HC Deb 10 May 1984 vol 59 cc1137-53
Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

The First Deputy Chairman

With this we may take the following amendments:

Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 6, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 11, at end insert — 'Provided that any quorum so prescribed for a metropolitan county council shall include a stipulation that there shall be at least one person present from each constituent council'. Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert

'and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'. Amendment No. 95, in page 5, line 31, at end add—

'(7) A quorum of the Greater London Council and each metropolitan county council as the case may be shall include at least one elected representative from each of the constituent councils in its area and the powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above and the provisions of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the principal Act shall have effect subject to the requirement of this subsection.'.

Dr. Clark

The amendments are admittedly specialised and highly technical. Nevertheless, they are fundamentally important to the functions and working of good local government, which is what the Opposition are trying to achieve through the aegis of this Committee. To try to make good local government out of this Bill is somewhat difficult, but we are doing our best. When we see imperfections in the Bill we attempt to correct them. Nowhere is that more so than in clause 5 and in connection with the quorums of the transitional boards. At first sight, a discussion about a quorum might seem rather esoteric or academic. But we maintain that an important principle is at stake.

The point of having a quorum is an essential characteristic, or criterion, to protect minority—groups even majority—groups. It is possible to imagine that without a reasonable quorum small groups could, through various scenarios, exercise power in the name of the larger body. That is vital, and it has been recognised traditionally and conventionally in local government legislation.

As the Secretary of State knows, it is laid down in the principal Act that there must be a quorum. Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to that Act prescribes that the quorum for meetings of principal councils should be one quarter. That is all well and good and we do not disagree with it. However, under clause 5(3) and (4) the Secretary of State can reduce by order the prescribed quorum of a metropolitan county council when he considers — I emphasise "he"—that to be necessary for the transaction of business. No limitation is placed on the power of the Secretary of State. There is no prescribed minimum below which he cannot make an order. He has no need to consult the council and there are no prescribed criteria to which he must adhere in order to determine the quorum. That will give the Secretary of State tremendous powers. They are far too great. One of our main criticisms of the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State those tremendous powers.

We are very worried about the need to ensure that there is an adequate quorum, which is what we seek to do in this group of amendments. Amendment No. 29 goes a stage further and suggests that the quorum should include at least one representative from each metropolitan district. That is a useful protection and particularly important as much of the work of the transitional body will be—I nearly said stripping of assets—the dispersal of assets. That will involve a vast amount of money. I understand that the GLC capital fund will be about £1,000 million. it is vital that all the respective metropolitan districts feel that they are getting a fair share and that they have a quorum of sufficient size to protect their interests. It would be very unsatisfactory if the Secretary of State decided to reduce the quorum to, say, 15, as he could easily do under the clause.

We are trying to protect the democratic freedoms of what may be a minority group. It would be a travesty if, because London is to be Conservative—controlled, a Labour borough such as Barking did not get a fair share. If one representative from each metropolitan district were necessary to make a quorum, they would have at least one sanction to prevent any unsatisfactory or unfair distribution of assets.

We may appear to be uncharitable or too critical of the Secretary of State's new power. I am sure that he will tell us that he hopes not to have to operate it. He will probably say that he hopes to operate under the present system. But the Government's record on democracy is far from happy. There has been a train of events in the past 12 months. I shall not go into them because they would be outside the scope of the amendment, but they show the drift away from the fundamental democratic values that the House has traditionally held. That is why right hon. Members from the Secretary of State's own party have told him that he is acting in an anti—democratic way and operating the biggest gerrymander in history.

We are critical and suspicious of the Secretary of State. If he can, at a stroke, change a Labour—controlled London into a Conservative—controlled London, we must protect in every way possible the functioning of any subsequent interim arrangements.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)

There are circumstances, as is already known, in which we shall seek to press amendment No. 57 to a Division. It is a fall-back position that, if the amendment eloquently moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) should fall, in the last resort we should at least establish the fact that the Government can use these unfortunate powers only by an affirmative resolution of the House, and not by the mere negative procedure which the Government, like all Governments in my experience, are trying to get away with.

7.30 pm

As outlined by the hon. Member for South Shields, the power of the Secretary of State to reduce the quorum, as he would do, presumably, if he finds that there is a boycott by some political party, of the nominated councils, is degrading, and illustrates the ultimate mess in which the Government now arrive, having started on this crazy road. This is the destination of people who have set off in the wrong direction in the wrong manner, and who are thus reduced to such squalid devices.

I should like to illustrate the consequences of subsection (3), if the amendment is unfortunately not agreed to, for the metropolitan county council of west Yorkshire, in which my constituency is situated. The provisions of the Bill will already have reduced the interim west Yorkshire county council to half its traditional strength, that is, to 45 nominated members. When the plaque of county hall, which has been hoisted in Wakefield for 100 years, is hauled down, and guango hall is put up in its place, it will already be a mere half of its present size with a quorum of 11. A quorum of 11 to deal with a metropolitan county the size of west Yorkshire seems a dubiously low figure.

If there were to be a boycott by one or two larger parties, although the Liberal members have no intention of taking the matter to the lengths of boycott, strongly though they feel, the Secretary of State might have to declare— and this is difficult to believe, but it is the truth — that the administration of the county of west Yorkshire could be carried on by a meeting with a quorum of only five. The title of "quango hall" would no longer be appropriate. It would have to be hauled down, and some such title as "cosy corner" or "the nook" would have to hoisted to show that the whole of west Yorkshire was to be governed for local purposes by a mere huddle of five stooges—five nominated people, under this system.

Mr. George Park (Coventry, North-East)

Subsection (3) imposes no limit, and it could be one person, if so declared.

Mr. Wainwright

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for carrying my argument further. I was endeavouring not to make the position even more fantastic that I consider a quorum of five would be, when one considers the great resources and responsibilities which that tiny huddle of nominated people would have. The inequity and inefficiency of a quorum of five speak for themselves, and I do not wish to labour what is manifest.

I deal next with a most important aspect of any form of government which is its image with the public, and the amount of respect and obedience that such a body commands. We have it on the authority of our great constitutional writers, and especially the great Bagehot, that it is essential for any major organ of government to have an image that makes people want to respect and to obey it. Bagehot's term was "the ceremonial part of Parliament", which in the age of television succeeds in making most citizens feel that Parliament ought to be obeyed. This is equally important in the government of a large county.

It is sometimes forgotten, when people dwell upon the fact that London is unfortunately to lose its county government, that the same is true of people in west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. Anybody who has been brought up in the former West Riding of Yorkshire, like his forebears for nearly 100 years, has been accustomed to county government on a majestic scale.

When I was first elected a Member of Parliament, the West Riding county council, which was then the operative body, extended from the hinterland of Morecambe bay in the west to the mouth of the Humber in the east. Because of its enormous resources, and because it had rich farming country in the north, and coalmines—indeed, the centre of the British coal industry—in the south, with much manufacturing in between, it was able to recruit the most distinguished public servants. One of my great pleasures in earlier years here was to go to various Departments of state with the almost omnipotent clerk, as he was then called, of the West Riding county council, accompanied by three party leaders, all of great experience and knowledge. Those people, in my humble presence, terrified Ministers, who were changing office every year or so, and permanent secretaries alike. I felt a tremendous thrill, not to be playing any great part, but to be present when the people from my part of the country were inspiring awe and respect in the bureaucracy of Whitehall.

The West Riding went, and I shall not dwell upon that unhappy fact. In most of its place came the new counties of west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire. They had a difficult start, but in recent years they too have built up respect, if not always agreement. West Yorkshire council, which is the one that I know better, is regarded as a body that should be listened to, and that can be helpful in knitting together the parochial manufacturing cities and towns of west Yorkshire.

In place of that respectable and acceptable form of government, for an interim period we are to have a body which could be reduced to five, four or three people, if the Secretary of State exercises the powers contained in subsection (3). Such a procedure is unacceptable to thinking people in west Yorkshire. Conservatives as much as anybody else would be offended if the county council in which they had played a considerable part over the years were reduced to such a squalid huddle.

We therefore support amendment No. 56 to leave out subsection (3). If unfortunately we do not prevail, we will want to test the opinion of the Committee on the fall-back position that, at least, there should be an affirmative resolution, provided for by our amendment No. 57.

Mr. Martin Stevens

As we move towards the conclusion of the Committee stage of this Bill, it is sad that Opposition Members should be yapping and snapping at the heels of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, trying to find areas in which to criticise points of detail. It cannot be said that the procedure of a negative resolution of the House is a squalid device. It is a time-honoured device and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was in favour of maintaining time-honoured institutions.

The hon. Gentleman tells us that in the ancient days of Alderman Foodbotham and others — who will be remembered by those who have read Beachcomber, of blessed memory — the great members of Yorkshire county council could terrify Ministers in London. The hon. Gentleman wished that that was still the case. Unfortunately, times have changed in local government. Labour Members will be quick to endorse the fact that ceremonial procedures may not always remain appropriate. It is nonsense to talk as though we shall end up with a cosy nook, or whatever.

It will not be the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if the hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not trouble to turn up to perform their public duties. No Conservative Member is suggesting that we do not want those who have been appointed to the 11-month transitional bodies to turn up. Hon. Members talk as if we were laying the foundations for some form of local government that is to last for a thousand years. But we are talking about an interim procedure for 11 months. We do not want no one to turn up and we do not want small numbers to turn up. There will be a great deal of work to do. Many of those involved will be those who will be responsible at the end of the 11-month period. To suggest that it is the Government's purpose to reduce the active membership of those temporary authorities to four or five people is absurd. One needs only to put it into words to realise that the hon. Gentleman is talking out of a part of his person that you would not allow me, Mr. Armstrong, to name.

Mr. Wainwright

The hon. Gentleman implied that the Liberal party might choose to boycott the interim councils. I think that he will acknowledge that I was careful to point out that, at any rate, as far as west and south Yorkshire were concerned, Liberal members did not have the slightest intention of boycotting those interim councils, distasteful though they are.

Mr. Stevens

I am happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly as he made that point in his speech. I certainly did not intend to suggest anything to the contrary.

Mr. Corbyn

Is it not an honourable part of this country's political tradition that if someone violently disagrees with a course of action, it is perfectly reasonable for him to boycott a body that is established to destroy the institutions that we seek to defend?

Mr. Stevens

That is a vulgar process that has been seen more frequently of late, and it is greatly to be deprecated. All I said was that it was not the intent ion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that those nominated by their local authorities to serve on the transitional bodies should boycott them. Indeed, if they boycott them, it will not be my right hon. Friend's fault, but their own—deleted expletive—fault.

The amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seeks to ensure that any quorum of the transitional bodies should have at least one representative from each of the constituent councils. If the Committee accepted it, there, indeed, would be a ready-made lever of destruction. One would need only to hold the members of one of the constituent councils at home to bring the whole work of the transitional authority grinding to a halt. Parliament would be very foolish to give such powers to the constituent councils that nominated members of the transitional authorities. I very much hope that we shall not be so foolish as to be ensnared by that trap.

7.45 pm

Mr. Bidwell

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alluded to the fact that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had described the Bill as a dog's breakfast. My colleagues will find it interesting that there seems to be no real constraint on Liberal Members supporting that dog's breakfast.

Mr. Corbyn

With a bit of luck, they will eat it.

Mr. Bidwell

It seems that Liberal Members at least want to sup at the devil's table, because they have enthusiastically supported the Bill being described as a shambles. We hope that it will never see the light of day, and that is will be mangled in the other place, or by the people.

I cannot say exactly what the Labour party may wish to do. We are debating paving legislation, and the way in which it is presented reminds me of trying to build a pavement before one knows the size of the road. That is the difficulty that we are faced with. As the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) observed, 11 months is a short time, but it could also be a very damaging period. As he said, those involved will have an enormous amount of work to do and will have to try to decide how to transfer many of the GLC's existing powers to the boroughs.

Although I do not know what the Labour party's position will be on this issue, it is elementary that there must be a quorum. The Government should have no hesitation in conceding that, as they may end up with a bit of a shambles in the balance of political representation that they achieve.

I should point out to my hon. Friends that I have always been a bit shy when advising members of local authorities—whether they be members of the GLC or of borough, district or parish councils—what they should do in such critical situations. However, as an old shop steward in industry, I can say that if I were back there and were a councillor, I would have nothing to do with it. I would take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Those involved may have to hold a special conference to decide whether they should participate. As I observed during an earlier intervention, the bodies cannot work unless there is full hearted participation by the Labour movement and the Labour party, which is the second biggest political party in terms of numerical support. People will have different views about participation.

Incidentally, I have known the Secretary of State for many years, and knew him even before he became a Member of Parliament. He may, of course, surprise us by conceding the logic of our point. The question of whether Labour councillors and Labour-controlled boroughs will decide to participate must lay heavily on his mind. Traditionally, the Labour party has participated in any opportunity to represent the people. However, it may be decided that there has been a historic change and that extraordinary measures must be taken to defeat, in turn, the Government's extraordinary measures which are entirely undemocratic and a thorough disgrace.

Another matter that I want to get off my chest relates to participation and the logic of having a stated quorum. Labour councillors tell me that carrots are being dangled so that they will participate. I think of the issue in relation to the road ahead and the Bill which will abolish the GLC.

Have the Government already started to encourage borough officials to make overtures to various people to see whether they are interested ultimately in serving on one of the new bodies? I understand that 70 per cent. of existing GLC expenditure relates to duties which cannot be passed to the boroughs. I do not know whether that figure is correct and it may change with the circumstances.

I understand that borough officials are saying to some Labour people, "Would you be interested in serving on a quango to keep the Labour party's end up?" Since serving on a quango will be a full-time occupation a salary must be paid. Perhaps it will be settled at the level of an MP's salary. Is there any validity in what I say, or is it gossip? Some people may be attracted to participating because of the advantage that it might bring them. Such will be the heavy nature of duties when serving on a quango that it will have to be regarded as a full-time occupation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

There is no substance in the suggestion that the Government are making such approaches. It is reasonable to assume that officers and others have read the Bill and the White Paper and may well be doing some advance planning. There is no suggestion in anything said by any Minister that we are talking of altering the remuneration or expense arrangements for councillors, whether they serve on borough councils, on the joint boards or on the interim bodies. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) finds that reassuring.

Mr. Bidwell

That is an important statement because we are talking about a period of revolutionary change.

That is why the Tory party's elder statesmen are opposed to the measure and have stated their case. At a time of such revolutionary change there will be gossip and talk about what comes next. That is why many bolder councillors will not participate. That is why there must be a stated quorum before business can be done.

Mr. Tony Banks

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said that we were snapping at the Secretary of State's heels. We have not been snapping at his heels; we have been eating him for breakfast at regular intervals. His own hon. Friends have also eaten him for breakfast on so many occasions that we have lost count. If the hon. Member for Fulham seems to think that the power that the Secretary of State is trying to assume for himself is immaterial, irrelevant, superficial and unimportant, he understands nothing about local government and how it operates.

The quorum is all-important in local government. By way of a backhanded compliment I must say that whoever at Marsham street thought of including a quorum has clearly learnt something from Machiavelli. That civil servant was anticipating what might happen when the interim councils come into play. That person obviously thought that the prospects for anyone serving on one of the new bodies would be so unattractive that they would not want to have anything to do with it. I am sure that that applies to members of my party. It is therefore necessary to alter the quorum so that business can continue. It is not a question of the Secretary of State trying to win by the quality of his argument. He will always have to use manipulation to achieve results.

Mr. Martin Stevens

Much has been said by Opposition Members about the importance of democracy. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and his hon. Friends have said that it is possible that their party will boycott the new bodies. How can they argue that that is democratic? It seems to be the opposite of democracy for people to refuse to serve on lawfully established public bodies. If Labour councillors intend to boycott the transitional bodies, what alternative has my right hon. Friend but to take the steps that he is taking in relation to the quorum?

Mr. Banks

The answer is simple. Democracy gives people the right not to do something as well as to do something. It is up to the Government to make their case and to make the prospect so attractive that there will be no question of people not wishing to participate. Let us face it—the proposition being put before the Committee is an inadequate substitute for real democracy at the ballot box. It is a substitute for elections.

It is no good the hon. Member for Fulham suggesting that people who do not want to go along with these wholly undemocratic proposals are being undemocratic by refusing to co-operate. Democracy gives us the right not to go along with profoundly undemocratic measures. If the Secretary of State had seen fit to accept amendments moved by his own hon. Friends, or if he had not introduced this bastardisation of local government, we should not have had to argue this case tonight, and we should not need to fall out over the quorum.

The quorum is all-important. It is not just a question of Labour Members refusing to co-operate. I believe that out

in the real world a number of Conservative Members of local authorities will not like what they will be asked to do and will not wish to take part in the process.

The Secretary of State must tell us how small a quorum is. Where does it begin and where does it stop? One can imagine the squalid little deals that will be done to secure local government business. I have been closely involved in local government for 14 years and what is going on in the Committee now makes me sick. I am sick to death of the way that local democracy is being butchered by the Secretary of State and the Conservative party.

8 pm

The sheer hypocrisy of the talk of democracy by Conservative Members is an insult to all decent hon. Members. Local democracy is being butchered by the Government. I do not see the point of trying to argue rationally with the Secretary of State. He is not the slightest bit interested in anything that will enhance local democracy. All he is interested in is getting this squalid little Bill through to serve his political mistress.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us just how small the quorum will be. Will it be so small that it ends up just being the Secretary of State himself? That could happen. When that happens we will have reached the dictatorship that the Bill is taking us towards.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I do not want to follow the violence of the language of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I can deal fairly briefly with the substance of the amendments moved by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because the case for the Bill and the case against the amendments was made with great clarity by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and by the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the words of the hon. Member for Southall. He said that he would have nothing to do with it. Although it is not a matter for him to decide how local Labour parties will operate in the interim period, whether in London or anywhere else, his advice would be that they should not participate at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) has rightly said that that is the situation for which the Government properly have to provide. As was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West last night, if we had chosen, as a number of my hon. Friends urged, to allow existing councils to run on, he would not serve, nor would many of his friends who are members of the GLC. Therefore, precisely the same problem would arise.

Paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 prescribes that the quorum will be one quarter of the principal council. In these circumstances, if a large number of the nominees of a distict or borough council were to decline not just to serve but not to turn up, the conduct of business by the transitional councils would be wholly frustrated.

It has been argued that the arrangements we are making for the transitional period will leave matters in the hands of bodies that have been described in a variety of derogatory phrases. Reference has been made to temporary quangos. These will not be quangos because they will be composed of elected councillors nominated by elected councils. Opposition Members say that these bodies will be inferior creatures carrying out important functions. That is the burden of their case. Yet when faced with the responsibility of carrying out these important

functions, it is suggested that nominated councillors will not serve or will not turn up, or that councils may be obliged by law to make the appointments. I find that a contradictory argument.

If these functions are important, as they allege, to the people of the area covered by the upper tier council, surely it follows that it must be important that those who are asked to perform the functions should feel a strong sense of duty. Of course, the vast majority will. I acknowledge at once that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) said that at least in Yorkshire he would envisage that no member of his party who was nominated by a council to serve on one of the interim bodies would do anything other than turn up and perform the duties to the best of his ability. I am sure that that will be the experience in the vast majority of cases. There may be a few people who will want to cut off their nose to spite their face and do a political stunt.

Mr. Corbyn

Stunt?

Mr. Jenkin

Yes, it would be a stunt; it would be a sort of static demonstration. They would do a political stunt by absenting themselves from public duties which they have been asked to do. I do not believe that the vast majority of people who participate in local government would do that. Therefore, I hope the powers in these subsections of clause 5 will never have to be used.

Mr. Corbyn

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer plainly, simply and clearly the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about why he is not prepared to allow elections to take place for all these authorities and why he is denying nearly one third of the population the right to vote for those who should administer their local services?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman sat through a good deal of the debate yesterday and, therefore, will have heard the speeches made from the Dispatch Box by myself and others on the earlier clauses. If he wants the answer to be repeated, it is simply that it would be absurd and not in accordance with precedent to hold elections in the course of a local government reorganisation for authorities that are shortly to disappear. That is clear. Even those of my hon. Friends who feel that we may have made the wrong choice of how to deal with the matter acknowledge that.

We have passed that and have reached the point where we are dealing with the machinery for the transitional councils. Many statements have been made in public in the press and on radio and television by councillors who have indicated that if they were called upon to serve they would not wish to do so. The hon. Member for South Shields used the word Machiavellian. That is perhaps unkind. The draftsman of the Bill has with foresight included a provision to ensure that the business of the transitional councils shall be carried on even if enough of the members refuse to serve or to turn up to ensure that there is not a statutory quorum under paragraph 6 of schedule 12 of the 1972 Act.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose——

Mr. Jenkin

May I develop the argument because it is important that the Committee should follow this?

The amendment suggests that the quorum should be 25 per cent. Given the threat that has been amply reinforced by the hon. Member for Southall, by the hon. Member for

Newham, North-West and by the hon. Member for Islington, North, all of whom have indicated that there is at least a possiblity that councillors will not turn up, the business of the interim councillors could be completely frustrated. No business could be transacted. The Government have taken the view that provision should be made to protect the public from that sort of folly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was right when he said that the blame would lie fairly and squarely upon those who were boycotting the councils. What we are inviting the Committee to do in these paragraphs is to give the Government power to deal with this. I shall come to the point about amendment No. 57 in a moment. Subject to parliamentary safeguards, we think that the Government should have power to reduce the quorum so that the business may continue to be transacted.

Dr. David Clark

The Secretary of State is not confident of obtaining 25 per cent. support among councillors. As each council will include a number of Conservative members, that shows a lack of confidence in the legislation.

I wish to raise a serious point. The role of a Committee is to attempt to clarify the position. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it may be necessary to compel councillors by law to attend meetings. In south Yorkshire, opposition councillors will probably comprise less than one fifth of the new interim bodies. I emphasise that no decision has been taken yet, but if those Labour councillors decided not to take their place on the interim body, what would the Minister's approach be and on how small a quorum would he insist? Would he reduce the number to, say, six out of 60 to make it work?

Mr. Jenkin

If a majority of councillors refuse to participate and to operate legislation passed by the House, and given the necessity that the business of the transitional council must be carried on and that the decisions requiring affirmative support must be made, it would be necessary to lay an order to reduce the quorum to a level that would allow those who were prepared to participate to carry on the business.

Mr. Bidwell

One.

Mr. Jenkin

In theory, it could be as low as one, but in practice it would be a substantially higher figure. Through the negative resolution procedure provided in the Bill, the House can demand that the Government justify their decision on a certain figure. I emphasise that those refusing to serve would be deliberately setting out to frustrate legislation passed by the House. I do not believe that more than a tiny minority would wish to exercise their protest by making public affairs unworkable.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that subsections (2) and (5) mean that councils have a duty, enforceable by law — we heard that phrase earlier—to ensure that, for the time being, the balance of parties prevailing must, as far as practical, be reflected? If one party boycotted the body, it would be possible without either legislation or order for those councils to be represented by members of other parties. We do not need to go to court or to come to the House to get county councils to carry out their business. We can use the quorum rules.

Mr. Jenkin

As we discussed earlier, when a council makes its nominations it must have regard to the party balance. It is the duty of a council to nominate and, having been nominated, if councillors refuse to serve the conduct of business could be frustrated. The Government have received signs from a number of people, reinforced by no fewer than three Opposition Members, that such a threat has substance. Therefore, we would have been seriously failing in our duty if we did not include in the Bill a measure that would enable the Committee to approve arrangements to continue the conduct of business. I recommend the Committee to reject those amendments.

The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about amendment No. 29, which would provide for a minimum of one person to be present from each constituent council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham rightly said, that would give each and every constituent council an absolute veto on the conduct of business by the interim transitional council. That could not conceivably be right. The hon. Gentleman asked how the interests of the residents of the London borough of Tower Hamlets could be safeguarded unless we were sure that a quorum consisted of at least one representative from that borough. That is exactly the position with any council in relation to any ward. A councillor does not have to be present, but if he wishes to protect the interests of those he represents he should be present, ready to speak and to vote.

If, as a matter of political protest, that person decides to stay away, it does not lie in his mouth to complain that the interests of his constituents are being neglected. If he stays away as a political stunt, he lays himself open, quite rightly, to the severest condemnation by those whose interests he was supposed to represent on the council.

Mr. Tony Banks

The right hon. Gentleman is now getting round to the real argument. The way in which such a councillor or councillors would receive their retribution from the people that they were supposed to represent would be through the ballot box, because they would not be voted in again. Because the elections are being removed, the right hon. Gentleman has superimposed himself where the ballot box used to be. He will visit retribution on the councillors by reducing the quorum. He now sees himself as a walking ballot box.

Mr. Jenkin

Of course, the hon. Gentleman serves as a member of the GLC, and he may not have too much time for the London boroughs. I am talking about councillors who have been elected to London boroughs and who will be nominated to serve, for instance, on the GLC. If those councillors are nominated but refuse to serve, they will let down their electorate. They know that retribution would usually be taken at the next election. In the meantime, the business of the transitional council must continue. There is no alternative but to provide the Secretary of State with the power to reduce the quorum to ensure that such action cannot frustrate the conduct of business.

Mr. Wainwright

Rather than have the unenviable power to impose derisory quotas for those huge units of government, did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibility of dealing with a boycott by requiring councils to make a fresh nomination?

Mr. Jenkin

We considered that, but we are faced with only an 11-months transitional period. If a council wants its nominee to attend the body and vote, and he refuses to do so, under the Bill it has the right to substitute another person. If we left the matter merely on the basis of a legal duty enforceable in the courts, that would be a long process. The simple step for such a short transitional period is to ensure that the body continues with its business with a smaller quorum.

I come to the question whether this should be governed by the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. We have the affirmative resolution procedure for the repeal order under clause 1 because, as we discussed yesterday, it contains provision for altering Acts of Parliament; and until the circumstances arise, one cannot know what they are and it seems proper to have the additional safeguard of the affirmative procedure.

This is an order which would implement a power which, by definition, would recently have been given to the Government by an Act of Parliament. In those circumstances, the negative procedure is appropriate. It would add to the time problems and complications if the position were otherwise. An order subject to the negative procedure takes effect at once. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, time is required because what is proposed cannot happen until the affirmative resolution has been passed. That might lead to delay and, therefore, delay in the conduct of the business of the upper tier authority. For practical reasons, and on the relative merits of the order-making power, we are right to have the negative order procedure.

Mr. Wainwright

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the emphasis that he is placing on the need for speed in summarily despatching these matters is putting us more in the situation of Iran than the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman is lapsing into unaccustomed hyperbole.

Mr. Wainwright

Because of unaccustomed acts by the Government.

Mr. Jenkin

The measures that we have taken in clause 5 to make sure that the conduct of the business can be carried on and to provide a safeguard against those who might, as a matter of political protest, refuse to participate are sensible and reasonable. The amendment would frustrate that intention, and I cannot commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 258.

Division No. 291] [8.21 pm
AYES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Buchan, Norman
Ashton, Joe Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Campbell-Savours, Dale
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Carter-Jones, Lewis
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Barnett, Guy Clarke, Thomas
Barron, Kevin Clay, Robert
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Clwyd, Ms Ann
Bell, Stuart Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Benn, Tony Cohen, Harry
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Conlan, Bernard
Bermingham, Gerald Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Bidwell, Sydney Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Blair, Anthony Corbett, Robin
Boyes, Roland Corbyn, Jeremy
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cowans, Harry
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Craigen, J. M.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cunningham, Dr John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Marek, Dr John
Deakins, Eric Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dewar, Donald Martin, Michael
Dormand, Jack Maxton, John
Douglas, Dick Maynard, Miss Joan
Dubs, Alfred Meacher, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P. Meadowcroft, Michael
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Michie, William
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Mikardo, Ian
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Fisher, Mark Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Flannery, Martin O'Brien, William
Forrester, John Park, George
Foster, Derek Parry, Robert
Foulkes, George Patchett, Terry
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Pendry, Tom
George, Bruce Pike, Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Prescott, John
Godman, Dr Norman Randall, Stuart
Golding, John Redmond, M.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Richardson, Ms Jo
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Robertson, George
Home Robertson, John Rooker, J. W.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Hoyle, Douglas Rowlands, Ted
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Janner, Hon Greville Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
John, Brynmor Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Skinner, Dennis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Snape, Peter
Kirkwood, Archibald Stott, Roger
Lamond, James Straw, Jack
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Litherland, Robert Torney, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Wainwright, R.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Loyden, Edward Wareing, Robert
McCartney, Hugh Weetch, Ken
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Williams, Rt Hon A.
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Winnick, David
McKelvey, William
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Tellers for the Ayes:
McNamara, Kevin Mr. James Hamilton and
McTaggart, Robert Mr. Don Dixon
Madden, Max
NOES
Adley, Robert Bryan, Sir Paul
Aitken, Jonathan Buck, Sir Antony
Alexander, Richard Bulmer, Esmond
Amess, David Butcher, John
Arnold, Tom Butterfill, John
Aspinwall, Jack Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Carttiss, Michael
Bellingham, Henry Cash, William
Bendall, Vivian Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Berry, Sir Anthony Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Best, Keith Churchill, W. S.
Bevan, David Gilroy Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Body, Richard Clegg, Sir Walter
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Cockeram, Eric
Boscawen, Hon Robert Colvin, Michael
Bottomley, Peter Coombs, Simon
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Cope, John
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) Corrie, John
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Couchman, James
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Cranborne, Viscount
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Currie, Mrs Edwina
Brinton, Tim Dorrell, Stephen
Brooke, Hon Peter Dover, Den
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Browne, John Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Bruinvels, Peter Eggar, Tim
Evennett, David Madel, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald Major, John
Fallon, Michael Malins, Humfrey
Farr, John Maples, John
Favell, Anthony Marlow, Antony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fookes, Miss Janet Mates, Michael
Forman, Nigel Mather, Carol
Forth, Eric Maude, Hon Francis
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fox, Marcus Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Franks, Cecil Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Freeman, Roger Merchant, Piers
Gale, Roger Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Galley, Roy Mills, lain (Meriden)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Moate, Roger
Goodhart, Sir Philip Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Goodlad, Alastair Montgomery, Fergus
Gow, Ian Moore, John
Gregory, Conal Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Needham, Richard
Grist, Ian Nelson, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Newton, Tony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Nicholls, Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy Norris, Steven
Hannam, John Onslow, Cranley
Hargreaves, Kenneth Oppenheim, Philip
Harris, David Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Harvey, Robert Ottaway, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Parris, Matthew
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hawksley, Warren Patten, John (Oxford)
Hayes, J. Pattie, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney Pawsey, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Heddle, John Porter, Barry
Hickmet, Richard Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Hind, Kenneth Powell, William (Corby)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Powley, John
Hooson, Tom Price, Sir David
Hordern, Peter Proctor, K. Harvey
Howard, Michael Raffan, Keith
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Rhodes James, Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hunter, Andrew Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Irving, Charles Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Jackson, Robert Roe, Mrs Marion
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Rost, Peter
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Rowe, Andrew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Ryder, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Sackville, Hon Thomas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Key, Robert Sayeed, Jonathan
Kilfedder, James A. Scott, Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Knowles, Michael Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lamont, Norman Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Latham, Michael Shersby, Michael
Lawler, Geoffrey Silvester, Fred
Lawrence, Ivan Sims, Roger
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Skeet, T. H. H.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Soames, Hon Nicholas
Lightbown, David Speller, Tony
Lilley, Peter Spencer, Derek
Lord, Michael Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lyell, Nicholas Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Macfarlane, Neil Squire, Robin
MacGregor, John Stanbrook, Ivor
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Stanley, John
Maclean, David John Stern, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Waddington, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Waldegrave, Hon William
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Walden, George
Stokes, John Waller, Gary
Stradling Thomas, J. Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
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
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Wiggin, Jerry
Thornton, Malcolm Wolfson, Mark
Thurnham, Peter Wood, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington) Woodcock, Michael
Tracey, Richard Yeo, Tim
Trippier, David Young, Sir George (Acton)
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian Tellers for the Noes:
van Straubenzee, Sir W. Mr. Donald Thompson and
Vaughan, Sir Gerard Mr. Michael Neubert.
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 57, in clause 5, page 5, line 13, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 14 and insert

`and no order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Wainwright.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 251.

Division No. 292] [8.34pm
AYES
Anderson, Donald Dixon, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Dormand, Jack
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Douglas, Dick
Ashton, Joe Dubs, Alfred
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Duffy, A. E. P.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Evans, John (St. Helens)
Barnett, Guy Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Barron, Kevin Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Fisher, Mark
Bell, Stuart Flannery, Martin
Benn, Tony Forrester, John
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Foster, Derek
Bermingham, Gerald Foulkes, George
Bidwell, Sydney Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Blair, Anthony George, Bruce
Boyes, Roland Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bray, Dr Jeremy Godman, Dr Norman
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Golding, John
Brown, Hugh D.(Provan) Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Buchan, Norman Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Home Robertson, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hoyle, Douglas
Clarke, Thomas Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Clay, Robert Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clwyd, Ms Ann Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Janner, Hon Greville
Cohen, Harry John, Brynmor
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Lamond, James
Corbett, Robin Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Corbyn, Jeremy Litherland, Robert
Cowans, Harry Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Craigen, J. M. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Dr John Loyden, Edward
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) McCartney, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Deakins, Eric McKay, Allen
Dewar, Donald McKelvey, William
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
McNamara, Kevin Robertson, George
McTaggart, Robert Rooker, J. W.
Madden, Max Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Marek, Dr John Rowlands, Ted
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Martin, Michael Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Maxton, John Short, Ms Clare(Ladywood)
Maynard, Miss Joan Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Meacher, Michael Skinner, Dennis
Michie, William Snape, Peter
Mikardo, Ian Stott, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Straw, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Torney, Tom
O'Brien, William Wainwright, R.
Park, George Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Parry, Robert Wareing, Robert
Patchett, Terry Weetch, Ken
Pendry, Tom Williams, Rt Hon A.
Pike, Peter Winnick, David
Prescott, John
Randall, Stuart Tellers for the Ayes:
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and
Richardson, Ms Jo Mr. Archy Kirkwood
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Dunn, Robert
Alexander, Richard Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Eggar, Tim
Amess, David Evennett, David
Arnold, Tom Eyre, Sir Reginald
Aspinwall, Jack Fallon, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Farr, John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Favell, Anthony
Bellingham, Henry Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Bendall, Vivian Fookes, Miss Janet
Berry, Sir Anthony Forman, Nigel
Best, Keith Forth, Eric
Bevan, David Gilroy Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Biffen, Rt Hon John Fox, Marcus
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Franks, Cecil
Body, Richard Freeman, Roger
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Gale, Roger
Boscawen, Hon Robert Galley, Roy
Bottomley, Peter Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Glyn, Dr Alan
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'tp.'n) Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Goodlad, Alastair
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Gow, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Gregory, Conal
Brinton, Tim Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)
Brooke, Hon Peter Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Grist, Ian
Browne, John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bruinvels, Peter Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bryan, Sir Paul Hanley, Jeremy
Buck, Sir Antony Hannam, John
Bulmer, Esmond Hargreaves, Kenneth
Butcher, John Harris, David
Butterfill, John Harvey, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Carttiss, Michael Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Cash, William Hawksley, Warren
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Hayes, J.
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hayhoe, Barney
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Heathcoat-Amory, David
Clegg, Sir Walter Heddle, John
Cockeram, Eric Hind, Kenneth
Colvin, Michael Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Coombs, Simon Hooson, Tom
Cope, John Howard, Michael
Corrie, John Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Couchman, James Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Cranborne, Viscount Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina Hunt, David (Wirral)
Dorrell, Stephen Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Dover, Den Hunter, Andrew
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Jackson, Robert Roberts, Wyn (Convey)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Robinson, Mark (N'oon' W)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Roe, Mrs Marion
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Rost, Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Rowe, Andrew
Key, Robert Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Kilfedder, James A. Ryder, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Sackville, Hon Thomas
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Knowles, Michael Sayeed, Jonathan
Lamont, Norman Scott, Nicholas
Latham, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lawler, Geoffrey Shelton, William (Streatharm)
Lawrence, Ivan Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Shersby, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Silvester, Fred
Lightbown, David Sims, Roger
Lilley, Peter Skeet, T. H. H.
Lord, Michael Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
LyelI, Nicholas Soames, Hon Nicholas
Macfarlane, Neil Speller, Tony
MacGregor, John Spencer, Derek
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Maclean, David John Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Madel, David Squire, Robin
Major, John Stanbrook, Ivor
Malins, Humfrey Stanley, John
Maples, John Stern, Michael
Marlow, Antony Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mates, Michael Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mather, Carol Stewart, Ian (N Hertcdshire)
Maude, Hon Francis Stokes, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stradling Thomas, J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Sumberg, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Merchant, Piers Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Temple-Morris, Peter
Mills, lain (Meriden) Terlezki, Stefan
Mitchell, David (NW Hants) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Montgomery, Fergus Thornton, Malcolm
Moore, John Thurnham, Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Needham, Richard Tracey, Richard
Nelson, Anthony Trippier, David
Newton, Tony Trotter, Neville
Nicholls, Patrick Twinn, Dr Ian
Norris, Steven van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Onslow, Cranley Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Oppenheim, Philip Viggers, Peter
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Waddington, David
Ottaway, Richard Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Waldegrave, Hon William
Parris, Matthew Walden, George
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Waller, Gary
Patten, John (Oxford) Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Pattie, Geoffrey Watson, John
Pawsey, James Watts, John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Wells, John (Maidstone)
Porter, Barry Wheeler, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) Whitfield, John
Powell, William (Corby) Wiggin, Jerry
Powley, John Wolfson, Mark
Price, Sir David Wood, Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey Woodcock, Michael
Raffan, Keith Yeo, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Renton, Tim Tellers for the Noes:
Rhodes James, Robert Mr. Donald Thompson and
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Michael Neubert.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to