§ The Minister for Local Government (Dr. Rhodes Boyson)
I beg to move,That the Order [26th January] be supplemented as follows:
§ Lords Amendments
§ 1.—(1) The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and subject to the provisions of the Order [26th January], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
§ (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
§ (5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, on this day before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
§ 2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
- (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment, moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
- (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
- (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
- (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
- (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
- (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
- (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
§ (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.411
§ Stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments.
§ 3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
§ 4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
- (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
- (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
- (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
- (ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
- (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
§ 5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the procedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
§ (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
§ (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
§ (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall he put forthwith.
§ (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
§ I am surprised that it is I, rather than an Opposition Member, who am moving the motion. I had assumed that Opposition Members would have been so fed up seeing me at the Dispatch Box discussing local government finance that they would have queued to support the motion. Clearly they are looking forward with relish to more time in the company of relevant and total expenditure, those old friends who are returning again. I will be brief.
§ There has been one overriding urgency in dealing with the Bill—the need to have a rate support grant report approved by the House and in place before the start of the new financial year so that we can pay grant to local authorities. That urgency remains, and we shall not slacken pace at the 11 th hour. [Interruption.] I am corrected by hon. Members—at the 11 th hour and the 30th minute. The Bill has been thoroughly debated. To date, we have had over 47 hours of debate, including 2½ hours on points of order and a procedural motion. We have covered 120 amendments on the Floor of the House. Another place has considered over 100 amendments. That is a substantial expenditure of parliamentary time. During the debates [Interruption.]412
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. Hon. Members should not hold discussions at the Bar of the House. Will those hon. Members who do not wish to take part in the debate please leave the Chamber?
§ Dr. Boyson
I welcome your timely intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this important matter. I am sure that hon. Members in various parts of the House were discussing local government issues. It is nice when we can keep such matters on a guillotine motion.
During the debates, I do not believe that anyone seriously challenged the need for a Bill to put on a proper statutory footing the definitions of total and relevant expenditure that local and central Government have accepted since 1981. The definitions are fundamental to the rate support grant and rate limitation systems.
We have, of course, been asked for a shorter measure that deals only with total expenditure or, at any rate, something simpler. I am sure that we would all have preferred that. Unfortunately, it was not possible. The rate support grant system is highly complex and relevant, and total expenditure is endemic to it. The definitions therefore could not simply be waved into place with a magic wand. Complexity was inevitable. Further, for reasons that have been well rehearsed, we have had to make provision also for the 1987–88 rate and precept limitation process in the Bill.
Rate limitation may not be a policy that is beloved by Opposition Members, but it is an established policy and a great benefit to ratepayers. It was right that the policy should continue. We have had to ensure that the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88 can be made immediately on Royal Assent.
The Bill is urgently needed to give local authorities certainty about the operation of the rate support grant and rate limitation systems and to ensure that grant can be paid from the start of the new financial year. The Bill has been fully debated. We should maintain the impetus of that debate. Therefore, I commend the timetable motion to the House.
§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
All hon. Members look forward to the occasions on which the Minister speaks in his wonderful Lancashire tones. I only regret that he did not follow his father's advice and join the Opposition. The Haslington Labour party is alive and well and looking forward to a great victory at the general election.
The Minister said that the Bill and the guillotine motion are necessary to introduce certainty into the law. The Secretary of State used that alibi back on Second Reading on 12 January, when he said:The purpose here is to give authorities the maximum of certainty in setting their budgets and rates over the next two months."—[Official Report, 12 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 46.]
The finer issues of local government finance are the subject of conversation in working men's clubs and public houses up and down the land. For those hon. Members who have missed the story that has unfolded, since the Secretary of State made his statement on 12 January there have been about 100 separate amendments to the Bill. There were amendments in Committee and on Report, and there were amendments in the other place in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. All the amendments that were passed were Government amendments. Uncertainty has been heaped upon uncertainty. The 413 Secretary of State has shown great incompetence in the drafting and preparation of the Bill and in the administration of the rate support grant system.
On 23 February, local authorities were informed by letter that there had been small errors, but in fact there were rather serious errors in the calculation tables that were sent out following the Secretary of State's statement on 13 January. That led to recalculation by the local authorities. On 5 March, the Secretary of State made a further statement on the Greenwich judgment. That led to the issue of further tables, leading to further calculations by the local authorities.
The need for more time to debate this Bill and the implications of the Lords amendments arises from the Greenwich judgment. I ask the Minister of State to deal with the point that I am about to raise, either now or when we debate the third set of amendments.
As the Bill contains retrospective provisions, it is right to draw the attention of the House to why the learned judge in the Greenwich case decided in favour of Greenwich and against the Secretary of State. The learned judge took the provisions of the Rate Support Grants Act 1986 which, like this Bill, sought to validate all previous acts of the Secretary of State, and said that the Secretary of State had to adhere to the principles that he had originally set out in the rate support grant order for 1986–87 that favoured Greenwich but disadvantaged Bromley, because the decision set out in that order had been validated by the Secretary of State's retrospective validating legislation. It was because of that that the learned judge said that the Secretary of State had been hoist with his own petard.
When the Secretary of State came to the House on 5 March, he said that, for the purposes of the rate support grant, he intended to accept the Greenwich judgment, but that he would appeal against it. The local authorities have been informed of their new rate support grant entitlement on the basis of the Secretary of State's acceptance of the Greenwich judgment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been waiting very patiently to see how the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers arise out of the motion, but I fail to see how they do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the motion.
§ Mr. Straw
They arise straight out of the guillotine motion. These are major issues that need to be debated. They arise from Lords amendments to clause 7 and from other Lords amendments and there is insufficient time to debate those major issues.
If the Secretary of State were to win the appeal, what would be the position of local authorities, in particular the position of those authorities that have been rate-capped? Presumably the Secretary of State would then issue revised rate support grant calculations. That would have the effect of reducing rate support grant for some authorities, but others, particularly rate-capped authorities, would be unable to do anything about it by means of the rate. Then they would be in deficit. It is important that all local authorities should know what the position is.
During these many debates on the Local Government Finance Bill, we have seen the preparation, decision making and drafting of the Bill taken on the hoof. We do not blame the draftsmen or the officials for that; we blame 414 the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues for reducing the local government finance system to complete uncertainty and chaos. Much more time is needed to debate these key amendments tabled in another place and not previously debated in this House. For those reasons, we oppose the guillotine motion.
§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
This evening we are in a ridiculous position. There was no need to guillotine the Bill; it would have run its course this evening. Its passage through the House has not been held up unduly. We should not take up any more of the two hours debating this motion, but should get this squalid little Bill out of the way.
§ Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)
Whatever the Government may say and the Minister has said tonight about the need to make progress on the Bill to void chaos in the local government budget-making process, the Bill needs all the close scrutiny it can get. That has been demonstrated by the number of changes and amendments—the Minister mentioned a figure of 300—which have already been made both in this House and the other place since it was drafted. Far from avoiding chaos, the Secretary of State has already thrown local government into considerable turmoil by rushing through complicated legislation and not giving himself or the House sufficient time to consider it.
There are several examples of costly errors caused by such haste, the latest of which can he amply demonstrated by looking at what has happened to two authorities on Tyneside. On 23 February a letter was posted informing local authorities of a revision to the probable grant entitlement notified to them on 13 January. On 24 February Lord Skelmersdale said that the changes were small and, referring to Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority, said that the authority had not issued its precept. Presumably the assumption was that the fact that the precept had not been issued somehow meant that only a simple adjustment was required. What the noble Lord did not appreciate was that the authority, acting on the information received from the Home Office in January, had met on 23 February and set its precept at 10.55p, before the arrival of the Home Office letter informing the authority that its maximum precept was now 10.54p. Therefore, an extraordinary meeting had to be held to change the precept. The authority complained that considerable wasted time and effort was expended on complying with the Secretary of State's corrections and in preparing, typing and printing a further report; and about additional postage, loss of officers' time, and travelling costs and attendance allowances for members to attend a further meeting on 2 March to give effect to the new limits.
The authorities comment that it is ironic that the rate limitation process, which is supposed to curb public expenditure wastage has created this position. That exposes the ludicrous position into which the Government have plunged local government finance.
In the same county, the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne received—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am having difficulty seeing what that has to do with the motion before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the motion.
§ Mr. Clelland
I am trying to point out that proceeding with such haste on the Bill has already caused considerable chaos. If we proceed in such haste again tonight, it is likely to cause further chaos.
In doing so I am pointing to the chaos that has already been caused in places, such as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It received the news that its rate limit had been reduced by 0.05p three hours before the council finance committee planned to agree the rate recommendations to the city council. That change plus the consequential amendments necessary to total expenditure and block grant entitlement to keep within the revised limits necessitated 160 amendments to the city council's budget document.
The Minister said that the Bill is necessary to simplify and clarify the law and give more certainty to local government. We have heard that in every local government measure—some 43—since the Tory party came to power.
This bungling and stumbling from one farcical situation to another is a direct result of ill-considered and unwarranted interference in the day-to-day running of democratically elected local authorities. It is a clear demonstration that the real responsibility for the erratic and confusing lurches of local authority rates and finances lies squarely on the shoulders of this autocratic Government and their steamroller mentality, of which this guillotine motion is yet another example.
§ 12.2 am
§ Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)
I am opposed to a guillotine on the Bill. I am concerned that amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench may not be reached. I should like to give one example, which I am sure will persuade the House. The Secretary of State has directed the London borough of Lambeth to submit a special report by 18 May on direct labour organisations.
That matter has already been referred to in the House by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on 6 March, when he claimed that the direct labour department of the London borough of Lambeth had lost the borough some £15 million. That pre-empts the decision that will be made by the Secretary of State, but the situation is rendered unclear by the measures that are before us. The London borough of Lambeth is submitting to the Secretary of State figures which will show that over a three-year period the losses on contracts of over £50,000 are £1.4 million and on contracts under £50,000 are £400,000. At best, the claims of the hon. Member for Streatham were a fantasy; at worst they were a fiction; certainly they were malicious.
It is difficult for boroughs to know for sure where they stand with a Bill such as this. It is not properly amended in the House. In addition, the Secretary of State says that within eight weeks he wants special inquiries and special investigations, into the boroughs. That can only create uncertainty. In reality, the cuts by the Government in local authority housing expenditure of 66 per cent. since 1979 have resulted in a rate of private sector bankruptcy which is double that of 1979. The issues of housing—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Interesting though it may be, I do not see how this has anything directly to do with the motion before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that.
§ Mr. Holland
We need more time to debate the amendments, such as amendment No. 4, amendment No. 7, clauses 6 and 8 and other amendments which will not be taken before the House tonight.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I wonder whether you can advise the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because a most bizarre thing has happened. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has suddenly decided to expose his braces and lie prone on the bench behind your left ear. Is that a usual function that hon. Members may be expected to perform?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What goes on behind me has nothing to do with me, nor, I suggest, with the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Holland
I shall not detain the House, given that the allegations made by the hon. Member for Streatham have been countered in the debate. I regret that it is unlikely that we shall get on to the amendments which would enable us to put the case more fully and in more detail.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 152.418
|Division No. 116]||[12 midnight|
|Alexander, Richard||Coombs, Simon|
|Ancram, Michael||Cope, John|
|Ashby, David||Couchman, James|
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Dover, Den|
|Baldry, Tony||Dunn, Robert|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Batiste, Spencer||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Eggar, Tim|
|Bendall, Vivian||Evennett, David|
|Benyon, William||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Best, Keith||Fallon, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Forman, Nigel|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Blackburn, John||Forth, Eric|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Franks, Cecil|
|Body, Sir Richard||Gale, Roger|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Hind, Kenneth|
|Brinton, Tim||Howard, Michael|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Browne, John||Key, Robert|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Knowles, Michael|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Burt, Alistair||Lang, Ian|
|Butcher, John||Latham, Michael|
|Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Butterfill, John||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Carlisle, John (Luton N)||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Cash, William||Lightbown, David|
|Chapman, Sydney||Lilley, Peter|
|Chope, Christopher||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Lord, Michael|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Cockeram, Eric||Maclean, David John|
|Colvin, Michael||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Conway, Derek||Madel, David|
|Malins, Humfrey||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Malone, Gerald||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Marlow, Antony||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Mates, Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Mather, Sir Carol||Spencer, Derek|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Merchant, Piers||Stanley, Rt Hon John|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Steen, Anthony|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Stern, Michael|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Moate, Roger||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Sumberg, David|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Newton, Tony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Osborn, Sir John||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Ottaway, Richard||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Page, Sir John (Harrow W)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Thurnham, Peter|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Pawsey, James||Trippier, David|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Porter, Barry||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Price, Sir David||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Raffan, Keith||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Waller, Gary|
|Rathbone, Tim||Ward, John|
|Renton, Tim||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Warren, Kenneth|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Watts, John|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Wheeler, John|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Whitfield, John|
|Rowe, Andrew||Whitney, Raymond|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Ryder, Richard||Wilkinson, John|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Wolfson, Mark|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Wood, Timothy|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Shersby, Michael||Mr. Michael Portillo and|
|Silvester, Fred||Mr. Michael Neubert.|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Boyes, Roland|
|Alton, David||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)|
|Anderson, Donald||Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)|
|Ashton, Joe||Bruce, Malcolm|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Buchan, Norman|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Caborn, Richard|
|Barron, Kevin||Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Bell, Stuart||Canavan, Dennis|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Clarke, Thomas|
|Clay, Robert||McNamara, Kevin|
|Clelland, David Gordon||McWilliam, John|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Madden, Max|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)||Martin, Michael|
|Cohen, Harry||Maxton, John|
|Coleman, Donald||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Meacher, Michael|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Corbett, Robin||Michie, William|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Mikardo, Ian|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Craigen, J. M.||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Dalyell, Tam||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|
|Dewar, Donald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Dixon, Donald||Park, George|
|Dormand, Jack||Parry, Robert|
|Dubs, Alfred||Pike, Peter|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Prescott, John|
|Eastham, Ken||Randall, Stuart|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Faulds, Andrew||Redmond, Martin|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Fisher, Mark||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Forrester, John||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Foster, Derek||Robertson, George|
|Foulkes, George||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Rowlands, Ted|
|Freud, Clement||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Sheerman, Barry|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Gould, Bryan||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Haynes, Frank||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Snape, Peter|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Soley, Clive|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Home Robertson, John||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Stott, Roger|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Straw, Jack|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Tinn, James|
|John, Brynmor||Wareing, Robert|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Weetch, Ken|
|Kennedy, Charles||Welsh, Michael|
|Lamond, James||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Leighton, Ronald||Winnick, David|
|Litherland, Robert||Woodall, Alec|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Loyden, Edward||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Tellers for the Noes:|
|McGuire, Michael||Mr. Allen McKay and|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Mr. Tony Lloyd.|
§ Question put and agreed to.