Skip to main content

Part I: Exemptions

Volume 124: debated on Monday 14 December 1987

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

`The Secretary of State shall provide that a defined authority may if it so decides treat 5% (or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine upon special application of the authority) of any defined activity as exempt from the provisions of competitive tendering laid down in Part I; and shall provide that a defined authority may if it so decides postpone 10% of the phased implementation of any defined activity as outlined in the Government's Consultation Paper.'. —[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

The new clause gives a brief exemption to the competitive tendering part of the Bill. It in no way contests the Bill's main thrust for compulsory competitive tendering, but it has some regard to the practicalities—[Interruption.]

It is quite clear that hon. Members are overwhelmed by the massive support for the right of local authorities to be able to ask questions of their contractors in respect of race relations. That should delight all concerned.

New clause 2 has some regard to the practicalities of implementation of the Bill in respect of competitive tendering. We take the view that local authorities having to put services out to competitive tender unless that activity costs less than £100,000 is not practical. That threshold is so low that few authorities will be able to take advantage of the provision. The vast majority of authorities would therefore have to put out 100 per cent. of their activity covered by the Bill.

We think that there are good reasons why local authorities should be given some small discretion to keep a part of their activity in house. In our consultations, we established that the Government might be amenable to allowing local authorities flexibility and allowing them to retain 5 per cent. of their activity in house to cater for special circumstances. They clearly decided not to do that. We think that they should reconsider.

I shall not give the many available examples that show why authorities might wish to say—[Interruption.]

Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members could conduct their private conversations quietly.

There are small parts of the activities of some local authorities that can legitimately be considered special, to warrant special provision and to justify retention as in-house services. For example, I understand that the Turkish baths in Harrogate are run by the city council and that it may not wish to put them out to compulsory competitive tender.

Some authorities run colleges of agriculture as part of local authority education provision, and one authority has the ornamental grounds of such a college tended by four full-time, non-teaching but demonstrator members of staff. It will be absurd if that college teaches horticulture yet is not allowed to tend its own grounds. There is the counter-argument that the in-house organisation could win the contract, but that is not good enough. It is clear that cheapness will be an overriding factor in the Government's view. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has said that there will be no requirement to accept the cheapest tender, but we believe that cheapness will be the paramount consideration when minuscule local authority activities are under examination.

There are authorities —Leeds city council is one— that have national plant collections and sites of special scientific interest. I understand that Leeds has seven sites of special scientific interest. The employment of an outside contractor, with the practical and commercial constraints to which he will be necessarily subject, will preclude the continuous exercise of skills and flexibility of labour to ensure the preservation of important national collections. It would be ludicrous to force out to competitive tender works of that sort. That is why the new clause sets an exemption figure of 5 per cent.

There are other examples, but time precludes me going into substantial detail. Meals-on-wheels provision is currently tied to kitchens in homes or day centres that are exempt under paragraph 3 of schedule 14. That makes catering cost-effective, but, as things stand, authorities will be forced to separate two types of catering where economies of scale and integration operate. The 5 per cent. flexibility provision would allow authorities to continue to organise catering in the present manner and to produce meals on wheels from exempt kitchens.

I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker): The new clause is compatible with the Minister's arguments in Committee. When the Government's consultation exercise on sport and leisure was outlined in Committee, it was to be noted that the Minister for Local Government emphasised that the proposals were subject to parliamentary consideration and review. Emphasis was laid on flexibility.

The proposal that is embodied in the new clause was suggested to Opposition parties by the Association of County Councils. The association contemplates with difficulty the concept of 100 per cent. contracting out, and, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr says, it had specific reasons for not wanting to contract out every service. The example that I thought the hon. Member for Perry Barr would cite is Headingley cricket ground.

If the hon. Gentleman quotes that, he is wrong. That is the reason I did not quote it.

The hon. Gentleman has scored one there. None of the test grounds may be owned by local authorities. Certainly sports grounds of national importance are owned by local authorities and they are exactly the sort of facilities that, for civic reasons, local authorities may decide to hold on to.

I hope the Minister will accept that the intention of the Bill and the way its implemention is proposed do not preclude accepting flexibility and responsiveness to local need and preference. If the Minister does not accept the exact wording proposed, I hope that he will accept the intention of the new clause as a response to requests by local authorities.

In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I underline that the purpose of the new clause is to bring flexibility into the Bill. As it stands, at the core of the Bill are rigid proposals for competitive tendering which propose 100 per cent. of the specified activities. The Secretary of State opened the Second Reading debate with the following statement:

"The free operation of the market is the best way … The Government have increased competition since 1979… with dramatic results."
In the same debate the Minister for Local Government said that the Bill was based on the simple proposition that local government
"services, in common with services in other areas of economic life, will be provided more efficiently if they are subjected to competition." —[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 80–145.]
These simple propositions need evidence to back them up. I was interested to glance at those other services. In the Financial Times this morning, under the headline:
"Laundries find NHS tendering 'a failure'"
we read:
"Competitive tendering in the National Health Service has been a failure for laundry contractors, according to the industry's main employers' group. The Association of British Laundry, Cleaning and Rental Services has said unless the Government changes the competition regime, 'very shortly private contractors are likely to cease tendering for any NHS contracts.'"
Under these proposals, rigid as they are, I suggest that that will happen in local government as well.

The point was made repeatedly in Committee when we invited the Government to try to imagine their Bill being carried into practice. We invited them to have regard to the detail of implementing its provisions in a variety of different circumstances and special conditions. For example, the de minimis provision is so long that very few local authorities would be able to taken advantage of it. In Committee the Government rejected our amendments which had been tabled to enable local authorities to respond to exceptional circumstances, emergencies, disasters and situations of urgent need within the limits of their in-house resources, depleted though they have been by the Government.

Local authorities need flexibility. They need elbow room to do the job of providing local services for local needs. All the new clause proposes is that
"a defined authority may if it so decides"—
I emphasise that phrase, "if it so decides"—
"treat 5 per cent.… of any defined activity as exempt".
There is no reference in the Bill to the circumstances of local authorities, which vary greatly in different areas. It is unlikely that in the city that I represent, Leeds, there would be coastal flooding, but there may be in other areas. Those authorities may need the back-up of emergency services. On Second Reading we had a substantial discussion on the problems of storm damage in London.

Let us consider another example. A school meals supplier might break the contract conditions or there might be a dispute about the provision of school meals. In those circumstances, a local authority should surely have the power to make temporary arrangements to provide the meal services to schoolchildren or to elderly people in sheltered homes. Surely common sense tells us that a rupture in the provision of the service would be to the detriment of the people who need that service. Why cannot the meals-on-wheels provision currently tied to local kitchens in homes and day-centres be covered by a clause introducing 5 per cent. flexibility? Surely local authorities need back-up in the face of contract failure? That is a basic necessity. If an authority contracts out all the refuse provision, how on earth can the Secretary of State explain how a local authority can step in and clear away rubbish in the street if the contract fails? Local authorities will not be able to plug gaps with in-house services if they have no in-house services. New clause 2 provides for such services.

On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
"As anyone who has contracted-out services knows, it is easy to develop sophisticated systems to ensure that the specification is delivered. Occasionally, contracts go wrong…But in the vast majority of cases these problems are quickly sorted out".—[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 82.]
The evidence in the Financial Times about the Health Service proves the opposite. The Secretary of State's comment demonstrates a complacent over-confidence in the face of all the evidence just as the clause as it stands will massively underestimate the practical problems of implementation of the proposals that will be faced by local authorities and the contractors.

10.45 pm

I want to refer to two analogies referred to in the Standing Committee. Conservative Members often referred to Marks and Spencer as a model estate on which local government should be restructured. They forgot to mention that Marks and Spencer has its own in-house services because its operations cannot be totally at the mercy of contracted-out work. With reference to contract failure, it was interesting that the Minister for Local Government drew attention in Committee to the analogy of a car breakdown. He said that one has only to think of car breakdown recovery services which provide a 24-hour emergency service most efficiently. He suggested that the idea of 24-hour emergency car services would apply in local government circumstances. However, that analogy is fatally flawed. There is no Department of the Environment 24-hour cover and there is no RAC or AA to back up local authorities that have contracted-out all their cleansing and meal services. The point is that not everyone in Britain has a car, but everyone needs some of the basic services provided by local authorities for the public. Authorities are being forced to contract those services out at the expense of people not receiving that service.

It is also true that two or three large monopolies provide the services for car repairs in the event of breakdowns. They have developed national cover. However, it is one thing to wait on a motorway for a couple of hours before receiving attention, but it could be a criminal gap in provision if elderly people miss out on the main meal of the day as a result of contract failure. Gaps could be absolutely crucial in the provision of services to local people. Contract failure without back-up could mean that people have to live in unendurable circumstances until work gets done.

I forgot to mention one car recovery service by name, the National Breakdown Service. That may well prove to be an apt description of the practical impact of the Bill in terms of local services provision. If the Bill is passed in its present rigid form, there will be a national breakdown in the provision of vital services. As it stands, the Bill is rigid and repressive. If it is not changed by the new clause, the Bill will prove to be brittle and built on the iron will of Tory ideology. If unamended, in practice it will crack on the first testing.

As one who has served in local government for seven and a half years, I think that I can say with some authority that the vast majority of people associated with it view the Bill as insensitive and unresponsive to the needs of local communities. It is riddled with prejudice and devoid of practicality.

New clause 2 attempts to write a modicum of common sense into what many see as a wholly bad Bill. There are three reasons why local authorities should be allowed to exempt a minimum base of services subject to competitive tendering, as set out in the new clause. First, as my hon. Friends have said, they need a back-up to respond to emergencies. Secondly, they need to be able to deal with private monopolies. Thirdly, they need to be able to respond to contractor failure, to protect the health and welfare of the communities served by them.

Clearly, emergencies can and will occur. The night of Thursday 15 October is a classic case in point. The subject was much debated in Committee, when the Minister for Local Government stated:
"Perhaps it is worth putting on record that the London borough of Wandsworth was able to call on the services of several contractors, who turned out at very short notice, despite there being no prior arrangement."
But what happens in remote rural communities, such as those in the highlands and islands of Scotland, where there is not a multiplicity of alternative contractors? The Minister did not answer that question properly in Committee; I hope that we shall hear a proper answer tonight.

The same argument applies to private monopolies, which clearly exist in remote rural areas. There may well be only one contractor. If the contractor wins a contract against a local authority and the authority is compelled to wind up its activity, how will it measure the worth of the contractor if it has no minimum base of in-house services to set against it?

We must also remember that the Bill deals with sensitive issues involving public health. If a contractor providing refuse collection goes bust, having won 100 per cent. of the contract from a local authority in a remote rural area, and there is no available alternative, how does that authority provide an immediate response to the pileup of rubbish, with all its attendant health problems?

In Committee, the Minister for Local Government said:
"under the Bill as drafted, the worst that can happen in the unlikely event of contractor failure is that the authority may have to wait a few weeks out without grass being cut, for example, while a fresh competition is arranged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 1987; c. 248–49.]
If that were the only problem, I am sure that many people would not get too excited about it. However, it will not be the only problem. When public health is at issue, there must he an immediate response to a contractor going bust.

I have quoted two answers from the Minister to two very sensitive points, to which he did not respond properly in Committee. That is why I am arguing that new clause 2 should be fully supported, and I shall welcome any response from the Minister to what I have said.

The Bill, which is a prolonged and gratuitous insult to the mass of local authorities, is based on the sins of a handful of local authorities of many parties and the mythology that has resulted which has been believed by the Government. Throughout the 90 hours that the Bill spent in Committee, the Minister from the Welsh Office did not utter one word, and Hansard will record that fact. At one point he went to sleep, and Hansard will record that. During the four hours that we have been discussing the Bill on Report today, a representative of the Welsh Office has not been present.

The Bill is alien and malicious. The myth that the Government are perpetuating, that they are pursuing the idea of unfettered competition red in claw and fang, is untrue. The Government pursue competition in a limited way. The Minister was challenged to allow local authorities, if they are deprived of services and sectors in which their DLOs and other direct services are operating, in a similar unfettered way to go into sectors where private contractors work, but that was firmly turned down by him. The Minister gave the strange excuse that local authorities should not be allowed to take any risks with ratepayers' money. By the same token, those ratepayers are being denied an opportunity to gain.

When the Bill was in Committee a group of Welsh local authorities in my county started a successful enterprise —private industry is not delivering—manufacturing, for their own use, double-glazed windows. That is one of the good reasons why DLOs were set up.

Gwent and Newport have had prodigious success, to the benefit of the community, in leisure, sport and recreation. Uniquely, Gwent has highly cost-effective leisure centres attached to schools. They are used by schools by day and by the rest of the community during the evening. It has obtained good value for the population. However, there is no way in which that omelette can be unscrambled; there is no way in which it can be done competitively.

My constituency has a magnificent leisure centre. It was built by the local authority and it is an excellent example of municipal enterprise. It was the scene in June of a successful political meeting, at which the Prime Minister was present. It was successful in that it resulted in a Labour party gain in the constituency. However, that splendid building was erected not to make money, but as a far-sighted cushion against unemployment and the enforced leisure that the community would have to face. The purpose of creating leisure facilities is not financial, but sporting, social and recreational. None of those aims will be served by the Bill; they will be frustrated by it.

The Bill will be seen by local authorities throughout Wales as something that is alien, malicious and deeply misconceived.

At least I can say that a representative of the Scottish Office is present, even if he has been silent until now.

Does the Minister intend to protect Scottish local authorities that have collections from the effects of the Bill, or are the Government still determined to allow famous collections, such as Glasgow's botanic gardens, to be put at risk by the tendering process that is set out in the Bill?

11 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment
(Mr. Christopher Chope)

I hope that the House will reject the new clause because any competition-free allowance, even the 5 per cent. suggested in the new clause, is highly suspect when it is clear that authorities that have contracted out services voluntarily have generally contracted them out in their entirety. The fact is that there is no reason to take the view that contractors are not perfectly capable of doing the whole job, whatever that job is. A 5 per cent. allowance would be an arbitrary and meaningless concession, serving no useful purpose. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) failed to say how meaningful it would be if a local authority decided that it would retain 5 per cent. of its refuse collection service in-house. Of course that would be manifestly absurd, but that is what the new clause proposes.

I must point out to the House that the details of the implementation of competition are still subject to—

If the Minister read the new clause he would see that it goes further than that. A statement within it in parenthesis says:

"or such higher figure as the Secretary of State may determine upon special application of the authority."
Therefore, the Secretary of State could deal with the problem himself.

The Secretary of State is dealing with the problem by saying that the whole of the refuse collection service should be put out to competitive tender. If the House needs any reminder of what economies can result from putting refuse collection services out to tender, it need look no further—

Yes, perhaps Wandsworth. It is interesting that, during the Committee proceedings, a crucial by-election was taking place in the London borough of Wandsworth. Before the voting, Labour Members suggested that it would be a defeat for the Conservative party and an endorsement of their line on competitive tendering. What happened was that the local electorate voted enthusiastically for the policies of Wandsworth council.

The Minister mentioned 5 per cent. of refuse disposal, and it was pointed out that that was a base level. Surely the Minister would accept, for example, that if a local authority has a particular expertise in the disposal of hazardous waste, clearly that would not necessarily be appropriate for contracting out to a general waste disposal contractor.

The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee and I can understand why he has not appreciated that the Bill at present deals only with the collection of refuse rather than the disposal of it. As has been said, they are two different activities.

As I was saying, no final decisions have yet been taken on implementation of the competition provisions for the new activities, and it is not possible to say in advance of consideration of responses to the consultation paper whether an adequate case will be made out for some competition-free allowances such as have been argued for by Labour Members.

The fact that it is worth while for local authorities to contract out their services or to go out to competitive tender is emphasised by a report in last Friday's South London Press where we read that Greenwich council, which has up to now kept all its services in-house, has suddenly found that it needs to save some money. Overnight, it is suggesting that it should change from three-person to two-person teams for household rubbish collection and that it intends to reduce drivers' overtime, thereby saving about £160,000. If that council had submitted its refuse collection service to competitive tender a long time ago it would have found that those savings, and probably many more besides, would have been realised to the benefit of the ratepayers in that borough.

As to the suggestion that authorities be permitted to delay implementation of competition, the wording of the new clause seems to allow postponement to be indefinite, in which case the effect would be the same as a permanent competition-free allowance. Even if some lesser delay is proposed, I fail to see any merit in it. The quicker all of those services are exposed to competitive pressures the better. A concession of this sort would confuse matters and tend to make contracts less attractive to potential competitors.

Instead of telling us about Wandsworth and Greenwich, will the hon. Gentleman concentrate on the problem in Scotland? What happens on a Scottish island or in a remote rural area when services are privatised and the new firm goes bankrupt? Can essential daily services continue? I do not particularly wish to hear about Wandsworth, but I should like to hear about the Shetlands and the remoter areas of Scotland. Will the Minister answer that question?

I shall happily deal with that point. I thought that we had covered it extensively in Committee. If a local authority has an emergency, it is exempt from the Bill's provisions. If a local authority has contracted out its services and the contractor goes bankrupt or in some other way defaults, it will be possible for the local authority to submit the services to re-tender. If no contractors come forward in that process, it obviously follows that the direct labour organisation will probably win the contract. We do not see any problem with that. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the process that will be involved when the legislation is on the statute book.

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

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 310.

Division No. 111]

[11.05 pm


Abbott, Ms DianeBrown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Allen, GrahamBuchan, Norman
Alton, DavidCaborn, Richard
Anderson, DonaldCallaghan, Jim
Archer, Rt Hon PeterCampbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Armstrong, Ms HilaryCampbell-Savours, D. N.
Ashdown, PaddyCarlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Ashley, Rt Hon JackClark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ashton, JoeClarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Clay, Bob
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Clelland, David
Barron, KevinClwyd, Mrs Ann
Battle, JohnCohen, Harry
Beckett, MargaretColeman, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon TonyCook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Bermingham, GeraldCorbett, Robin
Blair, TonyCorbyn, Jeremy
Boateng, PaulCousins, Jim
Boyes, RolandCox, Tom
Bradley, KeithCryer, Bob
Bray, Dr JeremyCummings, J.
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Dr JohnMcLeish, Henry
Darling, AlastairMcTaggart, Bob
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)McWilliam, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)Madden, Max
Dewar, DonaldMahon, Mrs Alice
Dixon, DonMarek, Dr John
Dobson. FrankMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Doran, FrankMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dunnachie, JamesMartin, Michael (Springburn)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs GwynethMaxton, John
Eadie, AlexanderMeacher, Michael
Eastham, KenMeale, Alan
Evans, John (St Helens N)Michael, Alun
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Fatchett, DerekMitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)Morgan, Rhodri
Fisher, MarkMorley, Elliott
Flannery, MartinMorris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Flynn, PaulMorris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Foster, DerekMowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Foulkes, GeorgeMullin, Chris
Fyfe, Mrs MariaMurphy, Paul
Galbraith, SamuelNellist, Dave
Galloway, GeorgeOakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Garrett, John (Norwich South)O'Brien, William
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)O'Neill, Martin
George, BruceOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnParry, Robert
Godman, Dr Norman A.Pendry, Tom
Gordon, Ms MildredPike, Peter
Gould, BryanPowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Graham, ThomasPrescott, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Quin, Ms Joyce
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Radice, Giles
Grocott, BruceRedmond, Martin
Hardy, PeterReid, John
Harman, Ms HarrietRichardson, Ms Jo
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Healey, Rt Hon DenisRobinson, Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.Rogers, Allan
Henderson, DouglasRooker, Jeff
Hinchliffe, DavidRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Rowlands, Ted
Home Robertson, JohnRuddock, Ms Joan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)Sedgemore, Brian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)Sheerman, Barry
Howells, GeraintSheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hoyle, DougShort, Clare
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Soley, Clive
Ingram, AdamSpearing, Nigel
Janner, GrevilleSteel, Rt Hon David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Steinberg, Gerald
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)Stott, Roger
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)Strang, Gavin
Kinnock, Rt Hon NeilTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lambie, DavidTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lamond, JamesThomas, Dafydd Elis
Leighton, RonThompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)Turner, Dennis
Lewis, TerryVaz, Keith
Litherland, RobertWall, Pat
Livingstone, KenWallace, James
Livsey, RichardWalley, Ms Joan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Lofthouse, GeoffreyWareing, Robert N.
Loyden, EddieWelsh, Andrew (Angus E)
McAllion, JohnWelsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McAvoy, TomWigley, Dafydd
McCartney, IanWilliams, Rt Hon A. J.
Macdonald, CalumWilliams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
McFall, JohnWilson, Brian
McKay, Allen (Penistone)Winnick, David
McKelvey, WilliamWise, Mrs Audrey

Worthington, AnthonyTellers for the Ayes:
Wray, JamesMr. Frank Haynes and
Young, David (Bolton SE)Mrs. Llin Golding.


Adley, RobertDover, Den
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelDunn, Bob
Allason, RupertDurant, Tony
Amess, DavidDykes, Hugh
Amos, AlanEmery, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, JamesEvans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)Evennett, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)Fallon, Michael
Ashby, DavidFarr, Sir John
Aspinwall, JackFenner, Dame Peggy
Atkins, RobertFinsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Atkinson, DavidFookes, Miss Janet
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)Forman, Nigel
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Forth, Eric
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Batiste, SpencerFox, Sir Marcus
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyFreeman, Roger
Bendall, VivianFrench, Douglas
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)Gale, Roger
Benyon, W.Gardiner, George
Bevan, David GilroyGill, Christopher
Blackburn, Dr John G.Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterGlyn, Dr Alan
Body, Sir RichardGoodhart, Sir Philip
Bonsor, Sir NicholasGoodlad, Alastair
Boswell, TimGoodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bottomley, PeterGorman, Mrs Teresa
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGorst, John
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)Gow, Ian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Gower, Sir Raymond
Bowis, JohnGrant, Sir Anthony (CarnbsSW)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir RhodesGreenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGreenway, John (Rydale)
Brandon-Bravo, MartinGregory, Conal
Brazier, JulianGriffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Bright, GrahamGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Brooke, Hon PeterGrist, Ian
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)Ground, Patrick
Browne, John (Winchester)Grylls, Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Budgen, NicholasHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Burns, SimonHampson, Dr Keith
Burt, AlistairHanley, Jeremy
Butcher, JohnHannam, John
Butler, ChrisHargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Butterfill, JohnHargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Harris, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Haselhurst, Alan
Carrington, MatthewHawkins, Christopher
Carttiss, MichaelHayes, Jerry
Cash, WilliamHayward, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon PaulHeathcoat-Amory, David
Chapman, SydneyHeddle, John
Chope, ChristopherHeseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, MrHicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Hill, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hind, Kenneth
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Colvin, MichaelHolt, Richard
Conway, DerekHordern, Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Howard, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Cope, JohnHowarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Cormack, PatrickHowell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)
Couchman, JamesHughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cran, JamesHunt, David (Wirral W)
Currie, Mrs EdwinaHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Davis, David (Boothferry)Irvine, Michael
Day, StephenIrving, Charles
Dickens, GeoffreyJack, Michael
Dorrell, StephenJackson, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesJanman, Timothy

Jessel, TobyRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Johnson Smith, Sir GeoffreyRedwood, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Rhodes James, Robert
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRiddick, Graham
Key, RobertRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kirkhope, TimothyRoberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Knapman, RogerRoe, Mrs Marion
Knight, Greg (Derby North)Rost, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)Rowe, Andrew
Knowles, MichaelRumbold, Mrs Angela
Knox, DavidRyder, Richard
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanSackville, Hon Tom
Lang, IanSainsbury, Hon Tim
Latham, MichaelSayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, IvanShaw, David (Dover)
Lee, John (Pendle)Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkShelton, William (Streatham)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lightbown, DavidShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lilley, PeterShepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Shersby, Michael
Lord, MichaelSims, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon RichardSkeet, Sir Trevor
Lyell, Sir NicholasSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Maclean, DavidSoames, Hon Nicholas
McLoughlin, PatrickSpeed, Keith
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Speller, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Madel, DavidSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Major, Rt Hon JohnSquire, Robin
Malins, HumfreyStanbrook, Ivor
Mans, KeithSteen, Anthony
Maples, JohnStern, Michael
Marland, PaulStevens, Lewis
Marlow, TonyStewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mates, MichaelSumberg, David
Maude, Hon FrancisSummerson, Hugo
Mawhinney, Dr BrianTapsell, Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir PatrickTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Meyer, Sir AnthonyTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Miller, HalTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, IainTemple-Morris, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)Thorne, Neil
Moate, RogerThornton, Malcolm
Monro, Sir HectorThurnham, Peter
Montgomery, Sir FergusTownend, John (Bridlington)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)Tracey, Richard
Moss, MalcolmTredinnick, David
Moynihan, Hon C.Trippier, David
Mudd, DavidTrotter, Neville
Neale, GerrardTwinn, Dr Ian
Nelson, AnthonyVaughan, Sir Gerard
Neubert, MichaelWaddington, Rt Hon David
Newton, TonyWakeham, Rt Hon John
Nicholls, PatrickWaldegrave, Hon William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Walden, George
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Onslow, CranleyWaller, Gary
Oppenheim, PhillipWalters, Dennis
Page, RichardWard, John
Paice, JamesWardle, C. (Bexhill)
Parkinson, Rt Hon CecilWarren, Kenneth
Patnick, IrvineWatts, John
Patten, John (Oxford W)Wells, Bowen
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyWheeler, John
Pawsey, JamesWiddecombe, Miss Ann
Peacock, Mrs ElizabethWiggin, Jerry
Porter, David (Waveney)Wilkinson, John
Portillo, MichaelWilshire, David
Powell, William (Corby)Wolfson, Mark
Price, Sir DavidWood, Timothy
Raffan, KeithWoodcock, Mike

Yeo, TimTellers for the Noes:
Young, Sir George (Acton)Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

Question accordingly negatived.