§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 10, at beginning insert—
'(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) below,'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 85, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) The provisions of this section and of sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of this Act shall not have effect until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has reported to Parliament on the arrangements he proposes to ensure that the police, fire and civil emergency planning functions in each metropolitan county or Greater London as the case may be are discharged no less economically, efficiently and effectively under the provisions of this Part of this Act.'.No. 86, in clause 23, page 16, line 16, after '(1)', insert'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'No. 87, in clause 24, page 17, line 3, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'No. 88, in clause 25, page 17, line 41, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'No. 89, in clause 26, page 18, line 9, after '(1)' insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'.No. 90, in clause 41, page 25, line 4, after '(1)', insert
'subject to the provisions of subsection (2A) below,'.No. 117, in clause 41, page 25, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 91, in clause 41, page 25, line 24, after '(2)', insert
'subject to the provisions of subsection (2A) below,'.697 No. 118, in clause 41, page 25, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
Government amendment No. 17 and the amendments thereto: (a), to leave out "police."
(c), at end, add—
'(4) No order under this section shall alter the boundaries of a Metropolitan Police Force unless H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary has recommended that such a change be made; and the Chief Constables, Police Authorities and Police Federations of the forces affected have been given an opportunity to comment.'.No. 92, in clause 41, page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) No order shall be made under subsections (1) and (2) of this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report, including an independent assessment, of the arrangements to be made, following the making of such an order, to ensure the more effective discharge of the functions that would otherwise continue to be exercisable by a joint authority constituted by this Part of this Act.'.
§ Mr. SoleyWe seek to make the Government lay a report before Parliament to ensure that the police, fire and emergency services are efficiently run before the changes are brought about. We have debated this matter in Committee because the Opposition, and many people outside the House, are far from satisfied that the Government have given sufficient thought to the problems that they are creating in the metropolitan counties and for fire and emergency services in the GLC area.
The Government are centralising powers. The Bill is ill thought out. The Government claim that they are trying to pass powers to local bodies, but the evidence is that they are centralising, and taking powers from local communities. The joint boards will result in individuals in local authority areas facing difficulties in making effective representations to their elected representatives. We are talking not about localising but about centralising decision making and creating a semi-quango body. I believe that most of us feel that such a system is abhorrent to the idea of British local democracy. Wherever there is a case for setting up quangos, it is certainly not a case in terms of local democracy.
The Government claim that the measures will save money. That is one of the most interesting of the Government's arguments. The services concerned take up a great deal of the finances of the metropolitan counties. The Government claim that they will cut public expenditure by introducing these boards. That bizarre argument did not stand up to analysis in Committee. The Conservative party took power on the manifesto belief that if public expenditure were cut, the Government could regenerate the economy. When the Government discovered that they could not cut public expenditure because of increasing unemployment, they in effect said to local authorities, "Don't do as we do—do as we tell you." They imposed cuts on local authorities to try to cut public expenditure. This terrible hotch-potch of measures is unlikely to save money.
6.15 pm
This is happening when the Government are very much on the defensive about law and order. In 1979 and 1983, the Conservative party claimed that it was the great law and order party. What have we had? There has been more disorder on our streets than under any other Government in recent history and a dramatic rise in the crime rate. At the same time, the Government have cut funds, as I said during Question Time today, to all the local authorities that are trying to spend money on the sensible public 698 services that prevent crime—caretakers, park keepers, toilet attendants, rehabilitation and renovation of council houses and grants to private owner-occupiers who need to do up their houses to prevent burglaries. The Government are not really interested in crime prevention.
When I even have The Standard on my side, pointing out that people are more afraid under this Government than they were before, I know that the Government are rattled about the effects of their economic policies, which are undermining the social fabric and doing so much to bring about the crisis in law and order.
The Government have had an opportunity to do something sensible to examine the way in which we control the police force. The system has grown up hotch-potch over the years. Odd situations have arisen, for historical reasons. Magistrates sit on police boards outside London because, last century, it was argued that those areas did not have the political experience of the urban areas and that magistrates were required to sit on those boards before the areas came under the control of elected politicians. One hundred years is a long time to be politicised, even for Government Members.
The Government have had an opportunity to do something about London. We are looking for evidence that all the services will be provided properly. The other day, The Standard—which is not by any means a Labour paper —ran headlines saying that Scotland Yard had bungled the siege at Philbeach gardens. Contrary to two televison news reports, I did not criticise the police at all. I criticise the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmonds)I am glad to hear it.
§ Mr. SoleyI did not criticise the police at all. I said that, if Mr. Baigrie's behaviour had changed significantly from the previous two days, the actions of the police might well have been justified. If his behaviour had not changed, an explanation was needed as to why the police decided to act as they did. Who is the police authority for London? None other than the Home Secretary. What does the Home Secretary do when asked about the incident by myself and the media generally? He says nothing. He is surprised when the press come out with headlines saying that Scotland Yard bungled it. Conservative, not Labour, newspapers have said that. This shows the mess involving law and order and control of the police in which the Government are involved.
If we had had proper accountability, as the Opposition would like—whether via the Home Secretary or, as I would prefer, through an elected authority — those questions would have been answered and the fears expressed by the media and other individuals could have been allayed, without criticism being thrown around in the way it was.
§ Mr. Giles ShawOn the Baigrie incident, I want the House to be clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when asked about the matter, gave his opinion firmly in total support of the action of the Metropolitan police.
§ Mr. SoleyI wish the Minister would tell us something we do not know. Of course we know that. The people and the press were asking why the police had changed their tactics. That was a perfectly reasonable question. It was not a criticism. The senior police officer in charge said that 699 he would wait as long as necessary. Two days later the police went in. On Friday, on breakfast television, I said that the man's behaviour might well have deteriorated and that that would explain and justify the actions of the police. Those were my words. It is no use the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) looking puzzled. I was very clear about that. The Home Secretary afterwards ducked out of his responsibility as the police authority for London and refused to give an explanation. The result was that the senior police officer in charge had to issue a press release. That was a totally wrong way of dealing with the matter.
Most of these questions affect the police and the fire and emergency services of the metropolitan counties. There is a clear conflict between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. Lord Whitelaw had this to say:
I think it is going to be a difficult problem getting the Police Authorities right after the Metropolitan Counties are over. I think this is going to be difficult. I always thought that was one of the difficulties of doing this. It is, and I don't think you'd find anyone in the Home Office who doesn't accept that.Even the Minister of State seems to accept it.
I can pray in aid not just The Standard but the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. Anderton, who said:
Serious disruption of the major metropolitan forces in this country at perhaps the most sensitive period in police history in modern times, makes no kind of sense at all.It is very unusual for me to pray in aid the chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is a first offence and I shall probably never do it again, but let me make the best of it while I can. Other chief constables have registered their doubts.Indeed, it is hard to find anybody who is in favour. In Committee the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said about savings:
I doubt whether any would come from the fire services in relation to the money spent on manpower, equipment and services." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 February 1985; c. 1417.]One week later, his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said:Let me also make it clear that we see scope for savings in the fire service, and we shall use the powers in clauses 64 and 80 to secure those savings." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 February 1985; c. 1569.]So what savings do the Government expect to make? They want to save money on administration, but at best the savings will be peanuts. However, the Minister for Local Government went on to say that they needed controls to prevent
a great explosion of the bureaucratic and organisation sides of the fire and police services after abolition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 February 1985; c. 1569.]He is worried about the fact that the joint boards will be an administrative nightmare and will not result in public expenditure reductions. So there is a clash between the two Ministers.However, it would be wrong of me to imply that the hon. Member for Pudsey is guilty of consistency, for he had this to say about savings:
It is not our intention to secure savings in the number of police officers. It is hoped—no more than that"—the Minister is a cautious man—that there may be a significant administrative saving in some authorities." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 February 1985; c. 1403.]He had stated earlier: 700The amount currently falling on metropolitan counties for administrative services with the police is very low — 10 per cent. or less of police expenditure—and there are about 3,000 administrators within the system of the metropolitan counties who are overseeing the police authority. Therefore, the figure does not include a very large number in the seven authorities concerned nor is it a very high sum in the police authorities' budgets. Therefore, while savings may be possible, they will not be large." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G. 14 February 1985; c. 1387.]Indeed they will not be large. Coopers and Lybrand, among others, suggest that these services will cost more.There is not only inconsistency between Government Departments but inconsistency in the Ministers' own contributions in Committee. It is yet another example of the way the Government talk about law and order and about the needs of the police, fire and emergency services, but all their actions are counter-productive when it comes to the efficient running of these services. That is why this amendment ought to be adopted. It is no wonder that Lord Whitelaw was worried. He had a right to be worried.
The joint boards will be responsible for three of the most important local services that are paid for by the metropolitan counties. Not only will the joint boards be undemocratic, but they will encourage a clash of interests. If an individual goes to a councillor and says that he wants to put a question to the fire board, the police board or another board, that councillor, if he is not on the board in question, will have to go to another councillor who is on the board, or he will have to refer the individual to that councillor.
What will happen if there is a clash of interests either between the two authorities or between the two councillors? They will be unable to work out their differences in a committee of which they are both members. Nor will it be possible for other councillors automatically to question the chief fire officer, the chief police officer or the councillor concerned. So there will be clashes of interest between local authorities and within local authorities. All this is being done in the belief that vitality will be restored to local democracy when in fact it is being undermined.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)Would this be any different from a constituent going to a councillor on a housing matter? If that councillor is not on the housing committee, he has to talk to another councillor who sits on that committee. I do not believe that there is any difference.
§ Mr. SoleyI would not expect it of the hon. Member, because he has not thought about it very much. If he had thought about it he would know that the councillor can go and see the chief officer and that he can also take up the matter on the floor of the council. That will not be possible with a joint board, or anything remotely like it. The members of those boards will not be elected, so if the hon. Member thinks about it he will realise that what he has said is nonsense. After three years, local authorities will be able to form their own police auhorities, if they wish to do so.
However, it was reported in The Times on 30 July 1984 that when the Home Secretary was approached by worried Members of Parliament he told them not to worry because the powers that would allow the break-up of the police authorities in the metropolitan counties will never be used. Although those powers are included in the Bill the Home Secretary is telling worried Back Benchers that they will 701 never be used. It is nonsense. I have never seen such a mess between two Departments, both of which dislike each other for going ahead with the Bill. We all know that the Home Office does not want the Bill but that it is stuck on this hook because the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to push the Bill through with the backing of the Prime Minister. It is an incredible mess. It is undemocratic, expensive, inefficient and contradictory, yet we are dealing with services covering the police, fire and civil and natural disasters.
Speaking of natural disasters, I should like to know why the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here to answer the question and tell us where, having brought about this disaster, he thinks the savings will come from. If the Minister of State, Home Office, and the Minister for Local Government cannot agree, a Cabinet Minister ought to be here to tell us what it is all about. Therefore I strongly urge the House to vote for the Opposition amendment.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)I wish to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and I declare my interest, which is well known to the House, in the police service. I put down these amendments in the general context of the police service having gone through an exceedingly difficult period during the past few years. Above all, it needs stability and the support of this House. In my view, such now are the levels of clime and violence in our country that the Government would do well to address those problems rather than the future boundaries of the metropolitan police forces. Their priority is in the wrong place.
Secondly, the police service is now confronted with a whole series of changes, most of them, I think, desirable: for instance, the independent prosecution service that is soon to come into being and the videotaping of interrogations.
§ Mr. Giles ShawThe taping of interrogations.
§ Mr. GriffithsYes, taping. Perhaps I am a year or so ahead of my hon. Friend the Minister. Those and many other changes arise from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including the new procedures for complaints, discipline, custody officers, powers, and so on. In those circumstances, I am sure that I will have the full support of all quarters of the House in saying that stability is what the police service needs above all else.
6.30 pm
Therefore, it came as a surprise to me that the Government should have felt compelled in the Bill to give the Secretary of State power to dismantle any of the metropolitan police forces outside London whenever he wants to do so. I understand that previous police legislation has always given the Secretary of State power to alter police boundaries. There is nothing new about that. But, at a time when the police service is going through this enormous series of changes, I am surprised that it should be confronted by the Government with the possibility that the force boundaries in all the big metropolitan forces could be up for grabs.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)The hon. Gentleman said that that power is always included in police legislation. Given his relationship with the Police Federation, can the hon. Gentleman say why the Government want the powers in this legislation when they are already in the Police Act 1964? That is the way in 702 which amalgamations and changes have taken place before. Frankly, I do not understand it, but the hon. Gentleman may well have sorted it out.
§ Mr. GriffithsI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with enormous authority on these matters. I should have thought, and my advice is, that the power is unnecessary, but we all know that the Government have their own legal advice and parliamentary draftsmen. It may be that there is some reason for its inclusion. We shall be interested to hear from the Minister on that.
My objections can be put fairly simply. Aware as I am that several of my hon. Friends want to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be briefer than perhaps I should be. First, we should be turning the clock back if we were to open the door to the breaking up of the metropolitan forces. It is not 11 years—the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will remember this—since we were amalgamating the small force areas, and that has not been an easy task. Bringing together the previous city force areas into the new metropolitan counties has been difficult in all sorts of practical ways —putting together the command systems, headquarters, computers, arrangements for police housing and promotion, and so on. But on the whole the metropolitan police forces have been a success. Their performance over the past year is testimony to that. Therefore, it is wrong now to open the door, which is all that the clause does, to the confusion that there was before.
My second objection to the clause is that, as soon as it is passed, it will usher in a period of confusion, scene shifting and job hunting within the metropolitan police force areas. It is impossible to imagine that the great cities of Birmingham, Liverpool or Sheffield, once they have back all the other powers that the Bill provides to them — I confess that I am a supporter of that — will not demand, if they can, control of their police forces. Indeed, there is already some evidence from Birmingham that the city fathers, backed by a number of people, possibly including even the former chief officer, will start to demand the return of control over the Birmingham force.
Once that happens, hon. Members, whether Labour or Conservative, will feel bound to support their local authorities in demanding that the large metropolitan forces shall be broken up and that control shall return to the cities. So there can be no doubt that, once the Bill is passed, it will usher in a period of uncertainty and of grabs for jobs.
The third and perhaps the strongest objection that I have is an operational one. It simply does not make sense in contemporary policing terms to have two, three, or possibly even four, police forces in the same bricks and mortar area. Policing today has to be done over a fairly large area. Matters such as training, policy, equipment, and the general attitudes of the police and their chief officers towards the many problems that they confront, must be handled within the same conurbations on a broadly consistent and coherent basis.
Once the metropolitan forces are broken up into three or four, as they were before, there will inevitably be overlaps and differences; some chief officers will take one view and others another. Equipment arrangements may be different and there will be different police authorities, perhaps under different political control, within the same 703 bricks and mortar area. That is a recipe not for better policing but for worse policing, and it is a retrospective move at present.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister, whose judgment in these matters he knows I respect, one or two examples. If there were to be a return to the old arrangements in south Yorkshire whereby Sheffield, and possibly Rotherham, had their own force, the police training school would be in one district and the headquarters in another. In the west midlands, assuming we went back to a Birmingham force, the command and control computer would be in one district and the main headquarters functions in another. They would all have to be reshuffled. In Northumbria the computer unit and training school would be in one district and the stores and equipment in another. So it goes on.
One of the advantages of the large metropolitan forces is that they can patrol motorways in their areas consistently. If we went back to the old arrangements, for example in the Greater Manchester area, the old Salford force would be responsible for about 19.5 miles of the M62, what was Rochdale for 20.7 miles and Bury for 8.4 miles. It makes no sense to have the M62 separately patrolled in the same conurbation by three forces. Similarly, three jurisdictions would cover the M63 in that area.
I could easily quote similar figures that have been provided to me by the Police Federation. The M1 in south Yorkshire would pass through three different jurisdictions, as would the M18. In the west midlands, in one remarkable case, we would probably find that the M6 was within the jurisdiction of no fewer than five different police authorities as a result of the break-up of the west midlands force area.
I am bound to quote, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) did, the chief constable of Manchester. I sometimes have a different view of life from Mr. Anderton, but I think that he put it well when he said:
I cannot understand why this clause is in the Bill. Serious disruption of the major metropolitan forces in this country at perhaps the most sensitive period in police history in modern times makes no sense.Who is against this arrangement? All branches of the police service are against it. Superintendents are against it. The chief officers, with possibly one exception, are against it, and possibly one or two of those who are looking upwards can see that there would be more chief officer jobs. The federation is strongly against it and it is right to say that most Members, certainly of the Committee, and I imagine of the House, will have received a well-argued document from the federation which makes clear its objections to the clause.
It would be wrong to quote it in full, but the Police Federation's conclusion is that such an arrangement would be a retrograde step that would lead to more inefficiency, and should not be carried through on any kind of operational grounds. Those against the proposal include the police and a Select Committee. Indeed, a Select Committee considered the amalgamations as long ago as the mid-1960s, and the metropolitan forces were put together on the basis of its recommendations. We are now opening the door — my hon. Friend the Minister will know why I keep using that phrase—to their possible break-up.
704 At that time, the Select Committee said that it believed that many economies would result from the single headquarters that would emerge in the new force areas. It said that there would be benefits in beat and patrol work, in motor patrols, in economies of scale and in equipment. Thus, the police and the Select Committee were against that suggestion.
Who is in favour? [Interruption.] It is not for me to judge the views of my colleagues. I speak only for myself, but those in favour include several hundred ambitious local councillors who would like to get their hands on the police service. This is neither the time nor the place to go into the politics of the issue. I wish that we were debating accountability and the powers of police authorities, but we are not. However, those in favour include quite a few ambitious local councillors who would like to get their hands on the police. That is my central point.
I am anxious to ensure that the police are kept out of politics and that politics is kept out of policing. The danger is that, if we open the door, we shall find many local councillors demanding back control of their police, and there will be a tendency to start throwing stones at the existing metropolitan police forces in order to justify breaking them up and returning them to what will be described as "local control". The metropolitan forces are criticised enough as it is. If the clause is accepted as it stands, interest will be generated at local council level in criticising the metropolitan forces so that their return to local control can be justified.
On those grounds, I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the position. I greatly welcome the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given, that he does not intend to take advantage of the powers in the Bill. I know that he plans to fulfil that undertaking to the letter, because he knows probably better than I do that such a provision would not make operational sense. My hon. Friend the Minister was good enough, in Committee, to quote a letter written to me by him or by my right hon. Friend in which those undertakings were set out in some detail.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt tell the House that there is nothing to worry about, because the Government do not intend to use the powers in the Bill. But if he does not want to use them, I am not sure why they are there. In any case, when the House passes legislation, it cannot simply have regard to the intentions or statements of Ministers. It must have regard to the powers that will exist for future Ministers in future circumstances. I do not wish to make any sort of political point—I am trying to be as objective as possible—but undertakings given by any Home Secretary are not sufficient for the police service. The police service cannot operate just on the basis of one Government's undertaking. It must have consistent policies over a long period of time. The police service deserves better of the Government, and I ask them to think again.
§ Mr. Terry Fields (Liverpool, Broadgreen)I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 85 to clause 22, with particular reference to the fire service. As someone who spent 26 years in the fire service before becoming a Member of Parliament—20 years of which were spent being active in the Fire Brigades Union—I think that I speak with some authority. I shall concentrate on the part of the amendment that refers to functions being discharged 705
no less economically, efficiently and effectively.The Government have not blundered into the present situation, nor does their planning have anything to do with democracy, "economy", "efficiency" or "effectiveness". There fore, they must be aware of all the implications of their undemocratic and philistine actions. The implications for the fire service, the jobs of firemen and the service given to the community are, to my mind, one of the most serious and criminal aspects of this legislation, and need exposing.
I have no illusions, and those outside Parliament should not have any illusions, that the so-called "debate" on this and other clauses is anything other than a charade. Conservative Members will faithfully troop through the Government Lobby like sheep, despite the implications that the Labour party's amendment seeks to avoid. For working people, the attack on those services, which is implicit in the Government's proposals, has to be explained, and needs to be set against statements made by the Home Secretary to the chief fire officers' conference last year, and against the review of standards of fire cover, as well as current surveys of risk categories.
At the chief fire officers' conference last year, the Home Secretary referred to the fire service having to become more cost-effective and spoke of it
not being exempt from the rigorous financial scrutiny which has to be applied to all Local Authority services".Moreover, the role of the fire service inspectorate is to be changed in order to allow it to comment on what it sees as the "over-provision" of fire cover, when it makes its annual inspection. That is a departure from its previous role.After the Brighton bombing, the Home Secretary said:
Before the dust of the explosion had settled, the Fire Service had begun its task of rescuing the survivors and searching for the dead.To the Fire Brigades Union, it is amazing that within 15 days of that tragic incident the Home Secretary should have expressed his wish to oversee the destruction of the fire service as we know it.The standards of fire cover that the Government have embarked upon are intended to reduce the cost by cutting the number of men and appliances, and running day and night cover with fewer men and fewer fire services. Firemen, in particular, need to understand and prepare for the attacks on their jobs. But perhaps more importantly, the public, who sometimes take it for granted that a fire engine will be there when required, are in danger of having that provision removed.
The setting up of joint boards is but a prelude to the fragmentation of the fire service through the transfer of services to the metropolitan district councils. It is difficult to see how the withdrawal of part of an integrated unit will not damage the whole, although it may appear attractive for certain district councils to do that. The Coopers and Lybrand report on the breakaway option stated:
Cost increases could be expected to arise as a consequence of breakaways … There is no clear evidence to suggest that a breakaway would improve the overall effectiveness of police or fire in any area.The consultants estimated that Wirral's bid to run its own fire service would add 1 per cent. to the revenue cost of the proposed Merseyside joint fire board. The Government's attempt to create joint boards is undemocratic, and must be set against the Government's policies on other issues that are disastrous and devastating for working people.706 We must also ask why all this is happening. We need to explain the position to workers. The answer is that it is part of the Government's overall attack on services, which has been brought about by the crisis in the economy and which bears a direct relationship to the attack on local authorities, on civil servants' jobs and pay, and on coal, steel, shipping and other nationalised industries. The Government have been unable to embark on the spending programme that they have a duty to undertake because of the crisis in the economy.
Since 1979, the Government have been responsible for creating a slump out of a recession, with 20 per cent. of industry being closed down as Britain becomes for the first time a net importer of manufactured goods. Against that economic background, the Government attack the social services, the fire services and the other services that they have a responsibility to finance.
Between 1979 and 1983, manufacturing investment in this country fell by 41 per cent. and at the beginning of 1983 was only at 1959 levels. The Economist, which is hardly a militant publication, says that a 40 per cent. increase in investment is necessary to keep pace with our competitors abroad. The investment rate, which is conditioned by some of the policies of this Government, is only 3 per cent., while investment of money abroad has trebled since 1979 to £375 billion, or £1,800 for every working person in this country.
Workers need to understand the entirely new situation in this country and what the Government are doing with their tax on jobs. After the slump in 1929, by 1933 this country had recovered and output exceeded the 1929 level. In the third quarter of 1983, we still required in this country a 15 per cent. rise in manufacturing output even to regain the 1979 level. British capitalism, through the policies of this Government, is thinner and a hell of a lot sicker, and we shall not have recovered from the first years of Thatcherism before we are overtaken by another world recession.
These are economic points which the workers need to understand, in particular members of the fire service, because in the Fire Brigades Union we equate what is happening to our service with the Ridley report on the coal industry. After the strikes in the early 1970s, the Ridley report was brought into being to deal with the coal industry. After the firemen's strike in 1977–78, firemen achieved a formula on pay, thanks to the services of the then Home Secretary. That formula, which equated firemen's pay with that of male manual workers in industry, is a millstone around the neck of this Government and of local authority employers. Metropolitan areas in general were the most militant during that dispute and Merseyside and Cheshire, my own area, were the most militant in the struggle for wages and conditions.
Since then, there has been an attempt by this Government to intervene directly in pay negotiations on behalf of firemen. A survey was done during that period of the most militant areas that would need to be tackled if the Government were to have their way. The Government believe that a break-up of the metropolitan areas and fragmentation in those areas would reduce opposition to those pay policies and this attack on jobs.
For the fire service, the effect of these attacks will be a diminution of services and a loss of jobs. Insurance losses on property and goods will increase. Also, of course, loss of life will ensue from the reduced service and 707 the reduced ability of the fire service to fulfil its commitments, including the loss of firemen's lives. We give the Government fair warning that their attacks on our industry will be met with resistance by firemen and the Fire Brigades Union.
The Government, through some aspects of their policy, are raising the spectre of privatisation of the fire service. The public must understand what will happen when firemen and special appliances are not available, when fire prevention in hotels and boarding houses is reduced by the attacks that will of necessity take place with the fragmentation of our metropolitan areas. We shall have spiv organisations attempting to sell so-called smoke masks, like the one I have here, for protection, because the fire service will not be there to look after the interests of people in boarding houses, hotels and indeed, prisons. This will be part of the spiv's paradise with privatisation within the fire service.
The Fire Brigades Union and its members will not permit the decimation of their industry. A campaign will be waged in the metropolitan areas such as Merseyside on a par with the Liverpool campaign against the Secretary of State's intentions. We will take our campaign out to the trade unions and the communities and on to the estates.
This amendment is intended to prevent the disastrous results of the Government's intentions. We give fair warning that, even if this amemdment is defeated and the Bill becomes law, the fire service, the Fire Brigades Union and the people who rely on the dedication and self-sacrifice of the firemen will not stand idly by and allow the Government to implement such disastrous, dangerous and objectionable legislation. Industrial action on behalf of the Fire Brigades Union will ensue to save jobs and save lives. I say again, we give fair warning that firemen will not stand idly by and see their industry decimated.
§ Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)I intervene briefly because this subject of the joint authorities as they affect the police relates to part of the arguments against the Bill which I find particularly difficult to understand. I cannot see why such intense opposition has been aroused. Those who support the Bill have been moved by a desire to give the district authorities as much power as possible. That is the fundamental principle underlying the Bill. It is recognised that, of necessity, many functions will have to be carried out jointly by the districts. That is not a new proposition. That has been going on in local government as long as anybody can remember. To say that doing things jointly and nominating somebody from a council to a joint authority is undemocratic seems to me to be to use the word very oddly. It is a different form of democracy, but clearly persons elected are still responsible for the service.
I have quoted this example before, and it is not a silly one. In Manchester, representation on the police authority will increase by one councillor under the Bill. That will make sure that the representation covers more than one party. It could be argued that the nature of the democratic control, as far as the ordinary elector is concerned, is enhanced. What matters—we keep coming back to this point — is not the refinements as defined by the councillors, but what is recognised by the ordinary elector. That is not the structure. Whether it be someone from the city council or the Greater Manchester council, it is a 708 person who is identifiable on a local council or a city council. People go to the city council for functions that are not even within its purview simply because it is an identifiable unit. I think, therefore, that the democratic argument has always failed in this case.
The argument which I think has more weight—this is where my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has pitched his case—is the one about efficiency and effectiveness. We have all received representations from various people in the police force about clause 41; and I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said, because he knows a lot about the police force. I was mystified, however, because, as I understand it, he claims that the powers already exist to make changes in police boundaries, and to that extent the Bill does not add to them.
The second argument is that this is a difficult time for the police, and therefore not the time to disturb the boundaries. But we already have the undertaking from the Government that such disturbances will not take place in the immediate future. If they do take place, it will not be immediately. Therefore, two of my hon. Friend's arguments seem to fall.
In the rest of his argument, which was very well put, as always, he gave examples of what would happen if the service were chopped up. This comes back to the main point about local authorities. They work together when it is in their interests to do so. If, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, a countywide service is of benefit to the boroughs and the districts, it will continue to operate. It is not possible for him to foresee whether that will always be the case.
To take his political argument, if a group of boroughs were confronted with an authority which became highly politicised and, despite the presence of the magistrates, extremely bad in its treatment of the police, it could well be argued that it would be in the interest of the citizens of a district to opt for their own police force and to decide, in the interest of putting down crime in that area, to have a less politicised police force. We are assured that the Government do not have that in mind now, because it does not seem necessary or desirable, but we cannot say that such powers might not be necessary at some time.
§ 7 pm
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsI am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courteous way in which he has put his case. I hope that he will address his mind to two matters. First, we are putting in the shop window of the Bill an invitation to the successor authorities to ask for the return of their police forces. I find that public invitation particularly unfortunate. Secondly, some people politically want control of the police. They make no bones about that. This is an invitation to them to assert what I believe to be a dangerous aspiration.
§ Mr. SilvesterBy simply reasserting powers that already exist, the Bill does not undermine the police.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe first time that I spoke in the House was on the Police Bill in 1964. On that occasion, or just before, I listened to my first debate in the House when a Conservative Member said that he did not want to be political. I thought that strange considering the reason why I tried to become a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) made 709 much the same point about politicising. Most of the issues with which police and fire committees deal are political but by "political" most people think of the rubbish that passes for politics at general election time, which is spawned by public relations experts who over-simplify matters. I wish to be political and to discuss issues about which the electorate should be concerned.
We need answers from the Minister on several matters. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) talked about boundaries. Amalgamations occurred before 1974 in connection with the Police Act 1964. In 1974, the changes were the result of local government reform and were forced upon the Government of the day.
I do not pretend that the areas are right. I used to think it odd that the west midlands police force should have so many policemen, when Warwickshire, with an excellent chief constable who went to Lancashire and to London, should have only 800 policemen.
We do not need a boundary commission—we know what boundary commissions do — we need another Royal Commission on the police, as we had in 1960, to examine all the issues. The matter must not be dealt with piecemeal by means of a hurried and short debate. It is vital that Parliament should receive reports. The Opposition are not making a revolutionary request by asking for that.
When I was Home Secretary I worked with joint boards for north and south Wales. I did not like them. I say that not because they were Welsh joint boards, and I intend no reflection on the people who operated them. Joint boards represent the wrong approach. We were forced into them in south Wales because of the decision to break up south Glamorgan. That was a political decision in the sense that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds used the term. The decision was made not for rational reasons, but to provide south Glamorgan with a Conservative majority once in a blue moon.
The chief constables do not like joint boards. The chief constable in west Yorkshire does not like them. He believes that they give more power to Whitehall. No one could be less political than that chief constable, but he makes a political point by saying that he is against the joint boards. Lord Whitelaw has made the Home Office view clear.
Who will take the lead in the services? Will it be west Yorkshire? Leeds has eight members on the police authority. Will it take the lead because it provides the most money? Will the treasurer from Kirklees, the secretary from Bradford and the solicitor from somewhere else be involved? What about the financial arrangements? Leeds is the richest authority in these terms. The chairman of the police authority is a county councillor, and he has examined the needs not only of Leeds, but of Calderdale. They will be precepted separately, and the people of Leeds will not take kindly to extra money going to Calderdale in the west riding. The break-up will cause problems.
In order to pay for real growth in police and fire services in west Yorkshire, it has been necessary to cut back or shelve new developments in other county council services. I am worried when the Secretary of State for the Environment talks about saving manpower and having more centralised control over the next three years over financial arrangements.
We are asked what difference it makes whether a person goes to a district or a county councillor. Morley and south Leeds has four county councillors, one of whom is 710 chairman of the police committee. That is fortuitous. Things will not be the same. Members of the Leeds Labour, Conservative and small Liberal groups will be told that eight members are needed for the joint board. In the early days the younger, inexperienced councillors will be appointed, because the current chairmen and vice-chairmen of the council committees will not want to give up their posts to be mere members of the police authority. Problems are inevitable.
An ad hoc measure has been slipped into the Bill to deal with the police. The miners' strike has caused the constitution of police authorities to be questioned. One is afraid to open one's mouth, because if one says 'anything about the police one is accused of attacking them. Some problems of organisation and accountability are long term. Who likes what is going on in Merseyside? It reveals that something is wrong.
The role of the Home Secretary and the question of finance have been brought into question. The Bill cannot deal with such issues. We need a Royal Commission on the police to examine all these matters over two years and to report back to the House. Until that happens we ask for reports to the House.
§ Mr. Geoff Lawler (Bradford, North)I should like to add to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) about the democratic element of joint boards. My hon. Friend made a most important point, but other matters must be taken into account following remarks by Opposition Members. It is absurd to argue that joint boards are not democratic, because the councillors involved will be fully accountable to the electors and to their councils. If a person wishes to take up a problem about transport, fire or the police, he will approach his district councillor. If that councillor is not a member of one of the joint boards, he or she can raise the matter directly with the member of the joint board or at a council meeting.
Many people are unaware of the separation of functions. People are not aware of how the system works, so they will go to the person whom they know best—usually their district councillor. That councillor can raise the matter at city hall and question the person responsible directly. At the moment the district councillor would have to say, "That is not my responsibility. You should speak to the county councillor." Therefore, the constituent will have to write another letter or approach another person. Under the new arrangement, the councillors will be in the same building and people will be able to question them directly. It will be a simplified system, and it will be of great benefit to people in the metropolitan areas and in London. They will be able to deal with one council whose representatives cover every service from housing through to police and fire.
The district councillors will bring an extra dimension to the joint boards, because they will have sat through discussions on housing, education and social services. Therefore, when considering police, fire and transport, they will be able to relate to them what they know about the other services. For example, in Bradford the five councillors will be fully aware of the race relations initiative when they serve on the joint police board. Therefore, it is absurd to argue that the move is undemocratic. Far from it. It is highly democratic and it will make the joint boards more responsive to the public.
§ Mr. Allan RobertsI shall try to be brief, although I wish to make some important points about the joint boards, costs and the conflict between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about savings in the police and fire services as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), representing the Police Federation, made what I thought was a good argument for keeping the metropolitan counties and directly elected police authorities. He argued that under the proposed abolition many services will be given to district councils but that because the police will not, district councils will demand responsibility for the police service as well. I have news for him. We sat in Committee on the Bill for hour after hour and we heard that not many services are being given to district councils. Most are being kept at county level with joint boards or trusts. In most cases the Minister will have reserve powers, as he will in respect of the police joint boards. He will be able to alter by order the representation from the district and the political complexion of the board, without an election.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)Since the amendment standing in my name will not be called, I should like to make a point about democratic representation on the joint board. I support the Bill, but is the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) aware that in many authorities we do not get democratic representation? We get two seats, not three. In the Government's White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", they said specifically that minority or opposition parties which have three seats or more would be represented on authorities. Therefore, by saying that Rochdale will have only two seats on the joint board, including the police board, they are effectively denying for all time to opposition parties in that council, be they Labour, Liberal or Tory, the right to serve on the joint board.
§ Mr. RobertsThat is just one anomaly. The way the joint boards are made up gives political control to one party in every case, the magistrates' party, because they will be the only people who will have a majority. They will determine policy. It will be very political. The magistrates will be able to control what happens. The proposal that magistrates, who are supposed to adjudicate independently between the police who prosecute and citizens who are brought before police courts, should have the majority on joint boards and on running the police authority in their area is the height of foolishness. That will happen under the joint board proposal.
Of course the police are involved in politics. I oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends. If the Government wish to justify the abolition of the metropolitan counties and if they wish to have a police authority that is not democratically elected and accountable, they must give responsibility for the police to the district council, which will be democratically elected and accountable.
7.15 pm
There was nothing wrong with the old watch committee and the system whereby the bobby was on the beat and the local chief constable had grown up in the area and had probably married someone who lived in the locality. That system worked well, as will be evident from statistics that I shall quote in a moment.
712 Of course, the chief constable for Greater Manchester, Mr. Anderton, does not want a system that might break up his empire. Of course, he is against the possibility of the local watch committee being re-established because he, along with six other chief constables meeting jointly under the direction of the Home Secretary, runs what has become the equivalent of a state police force. He has a great deal of power and he is very political. All the chief constables are. Mr. Anderton has become a cult figure of the right because he makes so many political speeches. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wants politics out of the police force, he should have a word with some of the chief constables whom he purports to represent and advise them to stop making political speeches.
Whether we like it or not, if police authorities are abolished in the metropolitan counties there will be a demand from the general public to councillors and MPs for the establishment of police monitoring committees in every district council in the metropolitan areas and in the London boroughs. In committee the only arguments we got from Conservative Members in favour of abolition were based on prejudice against black groups and against women's organisations because they are given grants by the GLC.
Conservative Members have the audacity to criticise police monitoring committees set up by local authorities, but there would not be a police force if local authorities had not developed the system in the days of the peelers. Policing is traditionally a local authority function. One of the greatest things about having lived in Britain for the past hundred years or so is that we have police forces that have been locally accountable and not a state police force which is a first step towards a police state.
In regard to expenditure on policing and the crime rate, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has said that there will be no savings in the police service as a result of the Government's proposals; the Department of the Environment says that there will be savings. That contradiction may be accounted for by the fact that the savings the DOE is talking about are being made before abolition of the metropolitan counties because, for example, Merseyside county council is rate-capped. That is affecting the police service now. The rate cap is taking £16 million away from the police budget.
For 1984–85 the police budget in Merseyside is £103.8 million. That means that the police authority will lose 693 vehicles. The only alternative was to cut manpower, but the public want the bobby back on the beat. One way of achieving that is to get rid of motor cars. The police cannot drive round in them if they have not got them. They cannot be on the beat if they are playing in the police band. Of course, Conservative politicians and chief constables may like police bands but my voters, who want their communities properly policed, want to see the bobby on the beat.
Hon. Members may be amazed when they hear these statistics. In 1974 in the seven districts of Merseyside only 10 bobbies would have been on the beat at any one time because of the manpower problem. Since 1974 the number of police and vehicles has gone up by one fifth, the number of civilians employed by the police has gone up by a quarter, the police budget has increased by a quarter in real terms and recorded crime has increased by almost 50 per cent. A recent crime survey shows that three and a half times as many personal and property crimes take place as are reported.
713 Despite our being administered by the party of law and order, the crime wave continues to rise, even taking account of the increases in efficiency, vehicles, manpower and pay. If the police forces had still been controlled at local level by a local chief constable, accountable to a democratically elected watch committee sensitive to the needs of the community, the crime rate would be much lower. We must defeat this legislation and ensure that the police are controlled by a democratic committee directly elected at county level.
§ Mr. Giles ShawThe debate on the amendments has provoked a fair discussion about the problem of the joint boards and cessation, with particular relevance to the police. In addition, one Opposition Member devoted his remarks to the fire service.
These aspects of the Bill had a substantial airing in Committee, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) acknowledged. It has been suggested that there would be less accountability to council if joint boards were established. Clause 40 requires councillors who serve on joint boards to report their activities to their councils. Therefore, the connection between joint boards and constituent councils will be strengthened. It may be greater than the existing connection. There will be an improvement, not a reduction, in the contact between the police authority, as exemplified in the joint board, and the councils.
Opposition Members were concerned mainly about obtaining what they called more democratic control over the police. They spoke not only about the reports that would be required if the amendment were passed, but about the possibility of a greater exercise of direct control over the police through appointments. There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about direct election. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and others made clear what their intention is at the end of the day.
The general concept of how policing should be handled in relation to local authorities' responsibilities is laid down in the 1964 Act, which provides for total operational independence for chief constables. That is at variance with some of the comments made in Committee.
The central issue in this group of amendments is the question of reports. A second issue is involved in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend about cessation consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) argued against any prospect of a police joint board being broken up into constituent districts.
Fundamentally, the Bill is about powers being taken from the present structure of metropolitan counties and the GLC and brought back into the borough or district council structure. Therefore, it is not surprising that, as a matter of equity, there should be a provision in clause 41 for further power to be deferred to the boroughs in the general context of the principle of the Bill. In some cases—for example, transport undertakings — there is a realistic prospect that that might be a good thing to do, and something that has needed to be done for the district services.
On the question of the police and fire services, it has been and remains our firm policy not to encourage any break-up of police force areas. That is fundamental to the commitment we made at the outset of this legislation. We 714 recognise and respect the continuity that is crucial to the effective planning and efficiency of the modern police force.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
We made it clear … that no application would be entertained before the joint boards had been in operation for a reasonable time and that district councils would be required to satisfy me that they would administer the service more effectively and that provision in the rest of the metropolitan area or nationally would not be adversely affected. In assessing effectiveness I would of course have in mind both operational efficiency and cost.That commitment was not just to examine an individual case that a district might seek to make, but the consequences of that case on adjacent authorities and nationally. It would be rare that such a case would be found beneficial to the operational efficiency of a police force.That statement is strengthened by the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend, which requires that my right hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. Friend should consult the relevant joint authority, its constituent councils and any other authority that appeared to be affected before making an order under the clause. That is a further strengthening of the legislation and it deals with the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that this clause would provide an easy route out for district councils. I hope that we have strengthened the view that there should not be an easy way in which cessation could take place for police services.
The Opposition amendments are an attempt to delay matters. They require that a report should be presented to the House. We do not believe that is necessary. There has been enough reporting and discussion. What is required now is a clear statement of where we stand under the powers available in clause 41. If amendment No. 17 found favour with the House, the position would be strengthened even more. There would be a requirement for statements to be made and consultations to be held. That would ensure that there was no easy way out that would allow cessation to take place. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) spoke about the fire service, and I have taken his points on board. He wanted to get on record the views of the Fire Brigades Union about the clause. He knows that the Bill will not seriously threaten the provision of fire services in London or anywhere else. Their operational standards must be maintained. The responsibilities of chief fire officers to designate areas to ensure that standards are applied will remain. I hope that he recognises that there are no grounds for the fear that he has expressed about the Bill's provisions.
I advise the House to reject the Opposition amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will not seek to press his amendment in the light of the assurances that I have given.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed: No. 85, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) The provisions of this section and of sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of this Act shall not have effect until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has reported to Parliament on the arrangements he proposes to ensure that the police, fire and civil emergency planning functions in each metropolitan county or Greater London as the case may be are discharged no less economically, efficiently and effectively under the provisions of this Part of this Act.'.—[Mr. Soleyj
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
715§ The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 301.
718| Division No. 172] | [7.29 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abse, Leo | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Alton, David | Haynes, Frank |
| Anderson, Donald | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) |
| Ashton, Joe | Home Robertson, John |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Howells, Geraint |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Hoyle, Douglas |
| Barnett, Guy | Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) |
| Barron, Kevin | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Hughes, Roy (Newport East) |
| Beith, A. J. | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Benn, Tony | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Janner, Hon Greville |
| Bidwell, Sydney | John, Brynmor |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Lamond, James |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Leighton, Ronald |
| Buchan, Norman | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Caborn, Richard | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. | Litherland, Robert |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Loyden, Edward |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | McCartney, Hugh |
| Cartwright, John | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Clarke, Thomas | McKelvey, William |
| Clay, Robert | Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Madden, Max |
| Cohen, Harry | Marek, Dr John |
| Coleman, Donald | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Conlan, Bernard | Maxton, John |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Meacher, Michael |
| Corbett, Robin | Michie, William |
| Cowans, Harry | Mikardo, Ian |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Craigen, J. M. | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Crowther, Stan | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Nellist, David |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | O'Brien, William |
| Deakins, Eric | O'Neill, Martin |
| Dixon, Donald | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Dobson, Frank | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Dormand, Jack | Park, George |
| Dubs, Alfred | Parry, Robert |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Pendry, Tom |
| Eadie, Alex | Pike, Peter |
| Eastham, Ken | Randall, Stuart |
| Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) | Redmond, M. |
| Ellis, Raymond | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Ewing, Harry | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Fatchett, Derek | Robertson, George |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Fisher, Mark | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Flannery, Martin | Rowlands, Ted |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Sheerman, Barry |
| Forrester, John | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Foster, Derek | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Foulkes, George | Skinner, Dennis |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Freud, Clement | Snape, Peter |
| Garrett, W. E. | Soley, Clive |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Spearing, Nigel |
| Gould, Bryan | Straw, Jack |
| Tinn, James | Winnick, David |
| Torney, Tom | Woodall, Alec |
| Wainwright, R. | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Wardell, Gareth (Gower) | |
| Wareing, Robert | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Weetch, Ken | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Williams, Rt Hon A. | Mr. Ray Powell. |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Eyre, Sir Reginald |
| Amess, David | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Ancram, Michael | Fallon, Michael |
| Arnold, Tom | Farr, Sir John |
| Ashby, David | Favell, Anthony |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Fletcher, Alexander |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Forman, Nigel |
| Baldry, Tony | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Forth, Eric |
| Beggs, Roy | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bellingham, Henry | Fox, Marcus |
| Bendall, Vivian | Fraser, Peter (Angus East) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Freeman, Roger |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Fry, Peter |
| Blackburn, John | Galley, Roy |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Body, Richard | Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Bottomley, Peter | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Gow, Ian |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bright, Graham | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Brinton, Tim | Greenway, Harry |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Gregory, Conal |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Browne, John | Grist, Ian |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Ground, Patrick |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Grylls, Michael |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Budgen, Nick | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Butcher, John | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Butler, Hon Adam | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Butterfill, John | Hannam, John |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Harris, David |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) | Harvey, Robert |
| Cash, William | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hawksley, Warren |
| Chope, Christopher | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Hayward, Robert |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Henderson, Barry |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hickmet, Richard |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hill, James |
| Colvin, Michael | Hind, Kenneth |
| Coombs, Simon | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Cope, John | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Couchman, James | Holt, Richard |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Howard, Michael |
| Crouch, David | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Dunn, Robert | Hunter, Andrew |
| Durant, Tony | Irving, Charles |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Jackson, Robert |
| Eggar, Tim | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Jessel, Toby |
| Evennett, David | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Powley, John |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Raffan, Keith |
| Key, Robert | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) | Renton, Tim |
| Knowles, Michael | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Lamont, Norman | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Lang, Ian | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Latham, Michael | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Rost, Peter |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Rowe, Andrew |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Lightbown, David | Ryder, Richard |
| Lilley, Peter | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Lord, Michael | Scott, Nicholas |
| Luce, Richard | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| McCusker, Harold | Shersby, Michael |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Silvester, Fred |
| MacGregor, John | Sims, Roger |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Maclean, David John | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Madel. David | Speller, Tony |
| Major, John | Spence, John |
| Malins, Humfrey | Spencer, Derek |
| Malone, Gerald | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Maples, John | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Marlow, Antony | Squire, Robin |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stern, Michael |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Mellor, David | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Merchant, Piers | Stokes, John |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Sumberg, David |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mitchell, David (NW Hants) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Moate, Roger | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Moore, John | Thurnham, Peter |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) | Tracey, Richard |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Trippier, David |
| Murphy, Christopher | Trotter, Neville |
| Neale, Gerrard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Needham, Richard | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Nelson, Anthony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Neubert, Michael | Viggers, Peter |
| Newton, Tony | Waddington, David |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Norris, Steven | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Onslow, Cranley | Walden, George |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Walker, Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Osborn, Sir John | Waller, Gary |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Watson, John |
| Parris, Matthew | Watts, John |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| Pawsey, James | Wheeler, John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Whitfield, John |
| Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Whitney, Raymond |
| Pollock, Alexander | Wood, Timothy |
| Portillo, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
| Young, Sir George (Acton) | Mr. Carol Mather and |
| Mr. Robert Boscawen. | |
| Tellers for the Noes: |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
7.40 pm§ It being after half:past Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [11 February] and the Resolutions yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.