Skip to main content

Publication Of Accounts

Volume 886: debated on Wednesday 19 February 1975

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

'(1) For the purpose of securing an economic distribution of resources, an authority shall, for each trading activity, including new construction work and/or repair and maintenance work carried out by its own direct labour organisation, keep separate accounts and publish annually a report and accounts which shall show—

  • (a) the financial outcome of the year's trading in this activity;
  • (b) the outcome of all major projects, including all new construction projects, completed during the year;
  • (c) any savings or losses made by comparison with the sums which would have been payable to a contractor if he had carried out the work.
  • (2) The Secretary of State may provide by order for any additional information to be included in the accounts when these are necessary to establish the value for money obtained from any trading or building activity'.—[ Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.

    7.22 p.m.

    I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

    This is an important clause which I hope the House will accept. It concerns direct labour departments in Scottish local authorities.

    A number of hon. Members will be surprised to hear that direct labour departments are not defined as municipal trading organisations, although they carry out a great deal of building work and involve the spending of an enormous amount of ratepayers' money. I am sure that in some cases the work is carried out profitably but in other cases the work is undertaken unprofitably and without a great deal of efficiency.

    We propose in the clause not to restrict the work of the direct labour departments but to ensure that the truth is told about the amount of money which those departments spend and the extent to which they are competitive and efficient by comparison with private industry. We want the facts to be told about the performance of direct labour departments.

    We put forward these proposals for a number of reasons. We believe that it is in the interests of all Scottish ratepayers that the details of the accounts of direct labour departments should be known. This does not happen at present. I am sure you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you were Lord Provost of Glasgow, that in that city trading organisations, such as the transport department, published separate accounts and gave all relevant details. In that way the ratepayers and the council could come to a decision about the effectiveness of a trading organisation. But direct labour departments which spend a great deal of money are not under such an obligation. In the new clause we are trying to remedy that situation.

    There is a further consideration to be borne in mind. This is a period when the building industry in Scotland faces short-time working because of cuts in public building and in some areas a decline in house-building. Therefore, it is wrong that direct labour departments should expand at the expense of private industry and private contracting organisations. In many cases we have not the slightest idea whether those departments are efficient, effective or in a position to compete fairly with private industry.

    The hon. Gentleman has made an assertion that direct labour departments have no idea of what the work is all about. I remind him that they are specialists in this type of work and give ratepayers the best value for money. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can make such a statement.

    I was pointing out that in some councils the ratepayers are not aware of the performance of these departments. If the hon. Gentleman is correct and the departments are efficient and effective and can compete fairly with private industry, it is in the community's interest that the accounts should be published and all the facts displayed. That is all we are proposing in the clause. We are saying that direct labour departments should publish separate accounts giving full details of their profitability and the work they undertake. The Minister should have no objection to the clause since it is aimed at ensuring that all the financial facts are published.

    The third reason why the clause is relevant in present circumstances is that in Glasgow we have had a number of reports about grave concern on the part of the elected council in respect of the efficiency and effectiveness of the city's direct labour organisation. Glasgow has a Labour-controlled council and the convener of the housing Department is concerned about the direct labour department. There have been complaints about the lack of proper supervision, outdated procedures and many other factors. Furthermore, the building performance in the city of Glasgow is regarded as deplorable. These are not my opinions but are opinions expressed publicly by the Labour chairman of the housing committee. Therefore, we feel that the time has come for the financial facts to be revealed.

    It might be argued that some checks already exist. However, the only effective financial check, apart from the work of the various council committees, is the district audit. That is not a comprehensive service and operates only after pro- jects have been completed. This is a matter of concern to Scottish ratepayers.

    I should like to give one example—and there are not many since it is difficult to get at the accounts. In Glasgow five years ago there was concern about the amount of money spent by the direct labour department on certain jobs. An independent inquiry was commissioned by the housing committee to look into losses of £3 million flowing from a direct labour department project. The inquiry concluded that the procedures in the department
    "virtually deprived the council of control over its own finances."
    7.30 p.m.

    Some people argue—I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), who took a personal interest in establishing such a department in his own authority, takes this view—that the direct labour departments are efficient and effective and can stand fair competition with any private industry. If that is so, it is only fair and just that the departments should publish accounts in exactly the same way as any other trading department. Many trading departments in local authorities publish separate accounts. That is precisely what we are asking for in the clause: that the direct labour departments should be the same as the old transport departments in this respect.

    In the clause we first specify that there should be separate accounts for new work and for maintenance and repair work. We do so because it would be possible, and there have been indications that it has happened, for a direct labour department to quote an unreasonably low figure for a new building project and recover the money because it has a monopoly of maintenance work given by the local authority. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable that the accounts for new work and maintenance should be separate.

    Our second requirement is that the financial outcome of the year should be published in the accounts. The third is that for major projects separate accounts of the outcome should be published. Fourthly, we propose that there should be a statement of savings and losses made by comparison with what would have been paid if the job had been given to private industry.

    Under the Companies Acts firms must publish a great deal of information about all their activities. The clause does not conform strictly to the requirements of those Acts. In some respects we are little tighter. The reason is that whereas firms might regard some information as commercially confidential, the local authority's own department is in a special position of having, in most cases, a monopoly of maintenance work within the major authorities. Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable that they should publish this additional information.

    People in Scotland are worried about how the rates will go this year. There have been clear indications from some authorities—we had such an indication from the Grampians region only a few days ago—that rates might rise substantially. The House therefore has a duty to ensure that where savings can be made, they are made.

    I and some other Glasgow Members have our own views about the Glasgow direct labour department. But the clause is not directed against Glasgow in particular. I have had doubts and concern about the maintenance aspect of Glasgow Corporation, and the council itself has expressed doubts about the new work. We simply propose that detailed accounts of a direct labour department should be published so that the ratepayers may know, those who compete with the department may know and the council will have a full picture of the extent to which the department is saving the authority money or losing it.

    I approach the matter with suspicion and a certain degree of prejudice. I believe that in the long term direct labour is bad business for local authorities. Some Labour Members will take a contrary view, and they are entitled to do so. But, whether we take one point of view or another, there could be nothing wrong, and it could only be helpful and constructive, in a direct labour department publishing separate accounts for its new work and its repair work, and in revealing all. It would be helpful to local authorities and would help direct labour departments to become more efficient than might otherwise be the case.

    It might be a means of saving a great deal of money for local authorities, and it might help to control the rates burden. The Minister of State and other Scottish Ministers have recently expressed the view that local authorities must carefully watch their expenditure. If we are to take that view seriously, the first step should be to ensure that the ratepayers know the full facts about direct labour departments, some of which spend a great deal of money and some of which, in the instances I have quoted, overspend by a great deal.

    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that I agreed with him about certain matters. That was a slightly misleading statement. What I told the hon. Gentleman was that when I was on the Dundee Corporation we started a direct labour department, the first result of which was that it cut the prices of new houses being built for the corporation. The second result was even more interesting. The private firms which had been tendering for those contracts reduced their prices for further contracts by no less than £300 a house. We had the remarkable situation that at a time when prices were rising, they could cut their prices by that amount.

    The first drawback of the clause is that the direct labour department is to be asked to carry out expensive accounting that would not otherwise be necessary. It has to show not only its own financial results but how they would compare if the contract had gone to unsuccessful tenderers. It is a bit much to expect a direct labour department to have to pay money to work out what would have happened if the contract had gone elsewhere. No other contractor has to do it. Why should a corporation direct labour department have to do it? It would mean unnecessary expense. If other people want to incur that expense, perhaps an independent body such as the Economic League, Aims of Industry or even the Conservative Party, there is nothing to stop them, but why should the ratepayers have to pay for an academic exercise?

    Let us suppose that there is a fixed-price tender for a new building project, such as a new school, and the direct labour department puts in a tender for £900,000 and a private contractor puts in a tender for £1 million, and the department ends up with a cost of £1½ million. It is only fair and reasonable that the figures should be published, but there is no way of establishing that without the requirement in the clause.

    The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that at the end of every financial year the corporation publishes accounts, and if the direct labour department makes a loss over the year it cannot be hidden. It is published in the official reports. Therefore, there is no question of hiding anything.

    The hon. Gentleman is asking for direct labour departments to incur unnecessary expenditure that would cripple them. No large firm with its own maintenance squads would ever dream of going to the expense that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because it would increase the costs of running those squads, and there would be no point in doing it. It would be equally bad for a local authority which carries out repairs with its own repair squads to incur that expense.

    A second important point is that when they have a lean time private contractors can cut their prices a bit, to keep their labour force and to keep everything ticking over. They can also increase their prices in good times. It is noticeable to anyone else who has had to deal with such matters that there are much higher estimates for house building which will be carried out over the winter period than for house building to be carried out over the summer period. If direct labour departments were forced to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests it might be difficult to justify the exercise. I am sure that if he were a member of any council he would be the first to say "Why is the price much higher now than it was a couple of months ago?" There might be a reasonable explanation. The usual explanation is that it is more expensive to build in the winter in what is termed bad building weather.

    Local authorities, in carrying out maintenance and repair work, have no incentive to skimp the work because they are not out to make excessive profits. Their only concern is to keep their houses in good repair. A private firm may knock a few pounds off the cost of a repair job, but the council may find that repairs are required two years earlier than if the maintenance had been carried out properly in the first place. Admittedly, an efficient repair might be more expensive in the first place, but many corporations—I do not know about Glasgow, but I know about Dundee—often find that in the long term it is cheaper. Indeed, at the end of the day it is not only cheaper but more satisfactory for tenants.

    The hon. Gentleman suggested that direct labour departments should not only keep records of all the new work that is undertaken but individually price every major project. The hon. Gentleman is being unreasonable, and is attempting to increase the overhead expenditure of direct labour departments to the point where they are no longer able to compete economically with private firms.

    When the Dundee Corporation started its direct labour department it guaranteed regular employment all the year round to its workers. Private firms do not guarantee work all the year round. At least, they may do so now, but they did not at that time. Naturally, guaranteed and better conditions for workers must be paid for. We must consider whether it is worth paying extra and giving men guaranteed jobs all the year round, which is what most people get nowadays, or to employ them in the good weather period and to pay them off during the winter as many private building firms do.

    The hon. Gentleman said that it would add greatly to expenditure if direct labour departments had to give details of the cost of each major project. Is he seriously suggesting that any direct labour department which completes a major school project or something like that does not know the cost?

    Why do not the private firms tell? Why do they not publish the profits or losses that are made on jobs that they do? Because that information would be valuable to their competitors. If a direct labour department has to divulge information which could be useful to its competitors—we must bear in mind that it is restricted in the contracts for which it can compete—it would be tying a rope round its own neck.

    Many years ago I suggested that the Dundee Corporation should not tender for certain jobs because it would have to employ more men who would have to be employed all the year round. The reasonable thing was to allocate jobs which would keep them in work. That is better than the method that the hon. Gentleman attempts to justify of cut-throat competition which means that men are paid off in the winter and are left to scrounge for whatever jobs they can find. Men who are out of work in the winter have to be paid unemployment or other benefit. Therefore, at the end of the day it is a good thing for the ratepayers and taxpayers to have these men employed all the year round.

    In case the hon. Gentleman is in doubt, I am opposed to the new clause.

    7.45 p.m.

    The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) put his finger on the difficulty about the employment of direct labour when he said that the direct labour departments guarantee regular work all the year round. If we lived in equitable conditions and local authorities were able to budget on both new work and maintenance for almost the same amount year by year, that would possibly be something to aim for and to feel could be achieved, but, rightly or wrongly, the Government of the day have said that we need to reduce expenditure—on, for example, education building in Scotland—by a very large amount. Is it practical for direct labour departments in Glasgow, Dundee, Fife county or anywhere else to guarantee full employment to their men when the money currently being made available is likely to be drastically reduced?

    It is much easier to run on a more equitable basis when it comes to maintenance because it is possible to plan programmes forward year by year and to control the amount that is spent on houses, schools, and so on. However, when it comes to the provision of new capital building, I wonder whether it is practical to adopt the thesis developed by the hon. Member for Dundee, West.

    I think that it would be in the interests of ratepayers for the maximum amount of information on this subject to be published so that they could weigh the pros and cons. It might be that on some occasions they would say "We are happier to pay £x more because we guarantee regular employment", but there must come a time when people will get past the point of no return and will say "This is getting beyond a joke. We cannot go on doing that."

    If the maximum amount of information is published councillors and ratepayers can make up their minds on the facts before them rather than on the basis that something looks as if it ought to be all right. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friends are right to commend the keeping of accounts and the publishing of information.

    For a number of reasons I cannot recommend the House to accept the new clause.

    I do not wish to get involved in any great discussion about the merits of direct labour departments. Of course, they have considerable advantages, as a number of local authorities have found. Some of those advantages have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig).

    When a direct labour department is established it is important that the local authority ensures that it works in an efficient way. I certainly support that proposition. However, it is not only misleading, but inaccurate to pretend, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have done, that direct labour departments are inefficient and that competitive free enterprise gives better value for money.

    There has been criticism recently about the performance of Glasgow's direct labour department. There has been equal criticism about one well-known building contractor who was employed on the Knightswood modernisation scheme. That contractor's performance was so poor in every respect that the contract had to be terminated by the corporation before it was completed. There are many other instances of private builders producing extremely costly results on particular contracts. That is one of the difficulties about accepting the proposition that direct labour departments should not only have separate accounts, but that those accounts should somehow or other produce figures representing the savings or losses compared with the sums which would have been payable to private contractors to carry out the work.

    Unfortunately this is unlikely to be a practicable proposition. Unhappily, it is rare these days for the final sum paid to any contractor, whether a direct labour department or a private enterprise contractor, to bear much relationship to the original tender price. Because of variations in the contract, increased costs and the rest, quite considerable extra payments are made. Therefore to compare the eventual expenditure of the direct labour department with the original tender by a private enterprise competitor in an attempt to find some meaningful comparison of the performance of the department is unrealistic.

    There are two main considerations in this matter. The first is whether at the time the contract is let there is a proper comparison between the quotation by the direct labour department and any outside competitors. This is already provided for in existing legislation, because Section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 requires local authorities to make standing orders about contracts of this kind and to include in the standing orders provision for securing competition for such contracts. That provision applies to direct labour departments and private enterprise contractors equally. There is therefore nothing in the present situation which allows the local authority to give contracts to a direct labour department regardless of cost and without taking account of what could be available in the private enterprise market.

    Therefore, the arrangements for when the contract is let are provided for. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) now takes the view that he apparently takes about direct labour departments, that is odd, because his Government did not put a provision similar to the new clause in the 1973 Act. That would have been perfectly appropriate. They took the view which I take now that the provision in the 1973 Act was satisfactory and adequate.

    My second point concerns the proper accounts of the direct labour department, or any other department of the local authority. For the reasons I have given it is not practicable to produce accounts in the terms provided for in the clause. Of course, I accept that it is desirable that proper accounts should be kept and published. I cannot recommend that we accept the clause as being satisfactory, but I fully accept the general principle of keeping proper books and accounts.

    As for accounting requirements, a report is to be received from the professional organisation concerned, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which will deal with the matters covered by the clause. When we have the report we shall consider the views of that body, and since the Secretary of State has the power to provide by regulation for what should be contained in the accounts of local authorities, we shall take account of anything said here which would produce the desired result. It therefore seems sensible to wait for the report of that body.

    Section 97 of the 1973 Act provided for the setting-up of a commission for local authority accounts, and the controller of audit is appointed under the same section. If the commission or the controller of audit make representations about this or any other matter concerning local authority accounts we shall naturally take them fully into consideration in any regulations we might wish to make. However, we cannot do it by means of the new clause.

    To sum up, I confirm that where there is a direct labour department, a system in which we see many advantages, we are anxious that it should work efficiently. Secondly, we are interested in keeping local authority expenditure down in the current year. We are also interested in seeing that local authority expenditure is properly controlled and value for money is obtained. A circular will soon go out to local authorities concerning the problems of 1975–76.

    However, part of what the clause is designed to achieve is already provided for in existing legislation which the Conservatives thought adequate when they were in Government and which we still consider to be adequate. Other parts of the clause are completely impracticable. Other parts may be practicable in view of what is said by the report from the professional body concerned. In so far as those parts are practicable, there is already provision for the Secretary of State to make the necessary alterations by regulation. For all those reasons I hope that the House will reject the clause.

    With due respect to the Minister, his arguments are unconvincing. He said that public expenditure should be kept down. One way to do that is to accept the new clause. Surely it is impossible to know whether an authority is getting value for money from a direct labour department unless it knows exactly how much each job costs and whether the department is making a loss. If the department is making a loss, obviously the ratepayers will have to pay more. We wish to safeguard the position of ratepayers as well as to do everything possible to stop costs escalating. We wish to secure economy and efficiency in the general interests of the ratepayers.

    We believe that direct labour departments could be established as separate trading departments of local authorities and that they should have their own accounts showing the profits and losses. Also implicit in the clause is that new building work should be subject to competitive tender. Such competition would be fair and would mean that the best organisation would get the work.

    I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I do not regard the direct labour department as a social service, although in some ways he does. Why

    Division No. 98.]

    AYES

    [8.0 p.m.

    Beith, A. J.Farr, JohnKaberry, Sir Donald
    Bell, RonaldFletcher-Cooke, CharlesKellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Fookes, Miss JanetKing, Evelyn (South Dorset)
    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Freud, ClementLane, David
    Biffen, JohnFry, PeterLatham, Michael (Melton)
    Boscawen, Hon RobertGardiner, George (Reigate)Lawrence, Ivan
    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)Le Marchant, Spencer
    Brittan, LeonGoodhew, VictorLester, Jim (Beeston)
    Brotherton, MichaelGrieve, PercyLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Grimond, Rt Hon J.Lloyd, Ian
    Buchanan-Smith, AlickHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Macfarlane, Neil
    Budgen, NickHannam, JohnMarshall, Michael (Arundel)
    Bulmer, EsmondHarvie Anderson, Rt Hon MissMather, Carol
    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Hawkins, PaulMawby, Ray
    Carlisle, MarkHayhoe, BarneyMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
    Carson, JohnHicks, RobertMayhew, Patrick
    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Hooson, EmlynMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)Moate, Roger
    Corrie, JohnHunt, JohnMonro, Hector
    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)Hurd, DouglasMontgomery, Fergus
    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesHutchison, Michael ClarkMorrison, Charles (Devizes)
    Drayson, BurnabyIrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Mudd, David
    Fairbairn, NicholasIrving, Charles (Cheltenham)Neave, Airey
    Fairgrieve, RussellJames, DavidNeubert, Michael

    should persons who work for a direct labour department be guaranteed work when those who work for private firms do not have that guarantee? We believe it is necessary to look at the whole picture.

    I am interested in direct building departments. Let me assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) that if I were a building worker I would prefer to be employed by the direct works department of a corporation not because I would be guaranteed full employment but because the work would be regular and the direct building department can put men on inside work during the winter months. That is the difference. The men earn their money.

    I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. It shows why direct labour departments are constantly expanding. These departments should not be allowed constantly to expand, when they may be working inefficiently and at a tremendous cost to ratepayers. We must look at the whole picture and not just take into account the interests of those who work for direct labour departments. This clause will make for greater economy and efficiency and will be in the interests of local authorities and the ratepayers.

    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

    The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 141.

    Page, John (Harrow West)Sims, RogerThorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)Skeet, T. H. H.Townsend, Cyril D.
    Paisley, Rev IanSpence, JohnViggers, Peter
    Rathbone, TimSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
    Rifkind, MalcolmStainton, KeithWalder, David (Clitheroe)
    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)Stanbrook, IvorWinterton, Nicholas
    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)Steel, David (Roxburgh)Wood, Rt Hon Richard
    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)Stokes, JohnTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
    Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)Stradling Thomas, J.Mr. Hamish Gray and
    St. John-Stevas, NormanTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)Mr. Richard Luce.
    Shepherd, ColinTebbit, Norman

    NOES

    Allaun, FrankGould, BryanMurray, Rt Hon Ronald King
    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Gourlay, HarryNoble, Mike
    Atkinson, NormanGraham, TedO'Halloran, Michael
    Bain, Mrs MargaretGrocott, BruceOvenden, John
    Bates, AlfHamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Palmer, Arthur
    Bean, R. E.Hamling, WilliamParry, Robert
    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodHardy, PeterPeart, Rt Hon Fred
    Bidwell, SydneyHarper, JosephPerry, Ernest
    Blenkinsop, ArthurHarrison, Walter (Wakefield)Phipps, Dr Colin
    Boardman, H.Henderson, DouglasPrice, William (Rugby)
    Booth, AlbertHoyle, Doug (Nelson)Radice, Giles
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Huckfield, LesReid, George
    Buchanan, RichardHughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)Robertson, John (Paisley)
    Canavan, DennisHunter, AdamRoderick, Caerwyn
    Cartwright, JohnJackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)Rodgers, George (Chorley)
    Clemitson, IvorJanner, GrevilleRooker, J. W.
    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Jeger, Mrs LenaRose, Paul B.
    Coleman, DonaldJohn, BrynmorRoss, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Johnson, Walter (Derby S)Selby, Harry
    Corbett, RobinJones, Dan (Burnley)Sillars, James
    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Kaufman, GeraldSkinner, Dennis
    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Kerr, RussellSmall, William
    Crawford, DouglasKinnock, NeilSnape, Peter
    Crawshaw, RichardLambie, DavidSpearing, Nigel
    Crosland, Rt Hon AnthonyLamond, JamesSpriggs, Leslie
    Cryer, BobLewis, Ron (Carlisle)Stallard, A. W.
    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)Lomas, KennethStewart, Donald (Western Isles)
    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Loyden, EddieTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
    Dempsey, JamesLuard, EvanThomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
    Thompson, George
    Doig, PeterLyons, Edward (Bradford W)Tierney, Sydney
    Dormand, J. D.McCartney, HughTinn, James
    Douglas-Mann, BruceMcElhone, FrankWainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
    Duffy, A. E. P.McGuire, Michael (Ince)Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
    Dunn, James AMackenzie, GregorWatt, Hamish
    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)Mackintosh, John P.Wellbeloved, James
    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)Maclennan, RobertWelsh, Andrew
    Evans, John (Newton)McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)White, Frank R. (Bury)
    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)McNamara, KevinWhite, James (Pollok)
    Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)Madden, MaxWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.Magee, BryanWilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
    Flannery, MartinMarks, KennethWilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Wise, Mrs Audrey
    Ford, BenMeacher, MichaelWoof, Robert
    Forrester, JohnMendelson, JohnYoung, David (Bolton E)
    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Mikardo, Ian
    George, BruceMillan, BruceTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
    Ginsburg, DavidMitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)Mr. James Hamilton and
    Golding, JohnMorris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Mr. David Stoddart.

    Question accordingly negatived.