HC Deb 07 November 1988 vol 140 cc112-31 10.15 pm
Mr. O'Brien

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 14, line 31, leave out from 'which' to end of line 34 and insert

`reflects the retail prices index for September 1988'. The amendment refers to a formula in schedule 2, and in particular to the part of that formula described as 'Z'. It seeks to increase local authorities' budgets for 1988–89 in line with the latest estimate of inflation. If we are to be fair and give serious consideration to local authority expenditure, we must at least allow an increase for the rate of inflation. In this instance, we refer to the amount relevant to the calculation of grant entitlement in 1989–90.

Schedule 2 sets out the formula for determining a notional expenditure figure, "the relevant amount", for 1989–90, on which local authorities' grant entitlement will be based. 'TE' in the formula represents local authorities' 1988–89 budgeted expenditure, while 'Z' represents an inflation factor. The amendment puts on the face of the Bill an inflation factor in line with the index for September 1988. According to Government figures, the inflation factor for that month was recorded as 5.9 per cent.

Announcing the provision for local authority current expenditure in 1989–90 on 7 July this year, the Secretary of State said that the increase was slightly above the anticipated level of inflation. The increase, adjusted for the extra provision for poll tax costs, was 4.3 per cent., compared with the Government's latest forecasts for the increase in the gross domestic product deflator of 4 per cent. In July the retail price index was increasing faster, at a rate of 4.5 per cent. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the increase in the GDP deflator in 1989–90 to 5 per cent. Retail price inflation is forecast to rise in 1989–90 above the Chancellor's latest forecast of 6.25 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1988 before falling back to 5 per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1989.

On either measure of inflation for 1989–90, the GDP deflator or the RPI, the provision for local authority expenditure in 1989–90 is insufficient to maintain current service levels. We are talking about inflation as it has been recorded by the Government, but for many reasons the inflationary factor facing local authorities is much larger than the recorded RPI factor. All we are asking is that the formula should meet the recorded increase of 5.9 per cent.

The Secretary of State should recognise the surge in inflation that has occurred since July and increase the expenditure provisions. A rise in the expenditure provision would necessitate an increase in Government grant, because otherwise ratepayers would bear the whole cost of the increased provision. That is the background to the amendment. I hope that the Minister will give some explanation of why the amendment cannot be accepted. It is a constructive approach to resolving the issues facing local government.

It would be much easier for the Minister to accept the amendment, ensuring that local authorities have the opportunity to meet their commitment in line with the increase in the RPI. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. If she cannot, I ask her to give a viable or reasoned explanation of why it cannot be accepted.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

The effect of the amendment on local government would be one which most Labour Members would greatly regret. I realise that the complexity of these matters is such that people do not always think through the effects. The higher the Z factor, the sharper the slope and the greater the effect on the higher spending authorities. Brent, about which we have heard a certain amount this evening, would stand to lose nearly £3 million if we accepted the amendment. Lambeth would lose £4 million, Islington £5.5 million, and Birmingham about £4 million.

I should like to explain briefly the Z factor, although I am not sure that it is the most edifying part of our discussions. It is important to be clear that the Z factor does not refer to the amount of grant available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in July that this is set to rise by 9 per cent., which is considerably above the level of inflation, to £13,575 million. The point about expenditure and the Z factor is rather different.

The amendment is about the factor in the forthcoming rate support grant settlement that is consistent with the proposal that local authority current expenditure should increase by 4.8 per cent. between this year and next. This factor, called the Z factor, is the uplift for total expenditure. In addition to current expenditure, total expenditure includes the financing costs of capital expenditure, but it excludes any expenditure financed by specific grants. Mainly due to the substantial increase in specific grants next year, such as the new grant for community charge preparation costs, the Z factor is likely to be about 1.032, which is a 3.2 per cent. increase. It will be spelt out more precisely in the consultation paper on next year's settlement.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to our proposals for current expenditure provision generally and he urged us to say that local authority expenditure should rise by the retail price index for September, which is 5.9 per cent. That would be wholly inappropriate because while the RPI may be an appropriate measure for consumer prices, the generally accepted measure of inflation in the economy is the GDP deflator. It is forecast to rise by 5 per cent. in 1989–90 and our proposals on current expenditure provision are broadly in line with that.

The Z factor is not about the amount of grant to be available. That increases by 9 per cent., as my right hon. Friend announced. The amendment would have a particularly harsh effect on many local authorities that Labour Members most wish to help.

Mr. Cryer

Does the Z factor cover items such as increased capital expenditure on education? In the current year, Bradford will spend about £10.487 million on capital expenditure for school buildings. I have a press release from Dixon Group plc announcing that it will help to fund a city technology college in Bradford. The capital expenditure on that college will cost the public purse about £10 million. One small sector of education in Bradford will attract the equivalent of the capital expenditure on all the 258 public sector schools in Bradford. I wonder whet her the increase in grant to £13 billion covers the announcement that will be made tomorrow?

The Government say that they make grant calculations, yet private bodies are making announcements about Government policy. They are handing over government to squalid little people such as Stanley Kalms who is making a bid for a knighthood by announcing this CTC. It is time that the Government made the position clear. Does local authority expenditure include these private ventures encouraged by the Secretary of State for Education and Science? It is an outrage that Dixon should make an announcement of £10 million of public expenditure, and I wish to know whether it has been included in the Minister's calculations or whether it is extra money that they can find for Dixon, but not for education in Bradford.

It is outrageous that the Government are lining the pockets of the private sector yet they cannot give the House a clear statement of whether such decisions are included in their calculations. Nor do we know whether they plan to take them into account in future calculations for rate support grant but cannot yet tell the House because a deal has not been reached with some get-rich-quick person—they are called entrepreneurs nowadays—who is trying to get a reward or a title.

Mr. O'Brien

I am grateful to the Minister for making part of the formula clear, although we still have many questions about the other factors of the formula in schedule 2.

The Minister said that if the retail price index was the factor of inflation it could have far-reaching effects on local authorities, but I am not convinced that that will be the case. Another worrying factor is the intention of water authorities, especially Yorkshire water authority, substantially to increase water charges. In Yorkshire and Humberside, local authorities will have to pay up to 27 per cent. more. I hope that the Minister will take note of chat inflation in the coming year.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire water authority is increasing charges to boat owners? Does not the Minister believe that it should try to keep prices down for leisure activities to enable the public to enjoy the recreational facilities that are so desperately needed in our area?

10.30 pm
Mr. O'Brien

It is clear that my hon. Friend is mirroring my worry which has been caused by the proposals of, especially, the Yorkshire water authority—proposals which I am sure will be followed by other water authorities—to make sure that privatisation is attractive. Those are the issues that will be facing local authorities and the Minister should be aware of that worry.

In presenting this amendment, I wanted to probe the question of the Z factor in the formula. Some explanation has been given, but I am sure that there are further questions that should be asked. Because of the complexity of this formula and the fact that we shall be referring to it again in the near future, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

I do not intend to say very much more about the Z factor, but I would like to say that the mean attack by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on better education is irrelevant. To attempt to do Bradford out of a city technology college says very little for him and has nothing to do with the Z factor.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Would the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) make his position clear on the amendment?

Mr. O'Brien

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rooker

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 15, line 2, leave out from 'is' to end of line 5 and insert such an amount as agreed after consultation with the Local Authority Associations, which amount represents the expenditure relevant authorities might reasonably be expected to incur in the year beginning in 1989 in connection with Part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.". I invite hon. Members who are here to legislate to study page 15 of the Bill. There is a rather strange figure on the second line of page 15. It says: The Secretary of State shall secure that the aggregate of figures determined under this paragraph for relevant authorities is £53,057,231". That is a very precise figure. It is incredibly accurate to the last pound. I know that we take the accuracy of poll tax calculations to extremes, but I believe that this one beats the lot.

I understand that 43 full-time civil servants have been working on the poll tax Bill to get it to the House, and that was before the Government added about 400 amendments. At the end of the day, they arrived at the figure of £53,057,231. That money is allegedly start-up money for the poll tax. It is supposed to help local authorities with the horrendous costs of introducing this quite outrageous poll tax Act. This tax will cost twice as much to collect as did the rates, and local authorities are said to need £53,057,231.

Our amendment seeks to take out the precise figure, because we wish to show that the sum allocated by the Government for poll tax set-up costs is inadequate. We also wish to ensure that the position is kept under review, which is crucial.

I know that the Minister of State visited Birmingham recently. Although I had a public meeting with Councillor Knowles last Thursday, I did not have a chance to discuss the Minister's visit with him. However, I gather from press reports that the Minister has promised to double the amount of money allocated to Birmingham for its poll tax set-up costs. I am putting words into the Minister's mouth, but that is what the press reports led me to believe.

Mr. Gummer

Perhaps to help the hon. Gentleman, I will say that I was dispelling a false comment that the community charge sum which had been provided in this part, which is a specific grant, was all that was coming, when he knows there is provision for twice as much in the normal RSG. Therefore, the total amount to Birmingham was about twice what had been expected. That is the only point that I was making, which I think was accepted by all hon. Members.

Mr. Rooker

I accept that, but it is no way near enough.I am not saying that the £53 million is all that the local authorities will receive.

The £53 million allocation is, I understand, based on a total of £110 million. The Government have decided that that sum represents the revenue costs to English authorities of poll tax preparation in 1989–1990. We are only talking about the start-up revenue costs and not capital outlay, which will involve considerably larger sums.

I presume that the Minister has gone through all the briefs that were used in Committee—more would have been done since then—and has seen all the detailed figures. Local authorities contend, however, that the £110 million underestimates the likely costs. The Government's defence—no doubt we shall hear more of it later on—is that the estimate is in line with the cost estimates made by Price Waterhouse. We have received information from local authority associations—we do not just dream up figures—which challenges the Government's estimates.

Price Waterhouse estimated that the cost to English authorities would be £108 million. The start-up revenue costs, however, were based on November 1987 prices, not 1988 or 1989 prices. Inflation has been running at 5.9 per cent. for the past 12 months and the gross domestic product deflator—I hate using the initials GDP because I think that it sounds bad to those listening to our debates—for 1988–89 has been predicted in the Autumn Statement at 6.26 per cent. That means that the Price Waterhouse estimate of £108 million should be £122 million to be worth the same, in real terms, by November 1989. That figure is 11 per cent. more than the sum recommended by the Government's consultants. Given that difference, it is reasonable to consider how Price Waterhouse reached its figure.

It is unfair that we did not have greater advance warning about this Bill, but, at this time of night, I shall not go into the detail of the Price Waterhouse report; rather, I shall give a summary of my criticisms of it. That report was based on a small sample of authorities. It rested on dubious assumptions and missed several areas of spending, which I shall elaborate upon if required. No allowance was made for preparatory publicity or the staff training required to administer the poll tax.

It is obvious that major publicity campaigns will be needed for the new Tory tax. Central Government have earmarked £1 million for publicity in England this year. I suspect that when the poll tax is implemented, that lot on the Tory Benches will have spent more than £1 million on glossy leaflets through front doors and on television advertising, usually with the subliminal Tory logo in the corner of the screen. In Scotland, the Government put a leaflet through every door telling people how good the poll tax was, which was printed in blue. Such was the neutrality of the Government's propaganda efforts in Scotland.

We know that the Government have earmarked money for publicity, but we appreciate that it cannot all be done centrally. In England, registration dates will vary and, therefore, each local authority will have to mount its own campaign to inform the people of that date.

Mr. Redmond

rose—

Mr. Rooker

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

In Birmingham, 16 per cent. of the adult population are from the ethnic minorities. I do not seek to draw the patronising conclusion that they cannot speak or read English, because in every household in Birmingham there is someone who can. There are people, however, who, after living and working in this country for years, still do not have a full command of the English language. One sees that not just among the ethnic minorities. Constituents of mine who came here in 1950 from Latvia could not get British citizenship under naturalisation because even today they could not pass an English language test. Local authorities will have to have special publicity, and languages other than English will have to be used. That will vary from authority to authority.

Mr. Redmond

My hon. Friend mentioned the vast amount of money that the Government are spending on propaganda in an attempt to brainwash and kid the public. Is it the local authorities that will have to spell out the truth about the poll tax, and will the Minister see that authorities that do so are not penalised and surcharged?

Mr. Rooker

I should not want my hon. Friend to misunderstand the position. Local authorities are debarred by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 from telling the truth about the poll tax because if they did so, they would be accused of putting out propaganda. That is outlawed under the publicity clauses in that Act. The Government will determine the form of the poll tax bills received by our constituents. It will not be up to the local authorities—they will not be able to tell the truth about the poll tax.

The Price Waterhouse report did not refer to staff training. It is unrealistic and bordering on stupidity to implement a major change such as this without staff training. The system will be heavily dependent on computers. That was demonstrated at local authority conferences; there was even a stall or two at the Labour party conference. Firms up and down the country are providing local authorities with their wares and equipment such as forms and computers.

The bailiffs are involved—everybody is involved. Everyone will make money out of the poll tax except our constituents who, by and large, will have to pay it to pay for the cuts that go to the well-off. Staff must be trained in the intricacies of the legislation. It is not a five-minute job. There was no estimate for staff training in the Price Waterhouse report, on which the Government based the figure of £53 million.

The local authority associations have been monitoring the likely cost to members, with a series of surveys. The sample is far bigger than that used by Price Waterhouse—it is over 300 compared with Price Waterhouse, which looked at 25 local authorities, when in England alone close on 400 will implement the poll tax. It is too early to say that all local authorities know what their exact final costs will be, but it is certain that, as implementation nears, the authorities will make more decisions and that final costs are likely to rise.

In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Local Government Finance Bill, the Government estimated costs of £70 million to £90 million in 1989–90. That has already been raised by 57 per cent. Since the poll tax was presented to the House on 3 December last year, the likely revenue costs alone—not capital costs—have been increased by the Government by 57 per cent. The Price Waterhouse figures in real terms—the £122 million rather than the £108 million—show an increase of 74 per cent. on the original figure.

As authorities will be able to assess the final cost only when the tax is close to implementation, we should like some commitments from the Government, which we believe to be reasonable. The first is to keep the position under constant review, which is important. It is nothing personal, but the poll tax will become a living nightmare for the Minister in the next 18 months. Over the next 18 months or two years it will become a living nightmare for the Conservative party and the Minister will have to keep the matter under constant review.

I want the Minister to keep one narrow area of policy—the start-up and revenue costs to local authorities—under review. Clearly, the figures available when the Bill was published have been shown to be too low. The Minister should also make available whatever amounts prove necessary to launch the Government's flagship properly. If the Government do not launch it properly, it will sink. We do not want to poll tax to sink—oh, no. The Government have pushed it through the House, and the Government are going to get it rammed down their throats at the ballot box from now until they depart from office.

10.45 pm

I could—I emphasise "could"—detain the Committee a lot longer going through all the other points that Price Waterhouse failed to take into account. The report lists unspecified assumptions, it refers to unstated formulas and it extrapolates through some unknown process. There is no explanation in the report about the extrapolations or the formulas. The report assumes that there will be no customer avoidance—that is, no evasion of the tax. But we know that there will be evasion.

The report fails to consider a wide range of material. It states that there will be no increase in the proportion of people paying by instalments. Frankly, the poll tax structure means that every citizen should pay the tax through 10 monthly instalments. That is the opposite of the present two half-yearly rate demands. The pressure will be on people to pay the whole poll tax in advance, as that is the only alternative. The idea that a professional firm of accountants, in assessing the likely start-up costs, did not assume that a bigger proportion of people would pay by instalments, shows that the firm is not living in the real world and did not take account of the legislation that it was asked to judge. There is no attempt in the report to underpin the figures on such things as efficiency savings.

However, I will not go into those matters in detail, although I could. I do not think that that would do the Committee justice, because as the weeks pass and the new Session starts, the Government will have nearly two dozen orders to present to the House, every one of which will be prayed against. We will deal with the poll tax week in and week out. This is just a skirmish, but it is an important narrow point that we are trying to get the Government to acknowledge.

The Government should give the commitments that I have asked for—that the matter will be kept under constant review and that, when they receive figures which prove that their figures were wrong, the Government will at least make good the balance to local authorities. Otherwise, a tax will be introduced which will cost 4p in the pound to collect and which is twice as costly to collect as the rates. On top of the 4p, we will have to spend even more money on the start-up costs. That is quite ludicrous. There is no earthly reason why local authorities should be penalised any more than the Government have already penalised them.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

After all the hours that we spent debating the poll tax in Standing Committee and in the Chamber it is good to see that nothing changes. The Government are still not giving the details underlying their assumptions and are still not telling us how the calculations are made. They are still producing figures which I suppose do much to try to support their case for the poll tax, but do little to meet the reality that local authorities across the country claim they will experience in, for example, implementing the poll tax and meeting the associated costs.

The figure in the Price Waterhouse document is a good example of the problem. The Minister listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Can the Minister refer to any authorities that have contacted him to say that they believe that the figures are reasonable and to give an idea of the likely costs of implementing the poll tax? Has any local authority given the Minister that message while he was going round the country talking to them and asking them how they will implement the poll tax? Certainly, in my part of the country that has not happened. Irrespective of its merits, the costs of putting the poll tax in place are higher than the amount that the Government have allowed. The cost will be higher than the specific figure that, most unusually, the Government have given in the Bill.

There must be a large question mark over the Committee's being asked to put into legislation figures that bear no relation to reality. The Government are unable to come up with detailed justification for those figures. To tell us that the Price Waterhouse report deals with the matter is hardly adequate.

We have heard about some of the problems, but, like the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I do not want to go into them in great detail. I support what he said about technical problems. One could run through a long list of areas for which the figures and the facts behind the assumptions that Price Waterhouse has made are not given. Price Waterhouse does not even tell us the figures for the examples that it has looked at. It will not let the authorities that it used judge the matter, look at the figures and comment on them. No doubt those authorities would find that useful.

How can the Minister justify the assumptions that Price Waterhouse made in reaching its figures? Those assumptions cannot be justified and therefore the Minister cannot justify the figure that is contained in the Bill. Paragraph 51 of the report says:

There will he no 'customer avoidance' i.e. evasion of the tax". I do not think that even the Government would pretend that that is true. In Committee we argued at length about the level of avoidance. Like many other hon. Members, I argued that it is likely to be very high, that a tax such as this is likely to be extraordinarily difficult to police, and that it will be difficult to stop people avoiding it. If we assume that the level of avoidance will be the same as that for television licences and car tax, or if we associate collecting poll tax with the difficulties of collecting rates, we see that at least some evasion will take place. The level of avoidance will be much higher than predicted.

How can the Government come forward with a figure that is precise, not to £1,000 or £100 but to £1? How can they reach so precise a figure using a report based on such assumptions? Paragraph 28 of the report says:

The processes involved in administering a Community Charge are the same as those for a rate account, and hence authorities should be able to achieve their current workload ratio". We all know that it is far easier to identify a house than to identify an individual, and that it is far easier to tax property than to put a tax on everyone, no matter how low his income. They will all pay at least something in poll tax. It is extremely difficult and there are high costs associated with that. It seems that the assumptions on which Price Waterhouse based its report made a low figure inevitable. One wonders whether they were the assumptions that the Government told Price Waterhouse to make so that they would get the answer that they wanted.

As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, we are told that there will be no increase in the proportion of people paying by instalments. The poll tax payment system is different from that for rates. With the poll tax one is encouraged to pay by instalments. People may have to opt out of paying by instalments rather then the other way round.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke about the missing areas. No account is taken of the need for publicity. How is a local authority to put the system in place if it is not able to tell people how it will work and to make sure that they are informed? Tory Members would be the first to complain if a local authority did not tell people what was happening, or did not tell them what the timetables for collection and registration would be. Equally, they and the Minister would be the first to complain if authorities were making a complete mess of implementing the poll tax because staff had not been trained adequately and were being asked to do things for which they had no experience or training.

We can only presume that the Price Waterhouse assumptions lie behind the figure used in the Bill. If that is the case, I cannot believe that the Minister can justify that figure. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, but if he cannot, he should bring forward an alternative, and explain how he will match the reality of the situation with the fantasy that we have so far had from the Government. At the very least, he should drop the pretence that the figures in the Bill bear any relation to the reality that local authorities will face.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

The Minister intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but he has not yet told us how he arrived at the exact figure that is in schedule 2 and is referred to in the amendment. One of the problems with the haste with which the Government have pushed through the Bill is that they have not thought it all out.

The Minister for Local Government gave me a written answer last week in reply to a question I asked about the cost of the introduction of the poll tax. In that reply, he mentioned the Price Waterhouse report, published on 23 June, and said that the report estimated preparation costs in 1989–90 in England and Wales to be between £99 million and £102 million"— I stress "between" those two figures— for current expenditure, and between £125 million and £175 million for capital expenditure."—[Official Report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 684.] He went on to give the costs of annual expenditure for collection as "between" £379 million and £435 million, rather than the £200 million that it costs to collect the rates.

How does the Minister conjure up the figure in the Bill of some £53 million? I think that it has been conjured out of the air. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) have said, there are many flaws in the Price Waterhouse report and the way that it carried out its exercise, but even it did not give that exact figure.

Mr. Gummer

The figure is £53,057,231 because it was £55 million, but we have to take off the money that is destined for the rate-limited authorities. If it went in any other way, they would not get the money. We know precisely how much each of those will get, and if we take it away from £55 million, we are left with an exact figure. As to the £55 million, it is half the £110 million, because that is a specific grant to make sure that all authorities receive some money for distribution. The rest will be provision under the rate support grant. There is no difficulty about that.

As to the amount itself, it is true that it is within the range presented by Price Waterhouse, but if hon. Members do not like that, let me point out that it is more than the local authorities asked for. They can hardly object to that. Hon. Members suggested that the authorities knew best and it is clear that the Government have listened carefully to what has been said. Therefore, we have here a sensible proposal.

I am looking forward to the great detail of the debates about the community charge, because I shall be able to point out that 51 per cent. of households will be better off; that the poorest will be better off and that one in four of those who pay the poll tax will be helped. I use the term "poll tax" in this case because Opposition Members do not like using the term "community charge" as it reminds everybody that all of us will pay a bit towards the community services that are provided. Opposition Members like using the term "poll tax" for the simple reason that they do not want the public to know the truth about the community charge.

Therefore, I am looking forward to all those debates because in each one I shall be able to point out that for one Conservative tax, the Labour party proposes two taxes; for a sensible tax which makes sure that everybody pays a share and that those who need help will be helped, the Labour party wants two taxes, both of which would be extremely expensive to implement. Yes, I am looking forward enormously to those debates because every single one will show that the community charge is extremely sensible and that the more that people understand it, the more they will support it as they did in the Odsal by-election, which is what Opposition Members hate. That is why we will go on supporting the community charge.

11 pm

Mr. Rooker

I must make one comment on what the Minister has said, because it cannot be allowed to pass. The Minister must learn that households do not pay poll tax; people pay poll tax. He can juggle the figures for households as much as he likes, but the fact is that on his own Department's figures, 14 million adults live in the households that will gain under the poll tax, whereas 19 million adults live in the households that will lose.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

I am sorry to have to return to the point, but the Minister's response has illustrated his weakness on this matter. On every other issue that has been raised, the Minister has given us a reasoned argument, presented his case and answered the points that have been made. Although we may not have agreed with him, he has attempted to answer the points raised. However, on this occasion he has not attempted to do so and he has not justified the figures that he is writing into the legislation. He has not told us whether he honestly believes that there will be no evasion in a world in which there is no publicity at a local level and no training of the officers who are to put the system into existence. I cannot believe that he honestly believes the figures from Price Waterhouse. He has not answered our points, so I beg that he comes back to put his case to the House.

Mr. Gummer

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have answered directly. First, we asked an independent group to give us a figure, and we have accepted that. Secondly, we have taken a higher figure than the people who will implement the measure asked for. What better answer could there be to the questions that have been asked?

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 214.

Division No. 472] [11.02 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Allen, Graham Fisher, Mark
Anderson, Donald Flannery, Martin
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Flynn, Paul
Armstrong, Hilary Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ashdown, Paddy Foster, Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Fraser, John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Galbraith, Sam
Barron, Kevin Galloway, George
Beckett, Margaret Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Beith, A. J. Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bell, Stuart Godman, Dr Norman A.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Gordon, Mildred
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Gould, Bryan
Bermingham, Gerald Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Blair, Tony Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Blunkett, David Grocott, Bruce
Boateng, Paul Hardy, Peter
Boyes, Roland Haynes, Frank
Bradley, Keith Heffer, Eric S.
Bray, Dr Jeremy Henderson, Doug
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Hinchliffe, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Home Robertson, John
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Buchan, Norman Hoyle, Doug
Buckley, George J. Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Caborn, Richard Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Callaghan, Jim Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Illsley, Eric
Clay, Bob Janner, Greville
Clelland, David John, Brynmor
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cohen, Harry Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Coleman, Donald Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Kirkwood, Archy
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Leadbitter, Ted
Cox, Tom Leighton, Ron
Crowther, Stan Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cryer, Bob Lewis, Terry
Cunliffe, Lawrence Litherland, Robert
Cunningham, Dr John Livingstone, Ken
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Livsey, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Loyden, Eddie
Dixon, Don McAvoy, Thomas
Dobson, Frank McCartney, Ian
Doran, Frank McKelvey, William
Duffy, A. E. P. McLeish, Henry
Dunnachie, Jimmy McNamara, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth McTaggart, Bob
Eastham, Ken Madden, Max
Evans, John (St Helens N) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Marek, Dr John
Fatchett, Derek Martlew, Eric
Faulds, Andrew Meacher, Michael
Fearn, Ronald Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun Sheerman, Barry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Morgan, Rhodri Short, Clare
Morley. Elliott Skinner, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Snape, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie Soley, Clive
Murphy, Paul Spearing, Nigel
Nellist, Dave Steel, Rt Hon David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, William Stott, Roger
O'Neill, Martin Straw, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Patchett, Terry Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pike, Peter L. Turner, Dennis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Wall, Pat
Prescott, John Wallace, James
Primarolo, Dawn Walley, Joan
Quin, Ms Joyce Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Randall, Stuart Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Richardson, Jo Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle) Wilson, Brian
Robertson, George Winnick, David
Robinson, Geoffrey Wise, Mrs Audrey
Rogers, Allan Worthington, Tony
Rooker, Jeff
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Tellers for the Ayes:
Rowlands, Ted Mr. Robert N. Wareing and
Sedgemore, Brian Mrs. Llin Golding.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Currie, Mrs Edwina
Alexander, Richard Curry, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Davis, David (Boothferry)
Amess, David Day, Stephen
Amos, Alan Devlin, Tim
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Dorrell, Stephen
Ashby, David Dover, Den
Aspinwall, Jack Durant, Tony
Atkins, Robert Dykes, Hugh
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Emery, Sir Peter
Baldry, Tony Evennett, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Batiste, Spencer Fallon, Michael
Bendall, Vivian Favell, Tony
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Benyon, W. Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bevan, David Gilroy Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Blackburn, Dr John G. Fishburn, John Dudley
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Forman, Nigel
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Forsyth. Michael (Stirling)
Boswell, Tim Forth, Eric
Bottomley, Peter Fox, Sir Marcus
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Franks, Cecil
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Freeman, Roger
Bowis, John Fry, Peter
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Gale, Roger
Brazier, Julian Gardiner, George
Bright, Graham Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Gill, Christopher
Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's) Glyn, Dr Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Goodhart, Sir Philip
Budgen, Nicholas Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Burns, Simon Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Burt, Alistair Gow, Ian
Butler, Chris Gower, Sir Raymond
Butterfill, John Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Carrington, Matthew Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Cash, William Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Chope, Christopher Gregory, Conal
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Grist, Ian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Ground, Patrick
Colvin, Michael Grylls, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Cope, Rt Hon John Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Cran, James Hanley, Jeremy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') Mills, Iain
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Harris, David Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Haselhurst, Alan Moate, Roger
Hayes, Jerry Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Hayward, Robert Moss, Malcolm
Heathcoat-Amory, David Moynihan, Hon Colin
Heddle, John Mudd, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Neale, Gerrard
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) Nelson, Anthony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Neubert, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Nicholls, Patrick
Hordern, Sir Peter Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Howard, Michael Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Paice, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Patnick, Irvine
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Patten, John (Oxford W)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Pawsey, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Porter, David (Waveney)
Hunter, Andrew Portillo, Michael
Irvine, Michael Powell, William (Corby)
Jack, Michael Price, Sir David
Janman, Tim Raffan, Keith
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jones, Robert B (Herts W) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Key, Robert Roe, Mrs Marion
Knapman, Roger Rost, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) Rowe, Andrew
Knox, David Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Ryder, Richard
Lang, Ian Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lawrence, Ivan Shaw, David (Dover)
Lee, John (Pendle) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shersby, Michael
Lord, Michael Sims, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Skeet, Sir Trevor
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Speed, Keith
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Maclean, David Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
McLoughlin, Patrick Stern, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Madel, David Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Malins, Humfrey Thurnham, Peter
Mans, Keith Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Maples, John Waddington, Rt Hon David
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Wheeler, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Widdecombe, Ann
Maude, Hon Francis Wolfson, Mark
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Mellor, David Tellers for the Noes:
Meyer, Sir Anthony Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Miller, Sir Hal Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

11.15 pm
Mr. O'Brien

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 15, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 8.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker)

With this, we may discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 15, line 21, after 'which', insert

`reflects the residual responsibilities of a local authority in relation to advanced further education and which—'. No. 14, in page 15, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9.

Mr. O'Brien

This group of amendments refer to the formula in the Bill. Amendment No. 14 refers to schedule 2(9)(2), which deals with that part of the formula referred to as U. Will the Minister define U and explain its real purpose? If she can do so, it might help to speed up the proceedings.

Mr. Virginia Bottomley

This is a complicated group of amendments, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I explain the way in which T and U tie together. The adjustment for polytechnics, once they are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, is given effect in the Bill by deducting the total contributions of local authorities to advanced further education pools in 1988–89, and adding back that expenditure—currently financed through the advanced further education pools—that will remain to be financed by local authorities in 1989–90. The deduction is referred to in the Bill as T and the continuing expenditure falling to local authorities as U.

The adjustment T, to which amendment No. 12 relates, is required to obtain estimates of local authorities' expenditure in 1988–89, excluding expenditure on advanced further education. The Bill specifies the deduction of T precisely by reference to figures sent by the Department of Education and Science in a letter to chief education officers in March 1988.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 relate to the specification of the addition U, and involve different considerations. The Bill sets out the principles that govern the calculation of U, but leaves the details to be specified in the forthcoming rate support grant report for England, which will help to clarify some other areas of uncertainty. Amendment No. 13 seeks to describe the purpose of the U factor, but although it is apparently helpful, it is both unnecessary and technically incorrect. It is intended that the U adjustment will allow for differences in the relative costs of courses such as science or the arts, on the same basis as we now allow for such variations.

Two options for such variations have been canvassed with local authority associations. The options are quite complex and take account of the very wide range of courses that will still be provided by local authorities. Amendment No. 14 would remove restrictions on the size of U. That is undesirable, even though in practice the amendment may have very little effect.

I am sorry not to have done full justice to the complexity of the subject. I hope that the forthcoming consultation paper will clarify certain other areas for the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

Mr. O'Brien

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, although it leaves some confusion about the U factor. Amendment No. 12 would remove from the Bill what appears to be an unnecessary provision, and I wish to question the Minister further. Schedule 2 sets out a formula to determine an authority's notional expenditure for 1989–90, on which its grant entitlement will be based.

As local authorities will no longer be responsible for advanced further education, an adjustment to their notional expenditure is therefore required equivalent to their current contribution to the advanced further education pools. That is factor T. The amount of the adjustment is that set out in the March letter, which is referred to in the Bill, from the Department of Education and Science to local authorities. Therefore, schedule 2(8)(2) appears to be a belt-and-braces provision. It states that there is no doubt as to the accuracy of the amounts stated in the DES letter and that no further revision of it shall affect the definition of T in the formula.

Although the Minister briefly referred to T in the formula, paragraph 8 highlights the possibility of further revisions to authorities' contributions to AFE pools. Therefore, what arrangements are to be made for compensating authorities whose eventual contributions to the AFE pool are higher than the T factor in the formula? If expenditure is higher than the formula, surely the local authorities involved should be compensated.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 ensure that the purpose of factor U—this is the unknown—are set out in the Bill, rather than left as an arbitrary element. The Minister referred to it as an arbitrary element. Opposition Members prefer the matter to be set out in more detail, as it can vary with different education authorities.

The purpose of leaving out sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 is to discover the purpose of the upper limit of £3 million. Again, how is that limit arrived at, and what is its real purpose?

The reason for the amendments is that the formula in paragraph 4 is of crucial importance in determining the grant that individual authorities will receive in 1989–90. It is essential that they should be comprehensively compensated and subject to the normal process of judicial review, rather than the arbitrary letters which stand for such amounts as the Secretary of State may see fit.

Factor U appears in the formula for education authorities. Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 4 of schedule 2 are believed to relate to that part of advanced further education for which education authorities will continue to be responsible when the Department of Education and Science takes over the running of the polytechnics in April 1989. Therefore, there is a division between the two Departments—the DES and the Department of the Environment.

There is nothing in the Bill to confirm that interpretation. As I pointed out, unlike TE, T and CC, the factor U is not defined. That is unsatisfactory. It does not do justice to the explanations that are being given, because as it stands, U can be almost any amount that the Secretary of State wishes it to be.

Although adding the words in the amendment would not materially affect the Secretary of State's intention, it would provide a feeling of greater security for local authorities. Similarly, we are given no reason why the amount should be no greater than £3 million. We should be given some explanation for the magical figure of £3 million. If it represents, say, the maximum amount of residual AFE by any local authority, why not define U in the appropriate manner? Looking at the Bill as it stands, no local authority could determine what its relevant amount will be in 1989–90. Therefore, it cannot guess how much grant it will get.

The Secretary of State should be made to explain why these numbers appear in the Bill. That was the first question that I put to the Minister, because I believe that if we had the information in the first instance it would save a good many more questions being asked in the form of our amendments. I hope that the Minister will attempt to fill in the blank spaces and give us some idea what the formula is about.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

I shall speak briefly, out of deference to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

Contributions to the advanced further education pools may subsequently vary from the amounts included in the letter of 29 March 1988 from the Department of Education and Science. It would, however, be wrong to revise our deduction in respect of contributions to advanced further education pools, as T as specified in the Bill is consistent with the reported expenditure underlying the determination of the relevant amount for 1988–89. Paragraph 8(2) is necessary to achieve the required certainty about T.

As hon. Members will readily agree—those of us who aim for a system of no taxation without comprehension, which my right hon. Friend would like, have been sorely tested—the options being considered are quite complex, and take account of the wide range of courses that will still be provided by local authorities. It would have been inappropriate to include the full details of such an adjustment in this Bill, but it is right that we should seek powers no wider than is strictly necessary. Paragraph 9(2) therefore places limits on the size of the adjustment U. Those limits, however, will allow us to adopt either of the options that have been discussed with the local authority associations. There will be further information in the forthcoming rate support grant settlement, which I hope will lead to more clarity.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 85, Noes 176.

Division No. 473] [11.26 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Home Robertson, John
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ashdown, Paddy Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Beckett, Margaret Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Beith, A. J. Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Kirkwood, Archy
Boateng, Paul Leadbitter, Ted
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Lewis, Terry
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Livingstone, Ken
Buckley, George J. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Callaghan, Jim McAvoy, Thomas
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Clay, Bob Michael, Alun
Clelland, David Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Cohen, Harry Morgan, Rhodri
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Morley, Elliott
Crowther, Stan Mowlam, Marjorie
Cryer, Bob Nellist, Dave
Cunliffe, Lawrence O'Brien, William
Cunningham, Dr John O'Neill, Martin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Patchett, Terry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Pike, Peter L.
Dixon, Don Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Duffy, A. E. P. Primarolo, Dawn
Dunnachie, Jimmy Quin, Ms Joyce
Eastham, Ken Redmond, Martin
Evans, John (St Helens N) Robertson, George
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Rooker, Jeff
Fearn, Ronald Short, Clare
Fraser, John Skinner, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Steel, Rt Hon David
Golding, Mrs Llin Stott, Roger
Gordon, Mildred Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Turner, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce Wall, Pat
Henderson, Doug Wallace, James
Hinchliffe, David Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N. Tellers for the Ayes:
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) Mr. Frank Haynes and
Wise, Mrs Audrey Mr. Frank Cook.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Ground, Patrick
Alexander, Richard Grylls, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Amess, David Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Amos, Alan Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ashby, David Hanley, Jeremy
Aspinwall, Jack Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Baldry, Tony Harris, David
Batiste, Spencer Hayes, Jerry
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Benyon, W. Hayward, Robert
Bevan, David Gilroy Heddle, John
Blackburn, Dr John G. Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Hordern, Sir Peter
Boswell, Tim Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Bottomley, Peter Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Bowis, John Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Brazier, Julian Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Bright, Graham Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hunter, Andrew
Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's) Irvine, Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Jack, Michael
Burns, Simon Janman, Tim
Burt, Alistair Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Butler, Chris Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Butterfill, John Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Knapman, Roger
Carrington, Matthew Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Cash, William Lawrence, Ivan
Chope, Christopher Lee, John (Pendle)
Clark, Dr Michael (Flochford) Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Cope, Rt Hon John Lord, Michael
Cran, James Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Curry, David MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry) Maclean, David
Day, Stephen McLoughlin, Patrick
Devlin, Tim McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Dorrell, Stephen McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Dover, Den Mans, Keith
Durant, Tony Maples, John
Dykes, Hugh Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Emery, Sir Peter Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Evennett, David Maude, Hon Francis
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Fallon, Michael Mellor, David
Favell, Tony Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy Miller, Sir Hal
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Mills, Iain
Fishburn, John Dudley Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Forman, Nigel Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Moate, Roger
Forth, Eric Moss, Malcolm
Fox, Sir Marcus Moynihan, Hon Colin
Franks, Cecil Neale, Gerrard
Freeman, Roger Nelson, Anthony
Gale, Roger Neubert, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan Nicholls, Patrick
Gill, Christopher Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Goodhart, Sir Philip Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Paice, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Patnick, Irvine
Gow, Ian Pawsey, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Porter, David (Waveney)
Gregory, Conal Portillo, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Powell, William (Corby)
Grist, Ian Price, Sir David
Raffan, Keith Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Stern, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Rost, Peter Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Rowe, Andrew Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ryder, Richard Thurnham, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shaw, David (Dover) Waddington, Rt Hon David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Wheeler, John
Shelton, William (Streatham) Widdecombe, Ann
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Tellers for the Noes:
Sims, Roger Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory
Skeet, Sir Trevor and
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Mr. Tom Sackville.
Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to