Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert new Clause A—
A. The parties to an agreement or intended agreement whereby any building or work (in this Act called a "relevant work") is to be constructed by a district council (in this Act called a "contracting council") under an agreement made by virtue of section 1 above shall comply with sections (Obligation to put work out to tender) (Form of Contract) and (Separate accounting) cf this Act.
§ Mr. Freeson
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clauses proposed in Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are substantially the same as those put forward by Opposition hon. Members during our Committee stage. We successfully resisted them then, and I see no greater merit in them now. No doubt their Lordships voted for the amendments in the hope that they would prove acceptable, but, as I shall show, they are not. I appreciate their Lordships' reasoning, as I did that of hon. Members in Committee. But it is still my opinion that the Bill is not the proper vehicle for the inclusion of the clauses.
I hope that we have established during our discussions on the Bill that the Government are just as anxious as any right hon. or hon. Member to see that local authority direct labour organisations should follow procedures which enable their efficiency and true value to their ratepayers to be adequately and clearly compared with those of private contractors. That was the purpose of my setting up a working party not long after taking up my present post, and was the purpose of the original legislative proposals that I indicated we wished to introduce some time ago.
Since it appears to be only Labour Governments who have taken any major initiatives to this end since the Second World War, some might think that we have demonstrated our concern more practically than have Conservative hon. Members. It would, therefore, be wrong to suppose that our opposition to the amendments springs from any reluctance to put local authority DLOs on as equal terms as possible with private contractors. I have said often—I am sure that some Conservative hon. Members must have noticed that—that it is, and has been all along, my intention to introduce to the House a fully comprehensive measure on DLO activities.
Our opposition to the new clauses arises not from lack of sympathy with their intentions but from the inappropriateness of their insertion in this Bill and from their drafting weaknesses. I reiterate that this measure deals with powers which give rise to only a very small part of the total DLO work of a very small proportion of all local authorities. The additional provisions contained 649 in the amendments can apply only to that very tiny fraction of local authority DLO work. They will not apply at all to most local authorities, and will apply only to work done under the provisions of the Bill in the 25 local authorities to which it does apply.
That would be so anomalous that I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments on that ground alone. The inclusion of ill-thought out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound financial basis for the operation of DLO activities. I am sorry to have to say that the amendments are ill thought out. I realise that I may be told that they are essentially what I described in the debate on Second Reading as being in the Government's mind for eventual comprehensive legislation. Conservative hon. Members should realise that a brief exposition in general terms during a speech to the House is not—especially when wrenched from its full context and given a very different application—in an appropriate form for transposition into legislation.
I should perhaps explain some of the shortcomings of the clauses. Some hon. Members will have heard something similar before. It is not a case of "What I say three times is true". There are real objections to use of the words and format chosen. We should not, as parliamentarians, put local authorities—or, it may be, the courts—into the position of having to try to make sense of legislation because we here have not done our job properly.
Clause A merely introduces and requires compliance with Clauses B, D and E. It has no other substantive purpose. In our view such a clause should not be necessary. The clauses to which it refers should, if they were acceptable at all, be so drafted as to enable each to stand on its own.
Clause B is defective in principle because it seeks to control the actions not of the 25 authorities named in the Bill but of their potential clients. While not a conclusive objection, this is indicative of the general laxity of approach in the amendments. More seriously, the clause is nonsensical. It puts the cart before the horse. Until a client authority has received tenders or attempted to negotiate 650 a price, it will not know whether it desires to have work done by a DLO or by a private contractor. At the time when the clause requires it to go to competitive tender, it will not know who will gain the contract. The indexation of the cost limits specified in paragraph (2) is so poorly expressed as to be meaningless.
Even taking the intention of the clause and ignoring its technical faults, it is unreasonable. It makes no allowance for serial or continuation contracts. I know that there are some Conservative hon. Members who do not like that at all, but many people in this field prefer them as being conducive to greater efficiency. Such contracts are frequently negotiated with contractors throughout the industry for sums greatly exceeding £50,000. There is no equitable reason why the DLOs of the 25 authorities should not be treated the same. The House will recall that the restriction would apply only to work done under the Bill, so again, we have even more nonsense as between different kinds of contracts undertaken by local authorities.
Clause C is defective because it enshrines a basic misconception which runs throughout the group of clauses. This is that an authority's direct labour organisation can suffer a loss when doing work for another. Such an authority, as I have pointed out many times, has no power to charge a client authority other than full actual costs. So no question of loss to the contracting DLO authority can arise. Nor, of course, can it make a profit. This applies equally to work done by a DLO for its own authority.
The clause is closely linked with the system of accounting proposed in Clause E. But that clause does not provide a proper basis for the keeping of accounts. I shall explain the reasons for that in a moment. But Clause C also provides that the sanction which it embodies may be exercised on the basis of a DLO's performance on work not authorised by this Bill.
Until there are satisfactory and comprehensive charging and accounting arrangements for all DLO work, the performance of a DLO cannot be properly judged. There can, therefore, be no proper and equitable basis for considering the form of a sanction in the case 651 of a DLO which does not perform effectively. If these clauses introduced into the Bill by amendments in another place were adequate and acceptable, Clause C would be misplaced. It should surely come after the Clause E. But this is just another instance of confusion by the sponsors of the amendments.
As in the previous Clause C, Clause D cannot be accepted for the overriding reason that a DLO authority under the present law may charge a client authority only actual costs. The amendment does not alter that situation. So the use of contract forms providing for a contract-based charge would be inappropriate. Even if contract charging were possible for DLOs, the clause would still be too rigid to be acceptable. There can be perfectly valid and justified reasons for client and contractor to agree variations of standard forms of contract, or even a special one-off form to meet a particular situation. There is no reason why a DLO should be debarred from such arrangements, any more than private contractors are.
Clause E also suffers from the misunderstanding about the possibility of a DLO making losses—or profits. It cannot. In our view, nothing in this clause, or any of the other amendments, is adequate to change that situation. Our proposed comprehensive legislation would have enabled firm prices to be charged. Until such a power is available a DLO must charge its costs.
Consequently the duty which subsection (4) of this clause seeks to impose is redundant. On the other hand, if the power to charge firm prices were available, the requirement would be too stringent. A DLO's financial objective, which I still want to write into legislation, like that of private contractors, should relate to overall viability over a period. To require them never to make a loss on any job would impose upon DLOs a stricter r égime than. the private sector.
Again, subsection (2) of the clause refers to proper charges for a list of items. But it gives no clear indication of the way in which they are to be assessed. And the requirements for inclusion of the specified account to which the clause relates, in the contracting authority's accounts nine months or more after final certificate for the work, is unrealistic. 652 How should expenditure be accounted for when it is incurred, or income from the work when it is received?
I am sorry to have dwelt at such length on the technical shortcomings of these clauses, and the objections to applying new provisions to such a small segment of local authority work. I have been trying to convince right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I tried to do in Committee and on Second Reading, that there are good and sufficient reasons for keeping the Bill as short and simple as possible. I hope that I have made it clear that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be of such limited application and doubtful force that they should be rejected.
§ Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)
The Minister has said several times that he has in mind a comprehensive Bill to deal with the problem. Will he confirm that that comprehensive Bill would have clauses in it which were not acceptable to the Liberal Party and therefore could not be introduced, that it would not pass in this Parliament, and that nothing will be done before the General Election?
§ Mr. Freeson
The Opposition also were opposed, mistakenly, to our introducing such legislation. They have lost the opportunity of supporting a major move forward in the reform of DLOs, but that is their responsibility, not mine. However, even if all that the hon. Member has said were true in the form in which he said it—and it was not, because it was a generalization—it would not be possible to introduce the legislation which we had in mind.
I have referred before to the work being done on DLO procedures by my departmental working party and by CIPFA. I hope to have reports covering new works by DLOs this autumn, and repair and maintenance works by early next year. I undertook during the Committee stage of this Bill to continue and extend my discussions and dialogue with all interested parties on the comprehensive legislation we intend. I repeat that assurance now.
Indeed, I will go futher and say that when I have received and considered the reports which I have just mentioned, I shall publish a consultation document. In it I shall set out as fully as possible 653 the Government's views on what should be done to provide a modern statutory framework for the operation of local authority DLOs. At the same time, I shall consider what advice and guidance might usefully be given, perhaps by circular, to local authorities to encourage all of them to achieve the highest possible standards of efficiency in their DLOs under the present law.
I look to the earliest possible publication of my consultation document and circular, to be backed up by subsequent legislation. On the latter point, I am entirely in the hands of right hon. and hon. Members. I share hon. Member's proper concern that DLOs should promptly put their accountancy procedures in order. I shall certainly waste no time in helping to bring that about. Indeed, some are already doing so, as I notice from reports coming through local town hall channels.
Meanwhile, however, the inclusion of ill-thought-out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound basis for the operation of DLO activities. What is needed is comprehensive legislation relating to the scope and activities of DLOs generally, enabling appropriate arrangements to be made as regards charging, accounting and tendering, which inevitably are inter-linked. This is what the Government still wish to provide, and in due time we shall place such comprehensive legislation before the House.
§ Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)
I thank the Minister for what he said latterly in his remarks. We welcome it. It was the Opposition which put forward the suggestion in Committee in order to be helpful. I am glad that the Minister has responded in a positive and helpful way in respect of the consultation document, which all hon. Members will wish to discuss and on which they will wish to make representations to the Minister and his Department. I am sure that the building industry, the building associations and the trade unions will wish to make their representations, to say nothing of the local authorities. At least something positive has emerged from the Bill, which we on this side of the House have never liked.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister cannot accept the amendments.
654 He has reminded us of various circulars and actions by former Labour Ministers in connection with DLOs, but, curiously, he always leaves out Circular 50/65 by the late Richard Crossman, which abolished the need for competitive tendering by DLOs. I am sure that the Minister would not wish the record to be incomplete as a result of that not being pointed out.
The history of the amendments is of interest. There was a tied vote in Committee when they were discussed. Not only the Conservative Party, but the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who represented the Welsh National Parliamentary Party, voted for amendments which sought to do what these amendments do. The Government won only on the casting vote of the Chairman.
When one considers the debate in another place, the substantial majority and the way in which the debate went, with not only Conservative peers but independent and official Liberal peers and such characters as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown voting for the amendments, one realises that there was a considerable weight of expertise and experience behind them. After my noble Friend Baroness Young had spoken to the amendments, the Minister said—and I do not blame him for saying it—that they were deficient and that they were not drafted properly. My noble Friend said that if the Government wished to take the amendments away and bring them back on Report Stage in the Lords in better order, the Opposition would be very happy. I say the same thing to the Minister today. The House returns 13 weeks today—on 26th October—so that gives the Minister 13 weeks in which to knock these amendments into some kind of order. As a draft Bill is sitting in Marsham Street, it should not be too difficult for him to knock the amendments into shape if the House agrees with the Lords today.
My understanding is that the South Glamorgan Act and the Tyne and Wear Act include a CIPFA recommendation as part of the accountancy procedures for the DLOs of these authorities. Apparently that was not inappropriate at the time and has been working well.
655 Since we had the debates upstairs in Committee my attention has been drawn to just three of the local authorities concerned in this Bill. The Sunderland Borough Council Works Department has now put up £100,000 the value of work that does not need to be put out to competitive tender in the future. The present limit is £50,000. I am sure that the Minister is not happy about that, and certainly I am not.
Secondly, the Newcastle-on-Tyne City Council has awarded its direct labour organisation a housing scheme worth £406,000, out of which £215,000 is a subsidy from the Minister's Department. The third case is that of South Tyneside, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred during Question Time. He was absolutely correct about it. I have a letter here from a member of that council telling me that 12 contracts for the modernisation of houses amounting to £3-7 million, two for new houses amounting to £460,000 and four contracts for road sewers amounting to £540,000 have gone out without competitive tenders. The council is now in a terrible muddle, is shedding staff and making considerable losses on the contracts. These are just three of the local authorities mentioned in the Bill. Something should be done to protect the ratepayers in those areas.
What will the future legislation consist of? My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked a relevant question and the Minister's answer did not advance our knowledge very much. As I understand it, the Government sincerely believe that there should be a fairly considerable extension of direct labour and that there should be the accounting procedures that we are discussing now. The Government also believe that these two aspects should go together and they are not prepared to introduce legislation on one without the other.
The position of my party—and of the Liberal Party as well, so I believe—is that we want proper accounting procedures as soon as possible but we, together with the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, do not want any extension of direct labour.
It is quite clear that there can be no prospect of legislation while the present 656 Government are in power and the present parliamentary situation exists. There is no prospect of having the comprehensive legislation to which the Minister referred before the next General Election. While I believe that the next election will come quickly, it is possible that it might not occur before November 1979. That would mean that there would be no legislation before 1980. Unless we can get something done in this Bill to a limited extent there is no prospect of legislation to deal with the problem for possibly three years or more.
One would hope that at the next election there would be a clear majority for one party or another. If we were returned to power we would introduce legislation for accounting but certainly not for the extension of direct labour. It is extremely important that the House should agree with the Lords in these amendments today, even on a narrow basis, thus enabling these authorities to have some form of CIPFA recommendations introduced into their procedures. That would put them on all fours with South Glamorgan and Tyne and Wear.
From the three examples that I mentioned earlier it is quite clear that there are local authorities among the 25 which need to have brought home to them the gravity of the situation and the fact that we believe in competition. The fact that one authority has raised the limit from £50,000 to £100,000 on the value of work that need not go out to tender demonstrates that it is acting against the spirit of what we all want to see. I am sure that the Liberals, who supported the amendments in another place, are not prepared to wait until 1980 to see legislation introduced to take action on these matters. I must advise the House to agree with the Lords' amendments.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
The Minister has resisted these amendments on two grounds—that they are inappropriate for this Bill and that they are weak in their drafting and technically deficient.
As I understand it the Government's intention, if they remain in office long enough, is to bring in a comprehensive Bill on direct labour organisations. Indeed, the Minister confirmed this earlier this afternoon during Question Time. The intention of that Bill will be to extend 657 the powers of the DLOs of local authorities to enable them to carry out work outside their own areas. That is what this Bill does in confirming orders which give certain local authorities—25 of them—exactly that power. Therefore this Bill is in miniature the comprehensive Bill about which the Minister has spoken.
I understand that the Minister agrees with the spirit of these amendments and that he would do something along these lines in his comprehensive Bill. The amendments contain the rules of condduct that one would hope any efficient local authority and its direct labour organisation would apply in carrying out direct labour work. Therefore the Minister's argument about the inappropriateness of the Bill falls to the ground. The comprehensive Bill that he hopes to introduce will include some provisions of this sort—certainly provisions on competitive tenders and accountancy.
On the matter of drafting weaknesses. I have a feeling that the Minister is delighted to be able to make this point. Any Minister who is resisting amendments sees this as an easy way out, especially if he can have the backing of the parliamentary draftsmen who say that the amendments are deficient in some way. But the Minister has known of these amendments long enough, and if he agrees with the spirit of them it would be simple enough for him to get them put right by the parliamentary draftsmen.
I would not think that the Minister would object to some provision about competitive tender. He has said that his Government have done a lot to make direct labour organisations efficient. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) pointed out, it was his predecessor, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, who removed the need for local authorities to be competitive. That provision was inserted by a Conservative Government.
§ Mr. Michael Latham
Is it not also the case that as a result of the Crossman circular there were many scandals and another Minister, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, had to produce the manual of principles?
§ Mr. Page
I was trying not to be too controversial. To a great extent we are in agreement. I understand that the 658 Minister agrees with what is in the Lords amendments and certainly with their spirit. I do not know about the details of the form of contract in Lords Amendment No. 5. Personally, I think that it could be left to regulations and to order-making powers. Any Bill on direct labour should include provisions for proper accountancy and those are set out in Amendment No. 6.
If the amendments are weak in drafting and if there are technical deficiencies, the Government have plenty of time to put the matter right before the Bill becomes law. The Minister would have engendered a great deal of good will if he had been prepared to include some at least of these amendments in the Bill as a pilot scheme. Since this is a mini-Bill of the Bill he intends to bring in, he could have gained good will by letting the public see what he wants from direct labour organisations by inserting such provisions about competitive tendering and accounting. He could have done that without losing the policy he so treasures on direct labour organisations.
We accept that the Bill has got to this stage, but we are asking for the Minister to use it only as a pilot Bill if he wishes to bring in a later Bill. We hope that he will include these amendments, which will be helpful to direct labour organisations that wish to work on a competitive basis.
§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
I should remind the House that I am interested in this industry through the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, for whom I work. However, I do not think that that is particularly germane to what I am about to say.
The Minister made much play of the defects in the amendments, and he is entitled to do so. It is refreshing for a Minister to be able to poke fun at somebody else's drafting as opposed to the more normal arrangement when the Opposition poke fun at the drafting of the parliamentary draftsmen. I think we are reasonably square on that account and that we sould not worry too much about the situation.
The Minister no doubt read the report of proceedings in the other place. He will know that my noble Friend Baroness Young said on 19th July that she was prepared to withdraw the amendments if 659 the Government would bring them back correctly drafted in the spirit of what the Opposition there wanted and, indeed, what the Government and the Liberals wanted. I am not sure about the Liberals and I would not wish to speak for them. It is difficult to speak for the Liberals without getting into some difficulty in view of the split which appears to exist between the Liberals in the House of Lords and those who sit in this place.
The arguments put in the other place were precisely the same as those put here on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade Liberal Members in this House that our arguments were correct. However, time is a great healer and after a suitable interval for consideration the Liberals have got together somewhere in the Central Lobby, where I understand that there is adequate room for them to do so and, indeed, on neutral ground.
§ Mr. Tebbit
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, if he and his party have got into this kind of muddle with their friends at the other end of the corridor.
It appears either that the Liberals in this House have had second thoughts or that their friends at the other end of the corridor, perhaps with greater wisdom, have concluded that what was said in this House at an earlier stage was correct. I understand that in the other place the Liberals voted officially—indeed, they may have been whipped to do so—in support of these amendments. It would help the House enormously if we could know what the Liberals were going to do on this occasion. Their example could help others to make up their minds. There are other minority parties whose Members might be looking to the Liberals for a lead. It would be confusing for anyone who followed the lead of the Liberal peers in the belief that he was also following the Liberals in this place, only to find out that that was not the case.
I hope that in this brief debate we shall not be left in any doubt about the attitude of the Liberals in this House. Everybody wants to know the situation before the vote is taken. We should like to know 660 whether the Liberals here have split with their colleagues in the other place or are split only among themselves.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham)
I know that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to take the mickey out of the Liberals. Indeed, that is the only contribution he has made to the debate. I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but I wish to rebut the allegation that the Bill will allow 25 named local authorities to undertake work outside their own areas. That is not the case. It allows them to carry out work only in the area of a former borough, but not outside that area. There is no way in which they can undertake work outside that area. This is a fiction which has been advanced by the Opposition. It was put forward in Committee, and I thought that we had dealt with the situation there. The argument has been advanced again today and it needs to be rebutted.
This is an extremely modest Bill. It allows the authorities concerned to undertake the work which they were carrying out before. It was unfortunate, owing to an administrative failure, that there was a gap for a few months in which authorities were unable to carry out the work in county council areas which they had been doing in the past. It must be in the public interest that county councils should be allowed flexibility to allow a district council to carry out certain work through its direct labour force. I do not understand why there has been so much opposition to this minor and modest Bill.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I am sure that the House will be bitterly disappointed if I do not give the Liberal position on the Bill. I do not retract one word of what I said on Second Reading. I am aware that my remarks have been sent by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers to many Members of the House. I, too, wish to see proper accounting procedures brought into all direct labour organisations as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. Ross
In addition to the CIPFA proposals, we have only to examine the accounting procedures in the Greater 661 London Council to see what can be done. The situation there is worth studying. This is a difficult area in which to legislate and the building industry, with which I have had conversations, accepts that that is the case.
Like hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage, I have been seeking undertakings from the Minister on this matter, and he gave some pretty firm assurances today. The problem is that these amendments are incorrectly drafted, as was admitted by Baroness Young in the other place. I would remind the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that he had a great deal to do with local government reorganisation a few years ago and is partly responsible for this situation with the direct labour organisations.
We are constantly reminded of the need to pass legislation that is clear in meaning and workable. Those of us who have been representatives on local authorities know that legislation is repeatedly passed by the House that is indistinct, unclear and often not even workable. That is probably the case with these amendments. They are laudable, and I had hoped to be able to advise my colleagues that they should support the amendments. I had hoped that they would prove acceptable to the Government. However, I have listened to the Minister's speech and I accept that the amendments are clearly defective.
We have been given an assurance about the early publication of a consultation document which will be followed by a circular. If the Minister will not delay in bringing these matters before the House and will assure us that, if necessary, he is prepared to legislate to ensure that recalcitrant authorities must adhere to the circular, we should be satisfied. Hon. Members will recall that I had a Private Member's Bill, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. We have had to legislate because some local authorities would not come into line with the circular issued in 1974.
§ Mr. Ross
That is not really the case, because we are already late with the Bill.
662 It should have been in force in the spring, by the end of March, and the Opposition have already been extremely irresponsible over the Scottish direct labour Bill. I do not know what the side effects of that defeat will be, but I am not prepared to be responsible for putting out of work employees of the 12 principal authorities—I think it is 12—that are mainly concerned. I understand that Stoke-on-Thent is the largest authority involved so far as the extent of work is concerned. I am not prepared to be responsible for putting some people in risk of losing their jobs. Direct labour employees who are worried about our attitude to the Bill have come to see me about it.
I must therefore support the Government this afternoon.
§ Mr. Michael Morris
We have had a long debate on this subject. The Minister now appears to be saying that these 25 districts can have a blank cheque until such time as he can bring forward a Bill. The Liberal Party in the Commons appears to be willing to go along with that although the more thoughtful members of the Liberal Party concede that there must be some control.
Even since our last debate on this subject the district auditor in Sunderland has had to call in the police—according to a report in the Journal, Newcastle—to investigate the direct labour use of van and crane hire. A disturbing aspect of this debate is that under the Tyne and Wear Act the six local authorities which are most active in this field have accepted provisions similar to those contained in these amendments. There is little difference between that Act and these amendments. Also, in the Department of Transport circular 24/77 the Government have said that for road works—which is a similar matter—proper records, accounts and documents should be kept. Therefore the Government's position today does not stand up. The Department of the Environment is asking for separate accounts in one case and, an Act concerning the most active local authorities in this matter provides that they must keep separate accounts and be competitive.
I find the position of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) quite astounding. He has had experience in these matters. He has said that he 663 supports the provisions in the amendments in broad principle and yet, now that the time has come for him to cast his vote and give advice to his colleagues—and he wrote to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers last week saying that his party supported the amendments—he has said that, provided that there is a discussion document and that the Minister will at some time bring forward a Bill, he is prepared to go along with the Bill as it stands. The country should judge the Liberal Party on that. I ask the hon. Member for the
§ Isle of Wight for some hard evidence to show where people are out of work. There are more than 250,000 people out of work in the building industry, and for every one put out of work by a direct labour organisation I am sure that there are many in private enterprise who could take up the job straightaway.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 200.665
|Division No. 223]||AYES||4.56 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank||Dormand, J. D.||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Anderson, Donald||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Judd, Frank|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Duffy, A. E. P.||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Dunnett, Jack||Kelley, Richard|
|Ashley, Jack||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Kerr, Russell|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston M)||Eadie, Alex||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Atkinson, Norman||Edge, Geoff||Kinnock, Neil|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Lamble, David|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Lamborn, Harry|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Lamond, James|
|Bates, Alf||English, Michael||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)|
|Beith, A. J.||Ennals, David||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Evans, John (Newton)||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Bishop, Rt Hon Edward||Flannery, Martin||Litterick, Tom|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Luard, Evan|
|Boardman, H.||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Ford, Ben||Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Forrester, John||McCartney, Hugh|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||McElhone, Frank|
|Bradley, Tom||Freeson, Reginald||MacFarquhar, Roderick|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Freud, Clement||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Gilbert, Dr John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Ginsburg, David||McNamara, Kevin|
|Buchan, Norman||Golding, John||Madden, Max|
|Buchanan, Richard||Gould, Bryan||Magee, Bryan|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Gourlay, Harry||Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Graham, Ted||Mahon, Simon|
|Campbell, Ian||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Canavan, Dennis||Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Marks, Kenneth|
|Cant, R. B.||Grocott, Bruce||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Carmichael, Nell||Hardy, Peter||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Carter, Ray||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Cartwright, John||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Mendelson, John|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Hatton, Frank||Mikardo, Ian|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Hayman, Mrs Helene||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Heffer, Eric S.||Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)|
|Coleman, Donald||Hooley, Frank||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hooson, Emlyn||Molloy, William|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Horam, John||Moonman, Eric|
|Corbett, Robin||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Cowans, Harry||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Huckfield, Les||Moyle, Roland|
|Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Newens, Stanley|
|Cronin, John||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Noble, Mike]|
|Crowder, F. P.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Ogden, Eric|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Hunter, Adam||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Ovenden, John|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Janner, Greville||Padley, Walter|
|Deakins, Eric||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Palmer, Arthur|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Pardoe, John|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Parker, John|
|Dempsey, James||John, Brynmor||Parry, Robert|
|Doig, Peter||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Pendry, Tom||Small, William||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Penhaligon, David||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Perry, Ernest||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Phipps, Dr Colin||Snape, Peter||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Prescott, John||Spearing, Nigel||Ward, Michael|
|Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Spriggs, Leslie||Watkins, David|
|Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)||Stallard A. W.||Watkinson, John|
|Richardson, Miss Jo||Steel, Rt Hon David||Weitzman, David|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Stoddart, David||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Robinson, Geoffrey||Stott, Roger||White, James (Pollok)|
|Roderick, Caerwyn||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)||Swain, Thomas||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Rooker, J. W.||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Roper, John||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Rose, Paul B.||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Ryman, John||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)||Woodall, Alec|
|Sandelson, Neville||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)||Woof, Robert|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Tierney, Sydney||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Selby, Harry||Tinn, James||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)||Torney, Tom|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Tuck, Raphael||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Urwin, T. W.||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.||Mr Joseph Ashton|
|Adley, Robert||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Glyn, Dr Alan||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Arnold, Tom||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Marten, Neil|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Goodhew, Victor||Mates, Michael|
|Baker, Kenneth||Goodlad, Alastair||Mather, Carol|
|Banks, Robert||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Maude, Angus|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mawby, Ray|
|Benyon, W.||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Gray, Hamish||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Blaker, Peter||Griffiths, Eldon||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Boscawen, Hon Robers||Grist, Ian||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Grylls, Michael||Mills, Peter|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Hampson, Dr Keith||Moate, Roger|
|Brittan, Leon||Hannam, John||Molyneaux, James|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Monro, Hector|
|Brooke, Peter||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Haselhurst, Alan||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hawkins, Paul||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hayhoe, Barney||Mudd, David|
|Carlisle, Mark||Higgins, Terence L.||Neave, Airey|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Howell, David (Guildford)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Neubert, Michael|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hunt, John (Bromley)||Newton, Tony|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hurd, Douglas||Normanton, Tom|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Nott, John|
|Clegg, Walter||James, David||Onslow, Cranley|
|Cockcroft, John||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Cope, John||Jessel, Toby||Osborn, John|
|Corrie, John||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Page, John (Harrow West)|
|Costain, A. P.||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Crouch, David||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Page, Richard (Workington)|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Kershaw, Anthony||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kilfedder, James||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Kimball, Marcus||Pink, R. Bonner|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Dunlop, John||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Durant, Tony||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Knox, David||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lamont, Norman||Raison, Timothy|
|Elliott, Sir William||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lawrence, Ivan||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Le Marchant, Spencer||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Lloyd, Ian||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Luce, Richard||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Forman, Nigel||McCrindle, Robert||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Macfarlane, Neil||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Fry, Peter||MacGregor, John||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Shepherd, Colin||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Shersby, Michael||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Wall, Patrick|
|Sims, Roger||Stradling Thomas, J.||Walters, Dennis|
|Sinclair, Sir George||Tapsell, Peter||Warren, Kenneth|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Wells, John|
|Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)||Tebbit, Norman||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Speed, Keith||Temple-Morris, Peter||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Spence, John||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret||Younger, Hon George|
|Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Townsend, Cyril D.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Sproat, Iain||van Straubenzee, W. R.||Mr. Nigel Lawson and|
|Stainton, Keith||Vaughan, Dr Gerald||Mr. Peter Morrison.|
|Stanley, John||Viggers, Peter|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 disagreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment No. 8 disagreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Michael Maoris and Mr. Keith Speed; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Freeson.]
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.