HC Deb 27 March 1969 vol 780 cc1854-67

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 22, line 5, leave out paragraph 2.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is concerned with the time allowed for the poll. There have been a number of arguments about this and it was said in another place that this was a matter for the House of Commons and not for the House of Lords, an invitation which fully understands the situation.

The basic argument behind our proposal is that people should have more time in which to go to the poll. This is the view of agricultural workers and it will clearly be of advantage to, for example, those on shift work. There can be no argument against the idea of allowing an extra hour in which people may go to the poll and, with that brief but, I believe, incontestable argument, I recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in this matter.

Mr. Sharples

The Under-Secretary assumes that there can be no argument against the Government's proposal. Does he really believe that no evidence has been produced to contradict his view? Is he aware that he has neglected Mr. Speaker's Conference and that it is a discourtesy to that Conference to say that no recommendation has been made which counteracts his argument?

The whole point of the debate which we had on a previous occasion on this matter was that Mr. Speaker's Conference, to which even the Government should pay some respect, recommended that there should be no change in polling hours. In that debate the Home Secretary was asked what evidence and considerations had led him to advocate a change of this kind. His reply was: It was the Government's collective view, having discussed and considered the evidence, that there was a case for extending the time to 10 o'clock."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1968; Vol. 775, c. 524.] The Government were asked to state the evidence given to them. We wondered if they had received a recommendation for this change from the political parties or trade unions. In the briefest of replies on that occasion, the Home Secretary made it clear that no such evidence had been presented; that this was simply a Government decision, presumably made by the Parliamentary Committee of the Cabinet. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke strongly against this proposal, but their opinions were completely ignored by the Government.

It is right that the other place should give us an opportunity to reconsider this decision. Certainly the Government should take this opportunity to explain fully why this extension of polling hours should be made. If a reasonable case exists the House will consider it, but we should not be asked to agree to this alteration merely on the Government's say so.

Both in this House and in another place arguments have been adduced about the increased burden that this change will place on those who administer elections. The Minister responsible in another place admitted that by increasing the total number of hours by one, from 14 to 15, difficulties would unquestionably arise. This matter must be more fully explained and I hope that the Government do not think that the Under-Secretary's brief explanation will suffice, even if the Government intend to force this decision on the House with the aid of the Whips. They do so against the advice and clear recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. They do so in the knowledge that many of the most experienced hon. and right hon. Members opposite utterly deplore this proposal.

Mr. Lubbock

We can see how much support there is for this proposal on the other side of the House when we look at the serried ranks of empty benches opposite and when we consider the figures of the last Division.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Quality instead of quantity.

Mr. Lubbock

I shall wait and judge his quality if the hon. Member cares to make an intervention in this debate. It is possible that he may put up arguments in favour of the Government proposal which we have not heard from the Front Bench, either in Committee or in the brief intervention by the Under-Secretary this afternoon. On 11th December the Home Secretary said that this conclusion was drawn from the political experience of members of the Government. He conceded that there was no bit of evidence, and that no representations had been made by outside organisations of whatever character, in favour.

In his single sentence speech this afternoon the Under-Secretary mentioned agricultural workers. I should like to know whether representations have been made by the National Union of Agricultural Workers and, if so, what form they took. If agricultural workers are employed continuously from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., something is wrong with the law. It would be monstrous if any worker were compelled to be on duty continuously for as much as 14 hours.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned shift workers. The Home Secretary gave an example of shift workers going to work at 10 p.m. and continuing until 6 a.m. That is a usual period for those on shifts. He suggested that it would be impossible for a shift worker who normally leaves home at 9.30 to go half an hour earlier so that he could cast his vote, although the Home Secretary said that he could drop into the pub or club and have a drink before going to work.

I should have thought that on the few occasions when we have Parliamentary Elections shift workers could vary their route and take in the polling station as well as the pub. It would not cause great hardship if they had to get up half an hour earlier. Most people who get up at 7 o'clock in order to vote get up earlier than we do normally. We face this happily as a public duty because we think that going to the polls is part of the electoral process. We are prepared to sacrifice a little "beauty sleep" in order to carry out that duty. I do not see that this would be any great hardship.

If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) can produce evidence from his constituents, or from letters to any hon. Member, to show that people were prevented from voting at the last election by reason of the hours being limited as they are at present, the House would be glad to consider it. We could take that into consideration at the end of this debate, but so so far no hon. Member—and, I believe, no one in another place, though I have not read the debates there as carefuly as I ought to have done—has produced any example of people being prevented from voting in this way.

We have adequate provision for people who are prevented from going to the polls by reason of their occupation or employment. The long-distance lorry driver who would be away in the North of England and not be able to get home in time to cast his vote if the poll closes at 9 o'clock, would not be helped if the time were extended to 10 or 11 o'clock. That is why provision is made for him to vote by post.

The suggestion by the Government would mean very great difficulties and burdens being laid on the shoulders of returning officers, their clerks in polling stations, the party organisations and all who have to do a tremendous amount of work—and, my goodness, how we value it—at elections. We always thank them at the conclusion of the poll.

We shall lay this vast additional burden on them. That is not of slight importance when we consider that they will have done many hours already. This is so that idle or lazy people will not have to come out earlier. For their sake this vast disruption and discomfort will be caused to those who help us to run the electoral system.

Mr. Dunn

I hope that the Under-Secretary will resist any claim to alter the proposals made by the Government. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who said that automatically a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference should be accepted. If so, many problems would be solved without the necessity for debating them.

In answer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) I point out that people who live in conurbations outside city centres leave home early in the morning because of the distance they have to travel to work. In my city they have to travel for approximately an hour before they reach their place of employment. Often their employment starts at 7.30 in the morning, especially on the dockside. Because of pressure of work in the docks, often on Thursdays and Fridays these men are required to work overtime until 7.30 p.m. If we accept this as a basis of measurement but do not apply it to everyone, a great number would benefit if voting hours were extended to 10 o'clock.

Mr. Lubbock

Would those dockyard workers know in advance that they will have to work that amount of overtime? If so, cannot they get a postal vote?

Mr. Dunn

They do not know in advance. I do not think they could get a postal vote because they would not be travelling to a place of work outside the area of the constituency. If we allowed such a postal vote I can imagine 10,000 dockers registering for it rather than being inconvenienced when there is the possibility that they would be called upon to work overtime.

There are a number of cases in which the extension of hours would be an advantage. I appreciate that such an extension might cause difficulty for those undertaking this task, especially returning officers, but there should be some way of relieving them during the day. I do not think sufficient evidence has been produced by returning officers and their staffs to show that it is such an arduous task that they are asked to undertake. In the same way that the hon. Member for Orpington suggested there is no evidence for the necessity for the extra hour, there is no real evidence to show that it is unnecessary.

Mr. Sharples

Surely the hon. Member knows that Mr. Speaker's Conference had evidence before it when it considered all these questions—evidence which is not available to this House? If he is not to take the advice of that Conference on a matter of this kind, he should at least produce evidence to contradict those decisions. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Speaker's Conference?

Mr. Dunn

I used my words carefully and I said there was no real evidence. Even now when these people work from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. many of them are off duty during the middle of the day. It is known that in those periods they are not required.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

My hon. Friend knows that I was born in his constituency and brought up there.

Hon. Members

How can he know?

Dr. Bennett

It was before his time.

Mr. Hamling

My hon. Friend knows that I lived in Liverpool in the dockland area for many years. It was often said by dockers that they were deliberately kept at work on the river on polling day so that they could not get home to vote.

Dr. Bennett

That does not happen today.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dunn

This was said. Only those who are old enough to appreciate it can substantiate whether it is true. I say that generously to both points of view. There were one or two instances where candidates at local elections were subjected to pressure because of the casual nature of their employment. Thank God that those days have passed. I suggest that the additional hour will not impose a very arduous burden. I suggest that the evidence received by Mr. Speaker's Conference did not prove hardship. I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Hamling

The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), if anyone, should know that many people who live in his part of the conurbation of London travel very long distances to work, much further even than my constituents. I know from my experience that many of my constituents who travel to work to North-East London and North-West London get up long before 7 o'clock and do not return home until after the polling stations have closed, or perhaps only half an hour before then.

Why is not an elector, particularly a manual worker, entitled to come home, wash and change, and have a bite to eat before going out to vote? It is all very well to argue that people should put themselves out to exercise their civic rights. The House is under an obligation to make it as reasonably possible as it can for people to vote. It should not put obstacles in their way. It is all very well for people who work short days, as I did when I was a schoolmaster, or who live near where they work, to say, "If people work late or travel long dis- tances to work they must try to make some other arrangement". It ill-behoves middle-class people who normally do not work such long hours as most manual workers do, to talk in the way that people have talked this afternoon. When many manual workers reach home they must have a bath and change before they can become civilised.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

Before they can become civilised?

Mr. Hamling

Before they can go out into company. Surely the hon. Gentleman, representing Gillingham, should know something about smells. He knows that there are people working on the Medway with all sorts of cargoes who, on arriving home, must change their clothes, because it is unpleasant for them to go round in their working clothes.

Mr. Burden

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he assesses whether a man is civilised by the state of the clothes he wears and by the fact that he is a little dirty?

Mr. Hamling

No. I say that these men have a certain sense of propriety. On returning home they do not wish to stay in the clothes they worked in. Before going out to the polling station they like to change. They like to have a wash. Many of them bath first. This is my experience as the son of a man who worked on the docks. I know the great sense of propriety that these men have. They want to be decent and clean. Many of my constituents in Eltham who work on London Docks wash and change immediately on reaching home.

Sir Edward Brown (Bath)

The conditions the hon. Gentleman is talking about which obtained in his father's time do not obtain now. There have been many Acts under which baths, washrooms and changing rooms have been provided. These people now change before they go home, so on leaving work they are ready to go to the polling station.

Mr. Handing

I only hope that the hon. Gentleman, who represents Bath, will go to the Royal Group of Docks and point to one shower bath or bath for the thousands of men working there. There is not one, and he knows it. The same is true of London Docks. The same is true of Liverpool Docks, where my father worked. It is as true today as when my father worked there 30 years ago.

Mr. Burden

On a point of order. What has this discussion on the garb that people wear in the docks to do with the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

I think that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is making an incidental reference to it.

Mr. Hamling

I was also making an incidental reference to the interjection made by the same hon. Gentleman who is now trying to call me to order.

It has been alleged that nobody has made any representation. This was one of the main burdens of the speech I made on Second Reading. That is why I strongly support this proposal. I have been working in elections for well over 40 years. My experience teaches me that this is an admirable proposal which the House should support.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

Whilst sitting on the sidelines I heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) use an expression which I thought meant that if he was satisfied that even a few people would be prevented from voting, he would support the Government. In Leicester, West years ago the successful candidate, Mr. Harold Nicolson, was returned with a majority of 87 and stayed in Parliament with that majority for ten years. When I arrived there as a candidate I was given to understand that Mr. Nicolson would not have had that majority had it not been for the fact that some people who worked late were not able to enter the polling booths. If by this extension people were enabled to vote, as I think they would be, we should do our best to provide the opportunity to vote for every person who wants to vote. The illustration I gave is an indication of what might happen in the event of people being prevented by voting by 9 o'clock.

Mr. Lubbock

What date is the hon. Gentleman speaking of when these 87 votes made all the difference?

Sir B. Janner

1935.

Mr. Lubbock

Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that hours of work have changed considerably since pre-war. Although an Amendment of this kind might have been necessary in the 1930s, it is not necessary today.

Sir B. Janner

I assure the hon. Genteman that this happened. I cannot vouch for the fact that there would have been 87 extra votes if the booths had been open later, but let us suppose that there would have been one or two extra. The person might have been in the House on a very small majority, which might have been prevented if other people had been able to vote. On those grounds alone, we are entitled to say that we should extend the time to a reasonable hour, so that people cannot say that they did not have a chance to vote.

Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

The trouble about the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is that it is based on a number of assumptions for which there is no possible warranty. He assumes that if the poll had been an hour longer in 1935 in the West Leicester division 88 people would have voted for another candidate, and that therefore the candidate who was elected would have been defeated.

Sir B. Janner

What I said was that a large number of people came too late to vote, that if the poll had been later they would have had an opportunity of voting, and that therefore a person might not have represented the constituency in this House for 10 years on an 87 majority.

Sir C. Black

Of course. But the trouble about that argument is that it could be applied with equal force to closing the poll at 11 o'clock or midnight. The hon. Gentleman's argument has gone either too far or not far enough. Experience shows that whenever the poll is closed some people will come too late.

One must be reasonable in these matters and consider all the parties involved. I support the argument of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about the burden imposed on those charged with the duty of conducting the elections. I have received a letter from the secretary of the branch of the National and Local Government Officers Association in my constituency asking me to bring forward its views when the matter is discussed. Those views impress me as containing a great deal of common sense. The secretary wrote: The members of my Branch have noted with regret the provisions in Part II of Schedule 1 … to increase the hours of polling so that the polling booths may be open until 10 o'clock at night. We have also noted that this provision was rejected by the House of Lords. As a considerable number of members of my Branch are inevitably involved in both the polling and the counting processes that follow, we have an interest in the number of hours these officers are required to work. My Branch is of the opinion that the extension proposed in the Bill is an unwarranted addition to a working day which is already longer than any other. When one realises that many Local Government Officers on completion of their work as Presiding Officers at a polling booth are then required forthwith to undertake duties on the count which may well last into the small hours of the morning, one realises that the strain is already considerable and should not be increased; therefore, my Branch has instructed me to write to you asking that when this matter is returned to the House of Commons you will support the rejection of Paragraph 2 of Part II of Schedule I.

I am very glad on this occasion to be able to agree entirely with the national and local government officers in my constituency, and I propose to vote in the way they have asked me to.

Mr. Dunn

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the presiding officers employed by the local authority volunteer for such tasks in many instances?

Sir C. Black

I should have though that that was reason in favour of my argument rather than the contrary. I have always been concerned to ensure that people should not be required to work excessive hours. It is the duty of the House to protect workers who are liable to be called upon and required to work excessive hours. Therefore, I propose to vote for the hour of 9 o'clock and not 10 o'clock.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 202.

Division No. 134.] AYES [6.14 p.m.
Alldritt, Walter Delargy, Hugh Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Anderson, Donald Dell, Edmund Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Archer, Peter Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Howie, W.
Ashley, Jack Dickens, James Huckfield, Leslie
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Dobson, Ray Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Doig, Peter Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dunn, James A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Dunnett, Jack Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Barnes, Michael Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hunter, Adam
Barnett, Joel Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Hynd, John
Beaney, Alan Eadie, Alex Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Bence, Cyril Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Ellis, John Janner, Sir Barnett
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) English, Michael Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Binns, John Ennals, David Jeger, George (Goole)
Bishop, E. S. Ensor, David Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Blackburn, F. Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Evans, loan L, (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Booth, Albert Finch, Harold Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Boyden, James Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Bradley, Tom Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Brooks, Edwin Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Judd, Frank
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Kelley, Richard
Buchan, Norman Forrester, John Kenyon, Clifford
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Fowler, Gerry Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Fraser, John (Norwood) Lee, John (Reading)
Cant, R. B. Galpern, Sir Myer Lestor, Miss Joan
Carmichael, Neil Gardner, Tony Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Garrett, W. E. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Chapman, Donald Ginsburg, David Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Coe, Denis Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lipton, Marcus
Coleman, Donald Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Loughlin, Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Luard, Evan
Crawshaw, Richard Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Cronin, John Griffiths, Will (Exchange) McBride, Neil
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. McCann, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) MacColl, James
Dalyell, Tam Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Macdonald A. H.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hartersley, Roy Mackie, John
Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway) Hazell, Bert, Maclennan, Robert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hilton, W. S. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hootey, Frank MacPherson, Malcolm
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Paget, R. T. Skeffington, Arthur
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Palmer, Arthur Spriggs, Leslie
Manuel, Archie Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mapp, Charles Park, Trevor Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Marks, Kenneth Parker, John (Dagenham) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Marquand, David Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.) Taverne, Dick
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Pavitt, Laurence Thornton, Ernest
Maxwell, Robert Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Tinn, James
Mayhew, Christopher Pentland, Norman Tomney, Frank
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Tuck, Raphael
Mendelson, J. J. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Urwin, T. W.
Mikardo, lan Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Millan, Bruce Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Wallace, George
Miller, Dr. M. S. Randall, Harry Watkins, David (Consett)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Rankin, John Weitzman, David
Molloy, William Rees, Merlyn Wellbeloved, James
Moonman, Eric Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Rhodes, Geoffrey Whitaker, Ben
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Richard, Ivor White, Mrs. Eirene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Whitlock, William
Morris, John (Aberavon) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy Wilkins, W. A.
Murray, Albert Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Willsy, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Neal, Harold Robertson, John (Paisley) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Newens, Stan Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Oakes, Gordon Roebuck, Roy Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ogden, Eric Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Winnick, David
O'Malley, Brian Ross, Rt. Hn. William Woof, Robert
Orme, Stanley Rowlands, E. Wyatt, Woodrow
Oswald, Thomas Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Owen, Will (Morpeth) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Mr. J. D. Concannon and
Padley, Walter Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Mr. Joseph Harper.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Digby, Simon Wingfield Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Doughty, Charles Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Astor, John Drayson, G. B. Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Awdry, Daniel Eden, Sir John Jopling, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Emery, Peter Kaberry, Sir Donald
Batsford, Brian Farr, John Kerby, Capt. Henry
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kimball, Marcus
Bell, Ronald Fortescue, Tim King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Foster, Sir John Kitson, Timothy
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm) Galbraith, Hn. T. C. Knight, Mrs. Jill
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gibson-Watt, David Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Biffen, John Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, c.) Lane, David
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Black, Sir Cyril Glover, Sir Douglas Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Blaker, Peter Glyn, Sir Richard Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Body, Richard Goodhart, Philip Longden, Gilbert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Goodhew, Victor McAdden, Sir Stephen
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Gower, Raymond MacArthur, lan
Brains, Bernard Grant, Anthony Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brewis, John Grieve, Percy Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gurden, Harold McMaster, tSanley
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. SirWalter Hall, John (Wycombe) McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hall-Davies, A. G. F. Maddan, Martin
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maginnis, John E.
Bryan, Paul Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, NAM) Harris, Reader (Heston) Marten, Neil
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maude, Angus
Bullus, Sir Eric Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Burden, F. A. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Mawby, Ray
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Harvie Anderson, Miss Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hastings, Stephen Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Carlisle, Mark Hawkins, Paul Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Channon, H. P. G. Hay, John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Cooke, Robert Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Costain, A. P. Higgins, Terence L. Monro, Hector
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hill, J. E. B. Montgomery, Fergus
Crouch, David Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin More, Jasper
Cunningham, Sir Knox Holland, Philip Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.
Currie, G. B. H. Hordern, Peter Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Dalkeith, Earl of Hornby, Richard Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Dance, James Hunt, John Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Dean, Paul Hutchison, Michael Clark Neave, Airey
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Ridsdale, Julian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Onslow, Cranley Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Waddington, David
Osborn, John (Hallam) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Royle, Anthony Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Page, Graham (Crosby) Russell, Sir Ronald Wall, Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, W.) St. John-Stevas, Norman Walters, Dennis
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Scott, Nicholas Ward, Dame Irene
Percival, Ian Scott-Hopkins, James Weatherill, Bernard
Peyton, John Sharples, Richard Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pink, R. Bonner Silvester, Frederick Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Pounder, Rafton Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Smith, John (London & W'minster) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stodart, Anthony Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Prior, J. M. L. Summers, Sir Spencer Woodmitt, Mark
Pym, Francis Tapsell, Peter Worsley, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wright, Esmond
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart) Wylie, N. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Temple, John M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Tilney, John Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Forward to