes it crystal clear that he can operate only within the limited framework that we are discussing. Secondly, it is limited because, as the hon. Gentleman will note if he turns to the first page of the Bill, clause 1 is described as dealing with the
commencement, and termination, of the interim measuresand nothing else. Thirdly, it is limited by clause 1 itself, which is a safeguarding and limiting clause that prescribes what the Secretary of State can do only in some limited and precise areas. Indeed, it states what the measure cannot do unless certain provision are already agreed to. On that basis, some of the language that has been used during the past five minutes about dictatorship and the destruction of the rights of the House is palpable nonsense.I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question comparable to one asked by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). In this subsection, my hon. Friend is not dealing only with the provisions of the Bill. The latter part states:
including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 … or the Representation of the People Act 1983.I had some responsibility for putting the 1972 Act on the statute book. Although I do not rise to my feet to defend every aspect of it—indeed, I wish that I had not had anything to do with some aspects of it—by and large I would hesitate before authorising any Minister to dispose of any provisions that arose from that Act.I hope that when my hon. Friend comments on the debate he will make it clear that the subsection applies to only those provisions of the 1972 Act or the 1983 Act that are pertinent to this specific, narrow exercise; that the second part of the Bill shall not come into force and that there will be a reinstatement of the elections; that it deals only with that an with those powers that could arise from the 1972 or 1983 Acts. If so, in my judgment he is home and dry.
§ Dr. David ClarkIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it does not matter what the Minister says tonight—it all depends on the way in which the courts interpret the wording of the Bill? We have sought legal advice and have concluded that this series of amendments—especially the addition of the words "and consequential" in the previous provision to which he referred—would firm up the provision and leave less in doubt for the interpretation of the courts, so achieving what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.
§ Ms. GriffithsI confess that when I first read the amendments I thought that they sought only to make clear the thrust of what I have been saying, and to that extent I have sympathy with them. However, if the Minister can show that my other argument is correct and that the amendments are not necessary, I shall listen to his case. 996 But if he fails to satisfy me on that, on the logic of the argument that I have adduced, I should have to support the amendment.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI enjoyed the bit of Roman history from the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). No one in the Committee looks more like a Roman emperor than he, and I should have been happy later in the night, when things might be less friendly, to listen at greater length to his exegesis. I can put his mind at rest on one point. We are proposing not an Order in Council but an order, under the affirmative procedure, of both Houses.
The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) arrived late, after the real thunder of the debate on the previous amendment. He put in his tuppence worth of bombast, but he was rather off target. As the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar allowed us a little history, perhaps I may be permitted to recall reading how Mussolini sent three or four squadrons of biplanes to join in the battle of Britain, but they arrived on 16 September, just after we had won the battle. The hon. Member for Montgomery might have joined in somewhat earlier because the higher flown rhetoric was more in place earlier in the day.
I hope that I can console my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who, in spite of knocking us about, was genuinely seeking, as was the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to make sure that the powers in the clause were not too wide and were circumscribed in the way that they wanted.
The amendments reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of subsection (3). It would be wrong to delete the subsection, as amendment No. 51 would do, because that subsection would help to restore elections should abolition not go ahead. It is the means by which elections could be reintroduced to the electoral cycle. For example, if abolition failed at some point after May 1985, it would be necessary to restore elections, with those elected serving less than the normal four-year period of office; they would serve until May 1989, when normal elections to the upper tier would again be due. That is the sort of transitional arrangement envisaged by clause 1(3).
There is no question of the clause applying, to start with, outside the metropolitan areas. The transitional arrangements relate only to an order made under clause 1(2), and that clause applies only to the metropolitan areas.
Powers under subsection (3) are not unfettered. They can be used only to make such modifications or provisions as are necessary or expedient to achieve two effects, which are to repeal the Act and to restore the original situation. Neither amendment No. 7 nor amendment No. 8 is necessary because as the powers stand they are not unfettered. The key phrase is "to restore the original situation". Any amendments that are made to the two powerful, important and fundamental Acts would have to be aimed only at meeting the criteria which I have outlined.
We considered with sympathy whether we could write in the Bill words such as "consequential" to make matters absolutely clear. We were told by our legal advisers and others that that would produce a mare's nest. We were advised that such additions could lead to strict legalistic arguments in the courts on whether a particular act that needed to be taken was consequential on the repeal of the Act. It would be wrong to circumscribe the power to such 997 an extent that it could not effectively achieve its purpose. There would be too many opportunities for legal challenge on what is consequential and what is necessary. That would lead to delays in restoring the original situation.
I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will understand that I am trying to meet him on this issue. There is no disagreement between us on principle and I hope that he will accept that the Acts as written limit the scope of any changes to what is necessary to repeal the Act and restore the original situation. I hope that he will understand that if we try to insert additional words we shall find that we have excluded other measures that have not been properly described. I am advised that that happens quite often in the law. The courts would, of course, pay some attention to the will of the House of Commons as expressed in this place if there ever was a disagreement on this issue. The intention is properly circumscribed as written in the Act.
§ Dr. David ClarkI appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to the points that the Opposition have made. I am taking at face value his assurance that he is concerned and has taken advice. Will he give the assurance that he will be prepared to reconsider the parts of the clause that have caused considerable anxiety on the Opposition Benches with the objective of introducing amendments in another place, especially if further representations that are made to him show that perhaps the original advice was not correct?
§ Mr. WaldegraveWe have been round this circuit before. Meetings have taken place on the parts of the Bill that we accept are fundamentally controversial. We have no desire to have unnecessary controversy. If it had been possible to make matters clearer without landing ourselves in extra potential difficulties, we would have done so. I am advised that the Act as written is safe from the worries that have been expressed.
§ Mr. Tony BanksDid the Minister say that in the event of a dispute the courts would take account of the will of the House of Commons as expressed in these debates? I am sure that I did not hear him correctly because he must know that the courts could not take into account anything that was said in the Chamber on legislation. I hope that he will say that I misheard him rather than accepting that he made an erroneous statement. Secondly, is he able to give an assurance to the Committee that section 137 money will not be affected by the passage of the clause? Will section 137 be inviolate?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe hon. Gentleman's second point is easier to deal with than the first. Section 137 and many of the other sections are without the scope of the Bill. By drawing that red herring across the trail he tempts me to make a speech about the advertising expenditure of the GLC, a speech which I shall refrain from making.
The Government have the power to advertise on hoardings on any subject that they like. Imagine the uproar if hoardings all over the country showed the Government's partisan position, for example, on cruise missiles—or I should say bipartisan, because the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) let the cat out of the bag. There rightly would have been an uproar, which is why we did not proceed. I am not saying that the expenditure in this direction by the GLC or the metropolitan councils is illegal. Some ratepayers would 998 have gone to the auditors a long time ago if that were so. It is a breach of what until now had been one of the conventions that central Government were maintaining.
The intentions of Ministers can be relevant when examining the intentions of Parliament. It is unnecessary to rely on that fact, because we have been advised, after fairly exhaustive investigation, that the worries that were rightly put forward by hon. Members are met by the legislation as drafted.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI hoped that the Under-Secretary of State would have responded more positively and gone further down the road of the criticisms. Late in the day, we have been joined by my hon. and, since last week, learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I congratulate him on obtaining his silk and therefore, no doubt, being regarded as a better legal expert than he was when he was a mere junior member of the Bar. Unlike Conservative Members, we are united in our views on this matter and come in and out in support of each other. The Under-Secretary of State cannot rely on Conservative Members who normally have their best arguments when opposing the proposals of the Front Bench.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the purpose of the legislation, or, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the notes in the margins can be referred to by the courts. The courts have regularly renounced that part of that wording.
§ Mr. WaldegraveAs an hon. Member without legal training, let alone a silk, I was perhaps unwise to venture into such territory. I believe that the courts examine the nature, purpose and scope of the Act, but not the words said in the House.
§ Mr. HughesIt is vital—this point has been made by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee—that the legislature must never allow the Executive to have powers other than those that are clearly and tightly defined and strictly necessary to our purpose. I do not accept that it is right to say that Parliament is seeking to achieve a minority vote represented by the majority of seats in the House.
If the other place agrees, subsections (2) and (3) will put on the statute book legislation to suspend the elections that should occur next May, pending other legislation that we have not yet seen. The Government will, if necessary, adapt the Local Government Act 1972 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 to permit that action. Presumably, although the Under-Secretary of State did not say this, the Government's justification is that there would be insufficient time or opportunity to consider a short piece of legislation again.
Our job as a legislature, whatever the colour of the party in Government, is to ensure that the Executive does not steal more power than it needs. We should, therefore, limit ourselves to leaving the provisions of subsection (2) in the Bill. That subsection states:
The Secretary of State may by order repeal Parts II to IV of this Act".The Secretary of State does not need another subsection.I am surprised—I say that carefully but none the less seriously—that the Secretary of State is not here to deal with this part of the legislation because it covers the whole delicate and vital subject of electoral law and seeks to give 999 him the power which one of the other amendments seeks to delete, and which enables him to act as he thinks necessary or expedient.
We do not believe that at this stage we should give a hostage to fortune and allow a supplementary order to be brought before the House, whatever the procedural advantages of the mechanism for which the Government have provided — as opposed to other procedural advantages—which is not necessarily consequential, and the less substantial amendments would have that matter inserted. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State enormous discretion.
We do not know the details. We should know what would happen if this House or the other place, when it sees the Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils, and has confirmed that the Government's policies are a muddle and have not been thought through, decides to reject the Bill. We should know when there will be elections, in what form they will be and how they will take place.
The Government are yet again—the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) used the phrase—asking for a blank cheque, without precedent, on a matter of electoral law. The Minister did not try to pretent that there was any precedent. We shall therefore press this matter to a Division. I believe that the Minister wishes to intervene before I do that.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I hope that he will agree that there is no blank cheque here. The matter is limited, as I said, first, to the areas concerned and, secondly, to what is necessary and expedient. The only reason for not trying to describe that in more detail is that one could land oneself potentially in legal difficulties if one did.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Minister look at page 2? He will see that clause 1(3) states:
An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient including provisionsto amend two enormous pieces of legislation, with all the schedules, that the Secretary of State might suddenly decide need a change to alter the balance of power in other authorities to compensate for elections elsewhere. It is an open-ended commitment. The only way in which this House can check that is to have a debate on an order, but even that does not give us an opportunity for proper considered debate on constitutional safeguards on a matter such as this.The courts would not intervene. I do not believe that the advisers in the Department of the Environment or the Law Officers of the Crown would have advised that the courts would stop the Secretary of State doing what he wanted once this Bill was on the statute book.
I know of no constitutional precedent that says that such an act would be ultra vires, because the Bill's whole purpose, provided that we are talking only about the GLC and the metropolitan areas and elections, is to allow the Secretary of State to return with proposals to defer the matter from May 1985 to May 1986 or May 1987 and there would be no obligation for it to come back until the next general election.
The whole power is discretionary. Clause 1(2) contains the phrase
The Secretary of State may by order".1000 The Secretary of State has given a commitment that he will, but there is no legal, parliamentary or constitutional guarantee that he would. There are other ways in which the matter could be drafted, but the best way would be to leave out clause 1(3) and let the Secretary of State come before us with a proper proposal which we can then consider. The proposal is not good enough and should be rejected, whatever our views about the substantive issues, the GLC, the metropolitan counties or the goings on in any of them.
§ Mr. SpearingThe Minister paid me the compliment of taking on the chin some remarks that I made about our Second Reading debate part 2, which we had earlier this evening. They were about taking away the people's right to vote for things and people that they have voted for for a century, and about the whiff of totalitarianism. He could deny neither of those charges. Therefore, it behoves the Committee to look carefully at legislation such as this, because if we are taking away those rights, may it not be possible that the Government are taking on more powers through such legislation than they should have?
§ Mr. WaldegraveIf the hon. Member asks me to deny the charges, I shall do so, but I assure him that the Act as written does not give the wide powers that he fears that it does.
§ Mr. SpearingI shall come to the latter point soon, but on the other point, although he denies it, the Minister is wrong, because, quite patently, the Secretary of State made a statement that was not correct, in so far as the Bill takes away a century of rights, to vote, including those of women, since the year 1888. That has about it a whiff of totalitarianism, because London will no longer be able to govern itself in terms of all-London services. I challenge any hon. Member to get up and deny that fact. The one follows from the other, and that is why this legislation, and our debates on it, are of a different order from some of the debates that we have had in this Parliament so far. That is why my hon. Friends are extremely angry. If it was Yorkshire, Essex of Surrey county council being abolished, then we should hear all about it from Conservative Members.
I shall now move away from the lightning and thunder and back to the point. The Minister was kind enough to say that I had seen something of the purposes of subsection (3) in my previous speech. However, the Minister has not replied to my point about why subsection (3) is couched in wider terms than the needs of subsection (2). We are assured by him that it does not go wider, but he then said something to the effect that the Government have to be sure that the provisions cannot be challenged. I know what parliamentary draftsmen are like, and if I were one, I should make sure that I took powers that would cover me. The Minister is not a parliamentary draftsman; he is introducing the legislation. He may be advised that it is desirable to go fairly wide, but the question is whether the House should allow it to go that wide.
The Minister said, and the Committee understood, that subsection (3) is to modify electoral arrangements, or conceivably even the composition of councils—although that is going a bit far—should elections be necessary because the next Bill fails to get a Second Reading. Let us accept that for the moment, and let us accept that it is necessary to do it by Order in Council, not as legislation, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark and 1001 Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) questioned. The Minister has to say why this has to be done by order. In that case, why are not the powers in subsection (3) constrained by such words as "such as are necessary in relation to elections", or "as necessary for the composition of the local authorities aforesaid", or whatever it may be. If those words were put in to restrict the use of subsection (3), the House would be satisfied. It is the non-restricted element, the deliberate—I hope not purposeful—use of the words
as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedientthat is worrying. The House is going with the Secretary of State as far as the reinstatement of the elections, so why not put that in as the restraining purpose in the other place, or on Report? I leave that question for the Minister to answer when he replies.The second substantive point that needs to be made is about what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who was concerned about additional powers restricting the finances of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman said that the power will be restricted within the long title. If he reads that, he will see the words:
Make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils … and to confer rights in respect of the accounts and finances of those authorities on London borough councils . . . and metropolitan district councils.12.30 am
Does the phrase "confer rights" mean that the Secretary of State may confer duties and restrictions also? It may refer to the rights of law as well as to the rights that are associated with expenditure under, say, section 137. That would confirm my hon. Friend's view.
However, if the Minister said, at my suggestion, that the form of words in subsection (3) in relation to the purposes of election would be inserted, we could forget about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I look forward to the Minister's reply. The essence of the problem is that the draftsmen want to make the provision wide and that Parliament, rightly, wishes to make subsection (3) refer entirely to the purposes of election, should they be necessary again. I hope that they will.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Michael Shaw)The Question is, That the amendment—
§ Mr. SpearingOn a point of order. I can understand that you have started to put the Question, Sir Michael, as there was no indication that a Minister wished to reply. However, I have asked a specific question and should like to hear a reply.
§ The Temporary ChairmanOrder. I have begun to put the Question, and I must now do so.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 289.
1004Division No. 285] | [12.32 am |
AYES | |
Anderson, Donald | Beckett, Mrs Margaret |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Benn, Tony |
Ashdown, Paddy | Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) |
Ashton, Joe | Bermingham, Gerald |
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Bidwell, Sydney |
Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Blair, Anthony |
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Boyes, Roland |
Barnett, Guy | Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) |
Barron, Kevin | Brown, Hugh D. (Proven) |
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
Caborn, Richard | Litherland, Robert |
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
Campbell, Ian | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
Campbell-Savours, Dale | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | McKelvey, William |
Clarke, Thomas | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
Clay, Robert | McTaggart, Robert |
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Madden, Max |
Cohen, Harry | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Martin, Michael |
Conlan, Bernard | Maxton, John |
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Meacher, Michael |
Corbett, Robin | Michie, William |
Corbyn, Jeremy | Mikardo, Ian |
Cowans, Harry | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
Craigen, J. M. | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
Cunliffe, Lawrence | Nellist, David |
Cunningham, Dr John | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | O'Brien, William |
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | O'Neill, Martin |
Deakins, Eric | Park, George |
Dewar, Donald | Parry, Robert |
Dixon, Donald | Patchett, Terry |
Dobson, Frank | Pendry, Tom |
Dormand, Jack | Penhaligon, David |
Douglas, Dick | Pike, Peter |
Dubs, Alfred | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
Duffy, A. E. P. | Prescott, John |
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Radice, Giles |
Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Redmond, M. |
Ewing, Harry | Richardson, Ms Jo |
Faulds, Andrew | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Robertson, George |
Flannery, Martin | Rogers, Allan |
Forrester, John | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
Foster, Derek | Ryman, John |
Foulkes, George | Sheerman, Barry |
Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
George, Bruce | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
Godman, Dr Norman | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
Golding, John | Skinner, Dennis |
Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M Vas E) |
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Snape, Peter |
Haynes, Frank | Spearing, Nigel |
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Stott, Roger |
Home Robertson, John | Strang, Gavin |
Howells, Geraint | Straw, Jack |
Hoyle, Douglas | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Wainwright, R. |
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Wallace, James |
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Wareing, Robert |
Janner, Hon Greville | Weetch, Ken |
John, Brynmor | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Winnick, David |
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | |
Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Tellers for the Ayes: |
Kirkwood, Archibald | Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and |
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth. |
NOES | |
Adley, Robert | Bendall, Vivian |
Alexander, Richard | Berry, Sir Anthony |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Best, Keith |
Amess, David | Bevan, David Gilroy |
Arnold, Tom | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
Ashby, David | Biggs-Davison, Sir John |
Aspinwall, Jack | Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Body, Richard |
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Bottomley, Peter |
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) |
Batiste, Spencer | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
Beggs, Roy | Boyson, Dr Rhodes |
Bellingham, Henry | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
Brinton, Tim | Hawksley, Warren |
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Hayes, J. |
Brooke, Hon Peter | Hayhoe, Barney |
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
Browne, John | Heddle, John |
Bruinvels, Peter | Henderson, Barry |
Bryan, Sir Paul | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
Buck, Sir Antony | Hickmet, Richard |
Budgen, Nick | Hind, Kenneth |
Bulmer, Esmond | Hirst, Michael |
Burt, Alistair | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
Butcher, John | Holt, Richard |
Butler, Hon Adam | Hooson, Tom |
Butterfill, John | Hordern, Peter |
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howard, Michael |
Carttiss, Michael | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
Cash, William | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
Chope, Christopher | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
Churchill, W. S. | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hunter, Andrew |
Cockeram, Eric | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
Colvin, Michael | Jackson, Robert |
Coombs, Simon | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
Cope, John | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
Corrie, John | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
Couchman, James | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
Cranborne, Viscount | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
Crouch, David | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
Currie, Mrs Edwina | Key, Robert |
Dicks, Terry | Kilfedder, James A. |
Dorrell, Stephen | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | King, Rt Hon Tom |
Dover, Den | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
Dunn, Robert | Knowles, Michael |
Eggar, Tim | Lamont, Norman |
Evennett, David | Lang, Ian |
Eyre, Sir Reginald | Latham, Michael |
Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lawler, Geoffrey |
Fallon, Michael | Lawrence, Ivan |
Farr, John | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
Favell, Anthony | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
Fletcher, Alexander | Lightbown, David |
Forman, Nigel | Lilley, Peter |
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Lord, Michael |
Forth, Eric | Lyell, Nicholas |
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | McCrea, Rev William |
Fox, Marcus | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
Franks, Cecil | Macfarlane, Neil |
Freeman, Roger | MacGregor, John |
Gale, Roger | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
Galley, Roy | Maclean, David John |
Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Madel, David |
Garel-Jones, Tristan | Maginnis, Ken |
Glyn, Dr Alan | Major, John |
Goodhart, Sir Philip | Malins, Humfrey |
Goodlad, Alastair | Malone, Gerald |
Gow, Ian | Maples, John |
Greenway, Harry | Marland, Paul |
Gregory, Conal | Marlow, Antony |
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Mates, Michael |
Grist, Ian | Maude, Hon Francis |
Ground, Patrick | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
Grylls, Michael | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Mellor, David |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Merchant, Piers |
Hanley, Jeremy | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
Hannam, John | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
Hargreaves, Kenneth | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
Harris, David | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
Harvey, Robert | Moate, Roger |
Haselhurst, Alan | Montgomery, Fergus |
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
Moynihan, Hon C. | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
Neale, Gerrard | Squire, Robin |
Needham, Richard | Stanbrook, Ivor |
Nelson, Anthony | Stanley, John |
Neubert, Michael | Stern, Michael |
Newton, Tony | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
Nicholls, Patrick | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
Normanton, Tom | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
Norris, Steven | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
Onslow, Cranley | Stokes, John |
Oppenheim, Philip | Stradling Thomas, J. |
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Sumberg, David |
Ottaway, Richard | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Terlezki, Stefan |
Parris, Matthew | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
Patten, John (Oxford) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
Pawsey, James | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
Porter, Barry | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
Powell, William (Corby) | Thornton, Malcolm |
Powley, John | Thurnham, Peter |
Prior, Rt Hon James | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
Proctor, K. Harvey | Tracey, Richard |
Raffan, Keith | Trippier, David |
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Twinn, Dr Ian |
Renton, Tim | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
Rhodes James, Robert | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Viggers, Peter |
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Waddington, David |
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
Roe, Mrs Marion | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) | Walden, George |
Rost, Peter | Walker, Cecil (Belfast N) |
Rowe, Andrew | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Waller, Gary |
Ryder, Richard | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
Sackville, Hon Thomas | Watson, John |
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Watts, John |
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
Sayeed, Jonathan | Wheeler, John |
Scott, Nicholas | Whitfield, John |
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wiggin, Jerry |
Shelton, William (Streatham) | Wolfson, Mark |
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wood, Timothy |
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Woodcock, Michael |
Shersby, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
Silvester, Fred | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
Sims, Roger | |
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Tellers for the Noes: |
Soames, Hon Nicholas | Mr. Carol Mather and |
Speller, Tony | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
Spencer, Derek |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 143.
1007Division No. 286] | [12.45 am |
AYES | |
Adley, Robert | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
Aitken, Jonathan | Biggs-Davison, Sir John |
Alexander, Richard | Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Body, Richard |
Amess, David | Bottomley, Peter |
Arnold, Tom | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
Ashby, David | Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) |
Aspinwall, Jack | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Boyson, Dr Rhodes |
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Brinton, Tim |
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Britten, Rt Hon Leon |
Batiste, Spencer | Brooke, Hon Peter |
Bellingham, Henry | Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) |
Bendall, Vivian | Browne, John |
Berry, Sir Anthony | Bruinvels, Peter |
Best, Keith | Bryan, Sir Paul |
Bevan, David Gilroy | Buck, Sir Antony |
Budgen, Nick | Hirst, Michael |
Bulmer, Esmond | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
Burt, Alistair | Holt, Richard |
Butcher, John | Hooson, Tom |
Butler, Hon Adam | Hordern, Peter |
Butterfill, John | Howard, Michael |
Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
Carttiss, Michael | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
Cash, William | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
Chope, Christopher | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
Churchill, W. S. | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunter, Andrew |
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Jackson, Robert |
Cockeram, Eric | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
Colvin, Michael | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
Coombs, Simon | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
Cope, John | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
Corrie, John | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
Couchman, James | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
Cranborne, Viscount | Key, Robert |
Crouch, David | Kilfedder, James A. |
Currie, Mrs Edwina | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
Dicks, Terry | King, Rt Hon Tom |
Dorrell, Stephen | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
Dover, Den | Knowles, Michael |
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lamont, Norman |
Dunn, Robert | Lang, Ian |
Eggar, Tim | Latham, Michael |
Evennett, David | Lawler, Geoffrey |
Eyre, Sir Reginald | Lawrence, Ivan |
Fairbairn, Nicholas | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
Fallon, Michael | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
Farr, John | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
Favell, Anthony | Lightbown, David |
Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lilley, Peter |
Fletcher, Alexander | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
Forman, Nigel | Lord, Michael |
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Lyell, Nicholas |
Forth, Eric | McCrea, Rev William |
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
Fox, Marcus | Macfarlane, Neil |
Franks, Cecil | MacGregor, John |
Freeman, Roger | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
Gale, Roger | Maclean, David John |
Galley, Roy | Madel, David |
Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Major, John |
Garel-Jones, Tristan | Malins, Humfrey |
Glyn, Dr Alan | Malone, Gerald |
Goodhart, Sir Philip | Maples, John |
Goodlad, Alastair | Marland, Paul |
Gow, Ian | Marlow, Antony |
Greenway, Harry | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
Gregory, Conal | Mates, Michael |
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | Maude, Hon Francis |
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
Grist, Ian | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
Grylls, Michael | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Mellor, David |
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Merchant, Piers |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
Hanley, Jeremy | Mills, lain (Meriden) |
Hannam, John | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
Hargreaves, Kenneth | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
Harris, David | Moate, Roger |
Harvey, Robert | Montgomery, Fergus |
Haselhurst, Alan | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
Hawksley, Warren | Moynihan, Hon C. |
Hayes, J. | Neale, Gerrard |
Hayhoe, Barney | Needham, Richard |
Heathcoat-Amory, David | Nelson, Anthony |
Heddle, John | Neubert, Michael |
Henderson, Barry | Newton, Tony |
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Nicholls, Patrick |
Hickmet, Richard | Normanton, Tom |
Hind, Kenneth | Norris, Steven |
Onslow, Cranley | Stanley, John |
Oppenheim, Philip | Stern, Michael |
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
Ottaway, Richard | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
Parris, Matthew | Stokes, John |
Patten, John (Oxford) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
Pattie, Geoffrey | Sumberg, David |
Pawsey, James | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
Porter, Barry | Temple-Morris, Peter |
Powell, William (Corby) | Terlezki, Stefan |
Powley, John | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
Prior, Rt Hon James | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
Proctor, K. Harvey | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
Raffan, Keith | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Thornton, Malcolm |
Renton, Tim | Thurnham, Peter |
Rhodes James, Robert | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Tracey, Richard |
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Trippier, David |
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
Roe, Mrs Marion | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
Rost, Peter | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
Rowe, Andrew | Viggers, Peter |
Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Waddington, David |
Ryder, Richard | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
Sackville, Hon Thomas | Waldegrave, Hon William |
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Walden, George |
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
Sayeed, Jonathan | Waller, Gary |
Scott, Nicholas | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Watson, John |
Shelton, William (Streatham) | Watts, John |
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wheeler, John |
Shersby, Michael | Whitfield, John |
Silvester, Fred | Wiggin, Jerry |
Sims, Roger | Wolfson, Mark |
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wood, Timothy |
Soames, Hon Nicholas | Woodcock, Michael |
Speller, Tony | Yeo, Tim |
Spencer, Derek | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | |
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
Squire, Robin | Mr. Carol Mather and |
Stanbrook, Ivor | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
NOES | |
Anderson, Donald | Cook, Frank (Stockton North) |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
Ashdown, Paddy | Corbett, Robin |
Ashton, Joe | Corbyn, Jeremy |
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Cowans, Harry |
Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Craigen, J. M. |
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
Barnett, Guy | Cunningham, Dr John |
Barron, Kevin | Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) |
Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Davis, Terry (B'ham, h"ge H'I) |
Benn, Tony | Deakins, Eric |
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Dewar, Donald |
Bermingham, Gerald | Dixon, Donald |
Bidwell, Sydney | Dobson, Frank |
Blair, Anthony | Dormand, Jack |
Boyes, Roland | Douglas, Dick |
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Dubs, Alfred |
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Duffy, A. E. P. |
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
Caborn, Richard | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Ewing, Harry |
Campbell, Ian | Faulds, Andrew |
Campbell-Savours, Dale | Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) |
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Flannery, Martin |
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Forrester, John |
Clarke, Thomas | Foster, Derek |
Clay, Robert | Foulkes, George |
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Fraser, J. (Norwood) |
Cohen, Harry | George, Bruce |
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
Conlan, Bernard | Godman, Dr Norman |
Golding, John | O'Neill, Martin |
Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Park, George |
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Parry, Robert |
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Patchett, Terry |
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Pendry, Tom |
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Penhaligon, David |
Home Robertson, John | Pike, Peter |
Howells, Geraint | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
Hoyle, Douglas | Prescott, John |
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Radice, Giles |
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Redmond, M. |
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
Janner, Hon Greville | Robertson, George |
John, Brynmor | Rogers, Allan |
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Rowlands, Ted |
Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Ryman, John |
Kirkwood, Archibald | Sheerman, Barry |
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
Litherland, Robert | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Skinner, Dennis |
McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Snape, Peter |
McKelvey, William | Spearing, Nigel |
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Steel, Rt Hon David |
McTaggart, Robert | Stott, Roger |
Madden, Max | Strang, Gavin |
Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Straw, Jack |
Martin, Michael | Wallace, James |
Maxton, John | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
Maynard, Miss Joan | Wareing, Robert |
Meacher, Michael | Weetch, Ken |
Meadowcroft, Michael | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
Michie, William | Winnick, David |
Mikardo, Ian | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | |
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Tellers for the Noes: |
Nellist, David | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Mr. Roger Thomas. |
O'Brien, William |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
- Clause 2
- SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLORS 29,363 words, 2 divisions
-
cc1007-57