§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Corbyn
I did not realise that we would reach clause 4 so quickly. We in the Labour party are very keen on clause IV, but not in respect of the Bill.
The curious wording of clause 4 does not make it clear what its impact will be on rate-capped local authorities. I represent the inner-London constituency of Islington, North, which comes within the Inner London education 625 authority. Today, ILEA is the largest education authority in Britain, and probably in western Europe. It employs the largest number of teachers and has one of the best records on spending per pupil in the country. However, that authority has been singled out for especially vindictive treatment by the Government. Apart from money for further education, the authority has received no Government grant since 1980.
Therefore, it is fallacious for the Secretary of State to claim that any agreement reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' unions, as has happened on this occasion, is partly his responsibility. On numerous occasions it has been abundantly clear that the Secretary of State is not prepared to fund ILEA, despite all the educational problems and the multiple deprivation of inner-city areas.
The Government should tell us how the clause will affect any settlement that is reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' trade union representatives, or any settlement imposed on them by the Government. If the Government are to be consistent in claiming an even-handed approach towards education problems throughout Britain, they should recognise that ILEA has special educational needs. They should recognise also that is has tried hard to provide a decent standard of education, and that it has achieved a great deal, despite the smear tactics that have been used against it by the Murdoch empire, and despite the regular attacks mounted on it by Ministers.
We need to know exactly what the Government's response will be if a settlement is now imposed in the teachers' dispute as looks likely, because the Tory hordes have returned after their night out. In fact, ILEA has been knee-capped and has been hit harder than any of the borough councils that have been rate-capped.
I could speak at enormous length about ILEA'S problems, but I do not want to detain the House. Nevertheless, the Government should understand what they are doing to education in Inner London. I believe that ILEA has played a good and positive role in furthering innovative education in Britain, and that that has been recognised by education authorities throughout the country. Indeed, ILEA is recognised as a pioneer in the school meals service, in nursery schools and classes, in play centres and junior clubs, in youth centres, adult education, further and higher education, polytechnics, media resources, language training and many other areas. It is thus recognised as an advanced authority.
Moreover, because of the multi-ethnic nature of London's society, it has willingly spread linguistic training throughout London. I do not call that a problem, as it is not one. It is part of the rich pattern of London life that there are so many people who speak different languages. Obviously, ILEA had to spend a lot of money on all those things. Consequently, it has been singled out for special treatment. Over the years, the Government have attempted to break up ILEA. I have been party to many campaigns to defend it in my capacity as a NUPE organiser in the past, and as someone who is concerned about education in inner London. For all those pluses the Government have singled out ILEA for special and vindictive treatment.
§ Mr. Tony Banks
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have actively pursued a hostile political campaign against ILEA? Does he recall that during the discussions on the Local Government Bill 1985, it was originally proposed that ILEA should be broken up?
§ Mr. Corbyn
Yes, indeed I do. Since its inception, ILEA has been under constant threat from this Government and previous Conservative Governments. As my hon. Friend has said, they did not like the fact that London county council was a progressive education authority. Since the establishment of the GLC and ILEA, and since the local government re-organisation of 1963, Conservative Governments have been consistently opposed to ILEA. People in County hall, who have been trying to plan education for Inner London, have always had to look over their shoulders at the threat implied in breaking up ILEA into a series of too-small, unmanageable and educationally unsound organisations.
§ Mr. Banks
My hon. Friend has highlighted the financial problems that are unique to ILEA. Perhaps he might care to reflect for a moment on the additional problems that ILEA will face if the London residuary body insists on kicking it out of county hall. I remind my hon. Friend that it was the ILEA boroughs which then made up London county council that paid for county hall out of London rates. Consequently, ILEA is being told that if it wants to stay in county hall, it must buy back its own property. What does my hon. Friend think of that outrageous situation?
§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend's intervention has a great deal to do with the Bill. It is outrageous to suggest that ILEA should be forced to leave county hall. County hall was built and paid for by the people of London. The GLC was destroyed against the wishes of the people of London, but it will come back and it will be stronger than ever. Obviously, that building is part of London life and the London scene—
Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not go over old history.
I understand that, so I shall relate my remarks to the financial problems of ILEA in respect of its occupation of county hall. The Government have—
Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not deal with the occupation of county hall.
§ Mr. Corbyn
Perhaps I can say that ILEA has severe financial problems that are associated with the Bill and with the way in which the Government have treated it. Those problems have been exacerbated by the Government's obsession with throwing ILEA out of county hall, thus putting increased expenditure on that education authority, when it would rather spend that money on taking care of its children.
The agreement reached in Nottingham was welcomed by ILEA as a major step forward in defining the professional requirements of teachers and in setting a long-term pay structure that is just and attractive. The authority employs 17,200 full-time equivalent teachers in inner London. Its current practice conforms with the agreement on class sizes, which provides for an overall maximum 627 planned class size of 33 by 1 September 1987, subject to the availability of qualified teachers and space. In ILEA, the average effective class sizes are 20.4 for primary schools and 18.2 for secondary schools. Therefore, ILEA already falls very much within the terms of that Nottingham agreement. The same is true in relation to cover, and ILEA fully accepts what has been put forward with regard to appraisal in that agreement.
Moreover, ILEA welcomes the equal opportunities content of the agreement, and has been singled out for a particularly vindictive attack by the Government because of its progress in equal opportunities training, educational methods and employment practices. As has been said, unless the financial relationship between local and central Government is clarified and the Government accept the idea of local democracy, the Bill will create only further problems for ILEA in particular, and for other education authorities too. The clause, however, appears to make that financial relationship even more complicated and local democracy an even more remote prospect.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reply to the debate. On 5 November the leader of ILEA, Frances Morrell, sent a letter. I should like to know what answer she is being given on this important matter. The people of London want to improve their education system. They supported the teachers in large numbers during the pay dispute. There were many petitions, demonstrations, marches and rallies. In my constituency, the local people were not blaming the teachers for that dispute, but were putting the blame where it belongs, on the Government. Ministers may find it a little hard to understand that.
However, I hope that the Minister will at least give us some hope that the financial vindictiveness that has been shown towards ILEA will be ended, along with the rate-capping of that authority. Moreover, I hope that he will agree to introduce amending legislation that will put ILEA on the same footing as other education authorities, and that will release it from the especially vindictive position that was sorted out for it at the time of the GLC's abolition and the consequent legislation affecting ILEA.
§ Mr. Tony Banks
I shall be brief. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wanted to use this debate to draw the attention of the Committee to the unique financial problems facing ILEA. I do not believe that the Minister is likely to give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought. Indeed, for us to believe that he would do so, we would also have to believe passionately in Father Christmas. Nevertheless, I hope that Ministers will at last show that they are aware of the problems facing ILEA.
Unlike any other authority, in the absence of block grant, ILEA funds 100 per cent. of the pay bill for inner London teachers. Consequently, it feels doubly deprived as a result of the Bill.
I shall not go into all the reasons for that position, but we know that the Secretary of State realises that ILEA will face enormous problems. In answer to questions on his statement he said:The one local authority that could be in trouble this year is ILEA because it is not in receipt of block grants."—[Official Report, 30 October 1986; Vol. 103. c. 470–1.]An additional bill will be faced by all education authorities, whatever settlement is finally reached, but ILEA ratepayers will face the largest bill of all ratepayers in Britain because ILEA is the largest education authority and will receive none of the Government's additional 628 block grant. At present it appears that this additional grant to be paid by the Government will go to other local authorities, most of which are not education authorities, so face none of the extra costs.
That seems on the face of it patently absurd because the additional money that Ministers will make available for an educational settlements, imposed, agreed or whatever could end up going to authorities with no educational responsibilities. Even in his wildest moments the Minister could not possibly wish to see that happen. We hope that when he replies he will tell us what special arrangements will be made for ILEA because of its unique and special problems.
§ Mr. Fisher
When the Minister replies will he mention two further problems in addition to the problems on ILEA that were well laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?
Will the Minister confirm that if the money is paid through the block grant some of the increase will inevitably go to non-education authorities? That strikes me as inevitable by the very nature of block grant. Will the Minister confirm that that is an inevitable consequence? I am sure that he will agree that that is far from satisfactory, especially when he puts such emphasis on the tightness of the financial arrangements and the desire not to waste money. I am sure that he will agree that it would be entirely unsatisfactory, if money paid under these provisions through the block grant went to non-education authorities.
My next point is even more serious. Will the Minister make it clear how the Government will pay? Local authorities inevitably fear that the Government will reflect in the grant a particular proportion of the cost of a pay settlement which the Secretary of State may impose. That would mean that the Government could limit their contribution to a specified number of staff employed. The Minister will acknowledge that the DES figures for the correct number of staff employed are considerably lower for a variety of complicated reasons than the number of staff that are employed. A position could easily arise in which the increased money was paid through the block grant for a specified number of employed staff which was lower than the number of staff that an authority had. That is possible and likely. Then the authority — if the Minister is still with me on this crucial point — which discovered that it was being given money for a specified number of staff which was less than the number of staff that it had in place in schools would be faced with the choice of varying its contracts, redeploying or sacking staff, or diverting funds from other activities on to staff costs. I am sure that the Minister would agree that all of those things are undesirable. I hope that they are unintentional.
I would be interested to know if I have misinterpreted those points about the block grant. An increase will inevitably go to some education authorities, and the difference between the specified number of staff and the actual number of staff employed, if the Secretary of State chooses to make that specification in his increase, is a serious problem. Local authorities should be aware of exactly what the Government intend to do.
§ Mr. Freud
I am anxious about the advice that we are given in the notes on clauses where it states: 629The main expense would be payments to members of the Advisory Committee and this will be largely offset by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees.The phrase "largely offset" clearly means that the pay for the Advisory committee will be more than the money which is currently spent on the Burnham committees. That has grave implications. The Minister owes it to the House to explain what remuneration he has in mind for the members and for the secretariat of the committee. The expenditure on Burnham is very considerable. I would think that the travelling costs alone, apart from the secretariat and the papers that are published, would be infinitely greater than the costs that one could envisage for a committee of five to nine men doing good work.
§ Mr. Freud
Women and, possibly, young people. As people do good work they are steadily underpaid. Hon. Members know how insistent we on the Opposition Benches are to give authority to people who may not necessarily have reached the age at which the Secretary of State thinks them fit to sit on Committees.
I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply because he owes it to the House to go into this at least in some detail.
§ Mr. Dunn
The clause is about the expenses of running an advisory committee, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) confirmed. It has nothing to do with the level of rate support grant paid under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980. Hon. Members know that the level of rate support grant is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine.
On the Burnham committee and the costs of servicing the advisory committee, no decision has yet been taken on the payment of committee members. Members of pay review bodies have their expenses paid, but do not receive remuneration. However, we shall consider whether the advisory committee members should receive remuneration.
With regard to the costs of the Burnham committee—there are direct costs and indirect costs in the sense that some costs are not easy to quantify and put on the table—the direct cost of the Burnham meetings is about £20,000 a year. That covers a small allowance paid to the chairman together with the costs of the hire of the meeting rooms refreshments and the production of verbatim reports. But clearly the overall cost of the Burnham machinery is much greater than that figure when the costs of salaries, allowances and expenses of those attending Burnham meetings are also included.
Schedule 1 provides that the Secretary of State—
§ Mr. Dunn
As I have just outlined, we have yet to take a number of decisions on whether the Department of Education and Science or other Government agencies will finance the secretariat. There are costs involved, but my view in trying to equate the gain made by the elimination of Burnham with the costs of the secretariat is that the cost 630 will probably be a little less or the same. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when a figure is more clearly available to us.
The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—with great ingenuity—raised the questions of ILEA, county hall, pupil-teacher ratios, staffing, equipment, books and a whole range of ILEA activities which do not necessarily fall within the particular ambit of this debate. However, because it is the season of good will, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said—although I do not think that I yet resemble Father Christmas—I would like to engage the House in a debate on ILEA.
§ Mr. Dunn
Certainly, most modern houses do not have chimneys. To return to the subject, a debate on ILEA includes what it does, how it does it, what expenditure levels it follows and how it could do better.
The hon. Member for Islington, North, said that the Government were being harsh and vindictive in their financial treatment of ILEA. Perhaps the political debate is a further dimension. I am happy to engage in debate on ILEA, what it does and how it does it at any time, while occasionally paying appropriate credit and tribute to some of the good work that it has done. I will not deny that it has done good work in recent years and that it has extremely good officers who have probably kept the authority under better control than might have been the case.
The fact that ILEA receives no block grant under the present rate support grant system in no sense implies that it is being singled out for harsh treatment. It is treated in the same way as all other authorities. As the House will know, one significant reason why ILEA receives no block grant is that it benefits from the high rateable value of the inner London area. In addition, its expenditure policies are such that it takes them above the line for Government support.
Opposition Members and I will always differ sharply on how and what we see the work, function and role of ILEA. I believe that expenditure and savings can be made without detriment to the education provision for young people of inner London. I know that both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken with great ingenuity will disagree with me. There can be savings on plant, privatisation of services, supernumerary teachers who are unallocated to jobs and exist on the books, and in many other areas.
§ Mr. Corbyn
I am unclear whether the Minister is prepared to say now that the Government will fund the teachers' pay increase for ILEA. It is the only education authority in England and Wales that under the present arrangements would stand to receive no central Government funding whatever for the increases in teachers' pay, be they the Nottingham increases or increases which the Minister may try to impose this legislation.
§ Mr. Dunn
The answer is plain. So long as ILEA continues to behave as it does, it will not receive grant. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter which we have received from the leader of the authority, but it would be injudicious of me to reveal the reply at this stage — I 631 mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman. It will be replied to and Mrs. Morrell will be the first to receive the reply. That is only fair and courteous.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will realise that money is given for a specified number of staff because grant is related to the overall assessed need to spend on an authority. Our intention would be to direct the extra grant to local education authorities by increasing the education GRE.
This debate is about the money to be made available to cover expenses attributable to the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. It is a standard provision and does not obviate the need for the money to be voted at the appropriate time. The main expense envisaged is payment to members of the advisory committee which will be largely off-set by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees. Therefore, I welcome the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill.
§ Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee Divided: Ayes 208, Noes 133.633
|Division No. 36]||[1.34 pm|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Fallon, Michael|
|Alexander, Richard||Farr, Sir John|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Favell, Anthony|
|Amess, David||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Ancram, Michael||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Ashby, David||Forman, Nigel|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Forth, Eric|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)||Fox, Sir Marcus|
|Baldry, Tony||Franks, Cecil|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Freeman, Roger|
|Bendall, Vivian||Fry, Peter|
|Benyon, William||Gale, Roger|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Galley, Roy|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Greenway, Harry|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Gregory, Conal|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Bright, Graham||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Brinton, Tim||Hannam, John|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Harris, David|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Burt, Alistair||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Butcher, John||Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney|
|Carlisle, John (Luton N)||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Henderson, Barry|
|Cash, William||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hicks, Robert|
|Chope, Christopher||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hill, James|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Holt, Richard|
|Cockeram, Eric||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Colvin, Michael||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Cope, John||Hubbard-Miles, Peter|
|Corrie, John||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Couchman, James||Hunter, Andrew|
|Crouch, David||Jessel, Toby|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jones, Robert (Herts W)|
|Dicks, Terry||Key, Robert|
|Dorrell, Stephen||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Dunn, Robert||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Durant, Tony||Knox, David|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Lang, Ian|
|Eyre, Sir Reginald||Latham, Michael|
|Lawler, Geoffrey||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Lester, Jim||Rost, Peter|
|Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Lilley, Peter||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Maclean, David John||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Shersby, Michael|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Silvester, Fred|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Sims, Roger|
|Madel, David||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Major, John||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Malone, Gerald||Spencer, Derek|
|Marland, Paul||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Marlow, Antony||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stern, Michael|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Merchant, Piers||Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Moate, Roger||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Thurnham, Peter|
|Neubert, Michael||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Trippier, David|
|Ottaway, Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Page, Sir John (Harrow W)||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Pawsey, James||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Ward, John|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Watts, John|
|Portillo, Michael||Whitfield, John|
|Powley, John||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, Sir David||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Wolfson, Mark|
|Raffan, Keith||Wood, Timothy|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Woodcock, Michael|
|Rathbone, Tim||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Rhodes James, Robert|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Mr. Francis Maude and|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Mr. David Lightbown.|
|Alton, David||Conlan, Bernard|
|Anderson, Donald||Cook, Frank (Stockton North)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Corbett, Robin|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Ashton, Joe||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Craigen, J. M.|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)|
|Barron, Kevin||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)|
|Beith, A. J.||Dewar, Donald|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Dobson, Frank|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dormand, Jack|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dubs, Alfred|
|Blair, Anthony||Eadie, Alex|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Eastham, Ken|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Caborn, Richard||Fatchett, Derek|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)|
|Cartwright, John||Fisher, Mark|
|Clay, Robert||Flannery, Martin|
|Clelland, David Gordon||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)||Foster, Derek|
|Coleman, Donald||Foulkes, George|
|Freeson, Rt Ron Reginald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Freud, Clement||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Garrett, W. E.||Park, George|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Parry, Robert|
|Gould, Bryan||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)||Pendry, Tom|
|Hancock, Michael||Penhaligon, David|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Pike, Peter|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Radice, Giles|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Howells, Geraint||Redmond, Martin|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Lambie, David||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lamond, James||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Leighton, Ronald||Shields, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Skinner, Dennis|
|McKelvey, William||Snape, Peter|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Spearing, Nigel|
|McTaggart, Robert||Stott, Roger|
|Madden, Max||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Mallon, Seamus||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Tinn, James|
|Martin, Michael||Wallace, James|
|Maxton, John||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Wareing, Robert|
|Michie, William||Weetch, Ken|
|Mikardo, Ian||Welsh, Michael|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Winnick, David|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Nellist, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Mr Don Dixon and|
|O'Brien, William||Mr. James Hamilton.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.