§ Dr. BoysonI beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 4, line 43, leave out from first 'of' to end of line and inset 'an amount of block grant payable'.
The Second Deputy ChairmanWith this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 9 and 187.
§ Dr. BoysonThese are technical amendments to the provisions dealing with the calculation of relevant and total expenditure for certain previous years. They are necessary if we are to be able to make the conclusive calculations of block grant payable and further supplementary reports for years as intended.
For England, supplementary reports intended to be the final ones have been made for 1981–82 and for 1982–83. All that is intended for the future for those years it to make a conclusive calculation of block grant payable to each authority. Clause 4 provides for that to be done. For other previous years for England, further supplementary reports are intended—clauses 4 and 5 provide for that.
When conclusive calculations for supplementary reports are made for years before 1986–87, the authorities to be covered by the calculations and reports include the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council.
The conclusive calculations for 1981–82 and for 1982–83 will simply confirm entitlements that have already beet notified to authorities, but if, as a result of further reports, the grant entitlement of those authorities is different from the grant that has already been paid, any adjustment will be made with the appropriate residuary body it accordance with the Local Government Act 1985. The effect of any adjustment will thus be shared among the district councils in a metropolitan county area or among the boroughs in London.
The amendments will enable clauses 4 and 5 to cater for the GLC for years before 1986–87. I know that there are hon. Members who served on that council. Without the amendments, we could not proceed as we intend, and the status quo would not be maintained. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
§ Mr. John FraserIf I have understood the Minister correctly, there could be a retrospective change in the accounts of the GLC which would affect local authorities that have no control whatever over the decisions that have been made. One cannot possibly attribute to Southwark, Lambeth, Merton or Sutton the consequences of decisions made by the GLC.
The very least that one ought to ask is that the Minister should give assurances that, if he is thinking of making any substantial changes retrospectively in the construction of the GLC's accounts, he will consult the London authorities about the consequences of those decisions, as they could be adversely affected by decisions in which they play no part.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the Minister explain how he would intend to do what he has just outlined with regard to any interpretation of the GLC's accounts? I do not know how it will be done. I do not know where all the 990 information about the GLC's accounts is held. I assume that the Department of the Environment has a fairly shrewd idea what went on in the days of the GLC. I hasten to add that there was nothing improper.
The London residuary body is still in the process of winding up the affairs of the GLC's various committees but, I understand, is making fairly slow progress. I listened to what the Minister said, but I am not sure how he would obtain the information with which to do what he says he would do. I should be most grateful if the Minister could assist me in that respect.
§ Dr. BoysonThe Government amendments make any required action possible. I cannot this evening refer to the details of that action. I should not like to delay the Committee with the details at this late hour. They may be more difficult to understand than some of the amendments. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman often raises interesting points. I am quite prepared to see the hon. Gentleman or to write to him about the details. There is no question of changing our re-interpretation of the GLC accounts. The information about the GLC expenditure is submitted by the London residuary body. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter. I certainly did not wish to disturb his sleep this evening.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Mr. StrawThe Committee has caught me on the hop. I shall endeavour to follow in the rhetorical footsteps of the Minister. I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 4, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
Subsection 5 states:
In relation to any intermediate year—In a moment we shall have an opportunity to debate the wider issues raised by the clause. The Opposition moved this amendment to get an explanation from the Minister about the operation of the subsection.
- (a) after the passing of this Act relevant and total expenditure of a local authority shall be calculated for the purposes of Part VI of the 1980 Act in accordance with section 5 below, and
- (b) anything done (including an adjustment made) after the passing of this Act for those purposes shall, to the extent that it involves relevant or total expenditure of a local authority, be done by reference to expenditure so calculated."
§ Dr. BoysonI shall attempt to give an explanation to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about why we reject this clause. It will damage the Bill. I am sorry, we must not reject the clause.
§ Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)Why not?
§ Dr. BoysonI was looking forward to the debate. The hon. Lady may participate in it. We have not heard the hon. Lady's voice today in the stand part debate. With some of these figures, she may be thinking of standing fast.
The amendment will have the effect that relevant and total expenditure for the so-called intermediate years—that is the years 1983–84 to 1986–87 in England and 1984–85 to 1986–87 in Wales—could not be calculated for any of the purposes for which such figures of expenditure will be needed after the passage of the Bill. Thus, the amendment will prevent my right hon. Friend from making any further supplementary reports for these years. They could not continue to act in the way intended and as local government expects.
991 In short, the amendment would prevent us from achieving our aim of maintaining the status quo. Even Labour Members, I hope, would not wish us to depart from that. I recommend that the Committee reject the amendment. Basically, in this clause we are following, as far as one can, preceding practice.
§ Ms. Clare ShortWe are constantly told that the Bill is about validating the past. The Minister tells us that, if the amendment were passed, the Government could not interfere with settlements for 1984–85. That is a long time ago. I am surprised that the Government need take powers back that far. Will the Minister explain more thoroughly, rather than just reading from the brief, exactly what the effect would be if the amendment were passed?
§ Dr. BoysonI shall answer the hon. Lady without reading the brief. Let me put it on the record so that lawyers do not need to fight about the next definition.
Supplementary reports are made. Each year the Government give a rate support grant settlement to each authority and it then knows what it will receive. But, as the year passes, the data change—population, rateable values, the number of children under five, the number of old people, and so on—and there is continuing updating, so that, by the end of the year, the position of the 485 local authorities has changed. A reassessment occurs from time to time, including one of expenditure.
I have referred to the intermediate years of 1984–85 to 1986–87, the present year. Supplementary reports are required to let the local authorities know the exact position. We cannot obtain those supplementary reports until we get the legislation and our definitions right. Every Government have used supplementary reports from previous years so that they continually bring up to date the amount of money that goes to each local authority.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Question proposed, That the clause, as amended stand part of the Bill.
§ Dr. BoysonClause 4 validates all those things done by the Secretary of State for rate support grant purposes under the provisions described in clause 4(2). It also provides that for those years for which rate support grant supplementary reports have been made which are intended to be final, the conclusive calculations of block grant are to be made on the basis of the supplementary reports and the information that the Secretary of State took into account in making them. The clause provides that the future decisions on supplementary reports for 1983–84, for 1984–85, and for 1985–86, which do not yet exist, and for 1986–87 shall be taken in line with the provisions of clause 5.
Clause 5, when we come to it, provides that expenditure shall be defined for those years in the same way as for 1987–88. The supplementary reports will contain a definition of total and relevant expenditure and all the other information, just as is being done for the 1987–88 report.
§ Mr. Tony BanksThe Minister will be aware that the London borough of Newham has seen his Department a number of times to try to do something about the problems that were first encountered through the creation 992 of special funds in the 1982–83 accounts which, in effect, were disallowed by the Department of the Environment. Those contributions were neglected in the 1983–84 accounts and, due to additional grant penalties, this resulted in a deficit of about £4 million. I could go into some detail about Newham's current position following its position in 1982–83 and the creation of special funds. However, it has been reflected since then in all the settlements we have had. I should like to know whether there is still a chance for Newham's case to be rectified before the Bill becomes an Act. Is there any point in going to see the Minister yet again in order to explain Newham's case and to see whether we can get some redress, or is he now saying that with the passage of the clause, and eventually the Act, we might as well forget about the problems that arose in 1982–83 and that we have no redress either in law or by appeal to the Minister?
§ Dr. BoysonI understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that issue, which is a source of concern for Newham. However, that is involved in schedule 2 and I would prefer to deal with it then. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point.
§ Mr. SpearingI appreciate what the Minister says. We are to deal with amendment No. 132, on schedule 2. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that any adjustment will have to be taken account of within the formula of schedule 2 and cannot be in any way adjusted under the terms of clause 4 because it is a rigid clause. Will the Minister confirm that? That is, in effect, what he said but I would like him to be explicit.
§ Dr. BoysonThe hon. Gentleman is correct: it does fall under schedule 2. If there is any disagreement, there is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman from tabling an amendment on this matter. However, as it stands it will be under schedule 2.
§ Mr. StrawAs the Minister has explained, clause 4 validates past Acts and makes general provisions for the future. It seeks to clear up the mess of the past seven years of rate support grant and local government finance regimes which the Government have created. During the course of the debates we have had statements from the Minister and the Secretary of State trying to disclaim all responsibility for the 1980 Act, and every amending Act since then. We have had one every year. It is typical of the Government that whenever anything goes wrong they pretend that somehow they had nothing to do with it.
The financial regime of local authorities is based upon the 1980 Act. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) agreeing with that. That Act was the creation of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Henseltine) and it was supported enthusiastically by every Conservative Member of the time. It was the Labour Opposition who opposed that Act on the grounds that it was impractical, and incomprehensible and would lead to serious problems for local authorities. By this Bill we have been proved right and the Government have been proved wrong.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State show some humility. They keep coming to the Dispatch Box saying that they dislike the present local authority financial regime. That may be the case but why did they vote for it and why do they, no doubt, support it within 993 Government? We are seeing a latter-day conversion. What guarantee do we have that the new system will be any better than the present system?
Our real concern about clause 4 is not that it seeks to validate past Acts, which people had thought were valid anyway, but about the way in which it seeks to do that, especially, as we discussed under the group of amendments including No. 2A, the fact that, in order to validate the provisions, the Secretary of State seeks to make himself immune from court action. We had a detailed debate on that on Monday and I do not intend to repeat it.
However, I wish to ask the Secretary of State two sets of questions. Is he willing to consider—I have not given him notice of this—having the clause amended to bring it into line with what he said it meant when we discussed it on Monday? I refer in particular to clause 4(6). The matter was first raised on Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). The Secretary of State quoted subsection (1) which refers to
Anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act".The right hon. Gentleman said:It is only in relation to actions taken before this Act was published that anything I do escapes challenge.My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said:Passed not published.The Secretary of State replied:The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because since the Act was published I have done nothing nor will I do anything in the sense of this clause. I have taken no actions whatever in relation to the rate support grant settlement since the time that I realised it would be illegal for me to do so.Therefore, my first question to the Secretary of State is: is he willing to consider writing into the opening part of the clause a replacement for the phrasebefore the passing of this Actusing the words, "before 18 December 1986", which is the day that the Bill was published?My second question is more substantial, although the first was not insubstantial. During his first speech on Monday, the Secretary of State sought to explain that, in his view, the Opposition were wrong to believe that subsection (6), which makes the clause judge-proof, was wide in its effect. I asked what effect subsection (6) would have. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
It depends on the subject of the litigation. If it has to do with total expenditure or involves the definition of total expenditure, the Act will prevail over any decision of the court…Where a matter has nothing to do with the definition of total expenditure or with the rate support grant calculation based on it, it is judiciable but it might be better for the court to await the passage of the Bill so that it knows the definition of total expenditure."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 643–70.]I accept that if the Bill as drafted was so narrowly defined as the Secretary of State said in that statement, at least there would be less to argue about than we think there is now. Our problem is that clause 4, as drafted, appears to be wide. I do not want to repeat what I said on Monday, but anyone who looks at part VI of the 1980 Act realises that it covers not just definitions of total expenditure or the rate support calculation based upon it, but a wide area—the whole scheme of block grant as set down in that Act. That is reinforced and buttressed by provisions such as section 8 and schedule 2 to the Local Government Finance Act 1982, sections 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1986 and section 2 of the Rate Support Grants Act 1986.994 If the Secretary of State only wishes the clause to be as narrow as his statement to the House, is he willing to see it amended so that, under clause 4(1), it would read:
anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act for the purposes of the relevant provisions in relation to any of the initial years or intermediate years and only in relation to the definition of total expenditure or the rate support grant calculation based upon it".I am quoting from the words that the right hon. Gentleman used. If he means what he says, I can see no reason why that clause should not be limited as he said.The Secretary of State says that our concern about the judge-proofing of this clause and clause 6 is unjustified. Earlier today my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) quoted respectable legal advice to the effect that our fears are justified. It would be a measure of the Secretary of State's true intentions if he agreed to consider the two points that I have raised and to make a substantive reply on Report.
§ Ms. Clare ShortThere is another very important point. The Secretary of State claims that the Bill is necessary to validate action that he took when he thought he was acting according to the law. We have said all along that if that were all, it would not be controversial. However, we know that in the past local authorities have taken action that, on good legal advice, they thought was lawful, but which is being made unlawful by the Bill. We must ask that the protection that is to be accorded to the Secretary of State should be accorded to local authorities. Their actions should also be validated and made judge proof. If he were an honourable Secretary of State and if he were honourably trying to extricate himself from a legal difficulty, he would extend this protection to local authorities. He should explain why he is unwilling to do so.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to my hon. Friend. When we debate amendment No. 87 there will be an opportunity to raise the Birmingham point at much greater length. However, I accept the point that, if the Secretary of State is seeking indemnity for past unlawful actions, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the indemnity should apply equally to authorities like Birmingham.
§ Mr. RidleySince the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has asked me to respond to two specific questions, I shall have great pleasure in doing so. It gives me an opportunity to clear up the slight misunderstanding which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was in such a ferment about and which he raised on a point of order. As one who purports to put legal challenges before the Committee, he might at least realise the difference between a point of order and a point of substance. But we live in hope.
The hon. Member for Blackburn first asked the Government to substitute an earlier date—18 December—for the validation. One minute's thought will make him realise that the period between 18 December and the passing of this Bill would be a period when there was no proper definition of rate support grant. The old definition would remain in force. It would be possible for authorities to bring a mass of legal cases, on the basis that at present the law is as it is under the 1980 Act and that the definition was not valid for the period covering the passage of the 995 Bill. He must realise that that would not be a sensible solution. Law suits can arise not only from actions taken by the Secretary of State; they can arise on any matter that an authority chooses to pick upon at any time.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the letter that his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland read out from the Association of Municipal Authorities. I am grateful to the association for sending me a copy of that letter. As I said on Monday, the provisions of clause 4(6) and clause 6(4) validate decisions and actions under those parts of existing legislation that involve total or relevant expenditure. I said that anything that is wholly extraneous to total or relevant expenditure and hence is not within those parts of the existing legislation that are specified in the Bill is not covered by the validation.
If we did not make the position on those past decisions absolutely clear, it would be a recipe for costly and unnecessary litigation. I hope that the Opposition do not believe that such litigation flowing from the technical flaw which we are here putting right would be in anybody's interest.
§ Mr. StrawThe Secretary of State is repeating what he said on Monday. Does he not accept that part VI of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 goes far wider than simply to define total expenditure?
§ Mr. RidleyThat is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped, that total expenditure or relevant expenditure is endemic in all of the sections of those Acts that are quoted in the Bill. It is impossible to disentangle some parts of any conceivable court case from those parts that relate to total expenditure. That is exactly what I said on Monday and that is the hon. Gentleman's answer.
§ Mr. StrawIt is true that total expenditure pops up in a number of sections in part VI of the 1980 Act, but that is not the exclusive concern of part VI. In order to bring the law more into line with the Minister's statements we have not suggested that there should no longer be any reference to part VI of the 1980 Act, but that that reference should be limited to references to total expenditure. What is wrong with that, since that is exactly what he told the House on Monday?
§ Mr. RidleyI was right on Monday and I am right again today. It is impossible to distinguish some parts of part VI of the 1980 Act about total or relevant expenditure from other matters in that Act. It is the foundation upon which the whole of rate support grant and rate limitation have been calculated and one cannot, as it were, divide the foundations into some parts which are faulty and have to be validated and other parts which are not. If the hon. Gentleman will think about it, he will discover that such a distincition is virtually impossible.
§ Mr. DobsonWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. RidleyThis validation concerns only past decisions. When I come to make further decisions for all the years from 1983–84 to 1986–87 on which there are outstanding supplementary reports to be made, my decision—
§ Mr. DobsonWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. Ridley—will be subject to the normal review of the courts. My decisions on the rate support grant for 1987–88 and on reports and supplementary reports thereafter will be subject to review by the courts.
§ Mr. Dobsonrose—
§ Ms. Clare ShortThe right hon. Gentleman should give way.
§ Mr. RidleyUnder the formula in schedule 2, my determination of rate limits for 1987–88 will be subject to review by the courts. Decisions on future years' rate limitation will, of course, also be subject to review by the courts. I hope that puts to rest the misunderstanding which Opposition Front Bench speakers have brought to the debate.
§ Mr. SpearingI would not have risen had the Secretary of State had the courtesy to give way when I or my hon. Friend—
§ Mr. RidleyThat is what I have done: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SpearingI hope that I can be as polite or even improve on the politeness of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. DobsonMy hon. Friend could scarcely fail to do that.
§ Mr. SpearingThe Minister spoke about clause 4(6) applying to definitions of expenditure. He implied that that court capping, as I have nicknamed it, applied only to definitions of expenditure. However, later he said—I paraphrase—that everything is so intermingled that it is impossible to separate one element from another. He thus appeared to validate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that clause 4 has a wider ambit that the Secretary of State planned.
Earlier in the debate, the Minister for Local Government assured me that the Secretary of State had earlier today received a letter from me about these very matters and that I would receive a reply. I rose on that point. I invite the Secretary of State to intervene in my speech, because I will gladly give way to him. I rose to ask if the reply to that letter would come from him and would cover these points at issue. If we went into the points in detail tonight we would not be popular with other hon. Members. I want an understanding from the Secretary of State that not only will I get a reply—I have received that assurance already from the Minister of State—but that that reply will be signed by him and will address the matters that we have been discussing.
§ Mr. RidleyI shall send the hon. Gentleman a signed copy of Hansard with the speech that I have just made, which is a full answer to the letter from the AMA. It quotes me as saying:
If it has to do with total expenditure or involves the definition of total expenditure, the Act will prevail over any decision of the court.The Acts specified in the Bill all involve the definition of total expenditure, and that is inseparable from all the matters concerned in those Acts. What I said was perfectly valid. I invite the hon. Gentleman to repeat what I said as well.
§ Mr. SpearingI think that the Secretary of State has misunderstood me. The letter that I referred to was not the letter that I read out earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham); it was a letter 997 that I wrote yesterday which the Secretary of State received this morning. The right hon. Gentleman may not have seen it yet, but his hon. Friend the Minister has assured me that I will receive a reply, and I am grateful for the assurance that it will be signed by him.
§ Mr. RidleyI shall be happy to sign the letter myself, having checked it carefully, it if will help the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. DobsonWill the Secretary of State tell the Committee whether the legal interpretation that he is now giving, partly in response to the representations from the AMA, is the interpretation that he has arrived at himself, or whether he has received legal advice from the officials of his Department to that effect? If it is the latter, are they the people who drafted the offending legislation in the first place?
§ Mr. RidleyI must be responsible for my words at the Dispatch Box. I would not seek to hide behind the advice or assistance that I receive from others.
§ Mr. Tony BanksWill the Secretary of State carry on from his quotation from Hansard of 19 January? It says:
It depends on the subject of litigation. If it has to do with total expenditure or involves the definition of total expenditure, the Act will prevail over any decision of the court…Where a matter has nothing to do with the definition of total expenditure or with the rate support grant calculation based on it, it is judiciable but it might be better for the court to await the passage of the Bill so that it knows the definition of total expenditure."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 643.]Since the Secretary of State has told us that they are so closely interwoven, can he—so that we can move on—give us a good example of some other form of definition that could be challenged in the courts along the lines that he gave in his speech on 19 January?
§ Mr. RidleyIt is like Question Time, Mr. Walker, but I am happy to continue as long as the Committee wishes.
A possible parallel would be the rateable value of an authority, which is nothing to do with the definition of total expenditure, but is a matter concerned in those Acts.
Another case that I cited on Monday was the Greenwich case, which concerns the multiplier. I do not want to prejudice that case, but the multiplier has not yet been the subject of a decision because it might be embodied in the first supplementary report for 1986–87, and therefore will be subject to a final decision by me at a stage later than the passage of this Act. I do not want to prejudge the decision of the court, but that matter may be open to judicial review, as I said on Monday in response to the hon. Gentleman.
I have given him two examples of matters that are not within the scope of the Bill or proof against action by the courts. I am sure that with his great legal knowledge and ingenuity he can think of many more examples of the same sort.
§ 11 pm
§ Mr. StrawWe have all listened with care to the Secretary of State, but the truth is that the assurances that he sought to give on Monday do not square with the wide terms of the Bill as it is drafted. As the letter from the legal adviser to the Inner London education authority points out:
There is nothing limiting the deeming provision to errors arising out of the erroneous definition, and therefore calculation, of relevant and total expenditure.998 Our point is that the present wording clearly appears to cover any procedural impropriety, failure to consider a matter rationally or other unlawfulness in respect of anything done by the Secretary of State for those statutory puposes.It is no good the Secretary of State seeking to be patronising with the Committee. I am afraid to say that we have been here before. Ministers have too often given bland assurances about the nature of legislation which have turned out not to be the case. Indeed, if the assurances that were given by his ally the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had been correct, the Government would not be in their present mess. It is precisely because Acts have turned out to be something quite different from that which Ministers promised the House that we are in this mess.
What is more, Labour Members are aware of the fact that Conservative Members of Parliament pay scant regard to the rule of law. For them, it is simply an instrument to use or to discard as it suits them. It is all right for them to lecture us on the rule of law when it suits them, but when they make unlawful Acts, they come to the House to seek wide immunity from the law, and immunity not only in respect of Acts which everybody thought were valid in the past, but from errors, mistakes or acts of unfairness. It is that which we wish to pursue. It is on that that the Secretary of State has given no proper explanation and it is for that reason that we shall seek to vote against clause 4.
§ Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 217, Noes 169.
1001| Division No. 68] | [11.02 pm |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Budgen, Nick |
| Alexander, Richard | Burt, Alistair |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Butcher, John |
| Amess, David | Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam |
| Ancram, Michael | Butterfill, John |
| Ashby, David | Carlisle, John (Luton N) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Carttiss, Michael |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Cash, William |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) | Chope, Christopher |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Churchill, W. S. |
| Baldry, Tony | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Cockeram, Eric |
| Benyon, William | Colvin, Michael |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Conway, Derek |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Cope, John |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Corrie, John |
| Blackburn, John | Couchman, James |
| Body, Sir Richard | Crouch, David |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Bottomley, Peter | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Dover, Den |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Dunn, Robert |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Durant, Tony |
| Bright, Graham | Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke) |
| Brinton, Tim | Eggar, Tim |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Evennett, David |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Browne, John | Fallon, Michael |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Farr, Sir John |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Favell, Anthony |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Forman, Nigel | Morris, M. (N'hampton S) |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Neubert, Michael |
| Forth, Eric | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Franks, Cecil | Norris, Steven |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Portillo, Michael |
| Freeman, Roger | Powley, John |
| Gale, Roger | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Galley, Roy | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Rowe, Andrew |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Greenway, Harry | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Gregory, Conal | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Ground, Patrick | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Grylls, Michael | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Silvester, Fred |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Sims, Roger |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Speed, Keith |
| Harris, David | Speller, Tony |
| Harvey, Robert | Spencer, Derek |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW) | Squire, Robin |
| Hawksley, Warren | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Hayes, J. | Stern, Michael |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Hayward, Robert | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Heddle, John | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Henderson, Barry | Sumberg, David |
| Hickmet, Richard | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Hirst, Michael | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Holt, Richard | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Howard, Michael | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N) | Trotter, Neville |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Viggers, Peter |
| Hunter, Andrew | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Jackson, Robert | Waller, Gary |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Watts, John |
| Jones, Robert (Herts W) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Wheeler, John |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Whitfield, John |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Wilkinson, John |
| Latham, Michael | Wolfson, Mark |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Wood, Timothy |
| Lester, Jim | Woodcock, Michael |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Yeo, Tim |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Malone, Gerald | |
| Mates, Michael | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Mr. David Lightbown and |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Mr. Richard Ryder |
| Moore, Rt Hon John |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Ashley, Rt Hon Jack |
| Alton, David | Ashton, Joe |
| Anderson, Donald | Atkinson, N, (Tottenham) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Bagier, Gordon A. T. |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Barron, Kevin |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | John, Brynmor |
| Bell, Stuart | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Lambie, David |
| Blair, Anthony | Lamond, James |
| Boyes, Roland | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Leighton, Ronald |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Litherland, Robert |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Bruce, Malcolm | McCartney, Hugh |
| Buchan, Norman | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Caborn, Richard | McGuire, Michael |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McNamara, Kevin |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McTaggart, Robert |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | McWilliam, John |
| Clarke, Thomas | Madden, Max |
| Clay, Robert | Marek, Dr John |
| Clelland, David Gordon | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Martin, Michael |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Cohen, Harry | Meacher, Michael |
| Coleman, Donald | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Conlan, Bernard | Michie, William |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Corbett, Robin | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Craigen, J. M. | Nellist, David |
| Crowther, Stan | O'Brien, William |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | O'Neill, Martin |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Dalyell, Tam | Park, George |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Parry, Robert |
| Deakins, Eric | Patchett, Terry |
| Dewar, Donald | Pendry, Tom |
| Dixon, Donald | Pike, Peter |
| Dobson, Frank | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Dormand, Jack | Prescott, John |
| Douglas, Dick | Radice, Giles |
| Dubs, Alfred | Randall, Stuart |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Raynsford, Nick |
| Eadie, Alex | Redmond, Martin |
| Eastham, Ken | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Fatchett, Derek | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Robertson, George |
| Fisher, Mark | Rogers, Allan |
| Flannery, Martin | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Forrester, John | Rowlands, Ted |
| Foster, Derek | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Foulkes, George | Sheerman, Barry |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Shields, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Garrett, W. E. | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| George, Bruce | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Skinner, Dennis |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Hamilton, James (M'well N) | Soley, Clive |
| Hancock, Michael | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hardy, Peter | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Stott, Roger |
| Haynes, Frank | Strang, Gavin |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Straw, Jack |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Home Robertson, John | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Howells, Geraint | Wareing, Robert |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Weetch, Ken |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Welsh, Michael |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Winnick, David |
| Woodall, Alec | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Young, David (Bolton SE) | Mr. Ron Davies and |
| Mr. Sean Hughes. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Ridley.]
§ Dr. CunninghamOn a point of order, Mr. Walker. I wish to make it clear that we do not intend to oppose the motion to report Progress, but out of that motion arises a legitimate question that I hope it is appropriate to raise on a point of order. I shall raise it in whatever way is appropriate—
§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. The question is debatable. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak to the question before the House that is perfectly in order.
§ Dr. CunninghamI think that I shall continue with my point of order, Mr. Walker.
We are entitled to have a statement from the Government about their intentions on this business. We have just concluded discussion on clause 4. The Bill, as it now stands, has 17 clauses and five schedules. That was at the last count, but we have difficulty keeping up with the Government changes. Do the Government intend to table any further amendments or new clauses? When do they intend to bring the business back to the Floor of the House? Do they intend to introduce a timetable motion for further discussion of the Bill?
§ Mr. RidleyThe hon. Gentleman has not correctly counted the number of clauses and schedules—[Interruption.] It sometimes helps to see what we have done rather than work on last year's "Bradshaw".
There is a possibility of one further Government amendment at some stage in the Bill's progress. It is not yet ready to be tabled. I have not counted the amendment's words any more than the hon. Gentleman has counted the clauses in the Bill.
We have made a little progress today, although not as much as we had hoped. I shall consult my right hon. Friends about the Government's intentions, and no doubt in due course the hon. Gentleman will come to know them through the usual channels.
§ Mr. Tony BanksI wish to push the Secretary of State a little further. When can we expect an announcement? I have twice brought my sponge bag, and twice I have returned home early. My wife clearly thinks that I am having an unsuccessful affair.
§ Mr. RidleyI really do not think that I can be held responsible for the disappointment of Mrs. Banks.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.