HC Deb 27 March 1969 vol 780 cc1836-51

Lords Amendment No. 11, after Clause 14, in page 12, line 19, at end insert new Clause "A": A. A person shall be qualified for election to and membership of a local authority provided that throughout the twelve months preceding the last day for nomination of candidates for the relevant election he shall have had a principal place of work within the area of the authority.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Callaghan

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

This is one of only two Amendments on which we are proposing to the House that we should not agree with another place. I am sorry to do so. I have read carefully the debate which took place elsewhere on this subject.

The purpose of the Amendment, which was moved by Lord Brooke in another place, is, as it says, that a person shall be qualified for election to a local authority if during the 12 months prior to the election he has had a principal place of work within the area of the authority.

It was a very interesting debate in another place, and I can well see the difference of opinion which emerged there. It is a simple point. It is whether residence should be the sole and sufficient qualification for standing for a local authority, or whether we should add a provision relating to a principal place of work.

Although I read the debate carefully, I was not convinced by what was put forward. I stand on the principle that local government means local government and that it is the government of the place in which one lives. I think that it is right that people should stand for the area in which they live and not for that in which they necessarily work and in which they have an important but possibly transient interest.

As my noble Friend, Lord Fiske, has said, there is no need to decry the work of those who live in one area and work in another and who may have served on local councils for that reason. Certainly I do not decry their work, but this would be a new principle.

If one considers it, what is the major interest of those who live in one place and work in another? In the place in which they work, their principal interest is to keep down the rates, whereas those who live there are concerned with such matters as the amenities of life, the organisation of the local children's department and how much it should be given, and with street lighting and a great many other problems which do not concern the man who works there but does not live there.

For the most part, it will be those who have a place of business in the area in which they propose to stand who will be concerned. There are exceptional cases, on which I will not expand too much, where there is a very large works which in certain circumstances could swamp the area in which the candidature is being sought. I can think of some examples of that, although they would be extreme ones. Nevertheless, it would be possible to have a council made up of people who live outside the area because of the great preponderance of one industry in that area.

On balance, I recommend to the House that we should stick to the well known principle upon which local government is founded, namely, that people should live in the area in which they intend to stand for election, because it is their basic duty to safeguard the welfare of that area in all its aspects and not merely be concerned with one or two aspects of life in the area. I believe, too, that we get the best all-round councillors from among those who live in the areas which they propose to serve.

Mr. Hogg

We on this side of the House lake a radically different view from that of the Home Secretary. I listened to his speech in an attempt to understand it, and I do not think I did understand the last part of his argument.

How can the presence of a candidate who happens to work at a big works swamp anything? If this had something to do with voting—that is to say, with franchise—I could understand the argument that the people who came there to work and would then have the vote might swamp local residents. As this has to do only with candidates and not with voting, the argument seems to be wholly misconceived.

I must recapitulate some of the arguments which favour the Lords' view of this matter rather than that taken by the Government. As Lord Stonham said in another place, the proposal in the Bill as it stands has been recommended by no one to the Government. It is clean contrary to the advice which they received from Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who was appointed by them for the very purpose of advising them.

It would have the effect of disqualifying 80 people who are now sitting as members for the London boroughs, 24 in the Birmingham City Council and 18 members in the Manchester City Council of all parties. In other words, it is a major blow against local government.

I can only draw an extraordinary contrast between the attitude of the Home Secretary in this matter and his attitude in some other matters for which he has been responsible. Many of these people who will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is agreed to—

Mr. Callaghan

We are not discussing that. That is a former proposition which is not before us now. We are discussing something new. It is not those who are being disqualified, but whether a new group should be brought in.

Mr. Hogg

But they will be disqualified unless the new group is brought in. That is the point. The Home Secretary cannot escape this. He has proposed a Bill to which he adheres in the face of public opinion, in the face of experienced local authority associations and in the face of a large amount of opinion inside the Labour Party, as the debates in both Houses have shown. When he is given a constructive suggestion by the other place based on and almost verbally copied from the Redcliffe-Maud Report, he says that it is irrelevant to consider how many people will be disqualified by his proposals who would not be disqualified by the proposal of the House of Lords. This seems to me to be what this debate is about—

Mr. Callaghan

My principal concern is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very close to the bounds of order.

Mr. Hogg

I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker will look after them without assistance from the right hon. Gentleman, who does not like to be reminded of the offensive nature of his own proposals.

That is the contrast between the Amendment which we are considering and the Bill as it stands. That contrast is only heightened by the eagerness of the Home Secretary to blunder in before the Boundary Commission makes its proposals about local boundaries. Many of the people who would be allowed in if the Lords Amendments are accepted and will be disqualified if they are not are people who live very close to the boundaries which will be altered when the Boundary Commission reports. But the Home Secretary is not prepared to wait for that. He is very keen to wait for it when it comes to redistributing Parliamentary seats. However, we must not discuss that now. His enthusiasm for waiting on one occasion and for blundering in on another shows that he is a better party politician than he is a Home Secretary—a view which I base not only on the present Amendment but upon this morning's newspapers.

The fact is that the hostility of the Government to the Lords Amendment is based once more upon their distrust and hatred of the electorate. One would think that the electorate would be qualified to judge somebody who works in the constituency and whom they know. However, if he is elected he is not to be allowed to sit, according to the Home Secretary, because he will be concerned to keep down the rates.

My grandfather's principal place of work was the Polytechnic. He had no more desire to keep down the rates of St. Marylebone, until he went to live there, than he had to keep down the rates of any other part of London. But he knew more about the social conditions and the people who lived and worked in St. Marylebone than most men. However, that kind of man will be disqualified unless the Lords Amendment is accepted.

The right hon. Gentleman is not really deceiving me. He may be deceiving his supporters, because they are not here. I do not know what he has done! But he is not deceiving me when he says it is too difficult for Government draftsmen to define what is meant by a principal place of work If the right hon. Gentleman can employ a Government draftsman to write the complicated gobbledygook that he has just sold to the Under-Secretary about broadcasting, he can employ a Government draftsman to define a principal place of work". There is nothing to stop him doing it, but he does not want to do it on any terms, however precisely it can be defined.

Mr. Callaghan

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote his speech before I spoke. I said nothing about any difficulties in drafting.

Mr. Hogg

I have not written my speech, as the whole House can see. It is not written at all, whether before or after the right hon. Gentleman spoke. It is not all that difficult to find arguments to defeat the right hon. Gentleman's case, even without writing them down. I am not, after all, an Under-Secretary. But, unless I am vastly mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was difficulty in defining a principal place of work". If he did not say it, the only argument presented in favour of the Government's attitude in another place now disappears. It is all the easier and more desirable to accept the Lords Amendment if there is no difficulty of draftsmanship. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn the mat from beneath his own feet.

Although this is not one of the great issues of our time, it is a thoroughly discreditable little piece of gerrymandering. It is all the more discreditable because it is small and mean and will prove ineffective.

I am glad that the Home Secretary did not try to sell us the outmoded nonsense about the elected Chamber against the other place. That, at any rate, is an argument with which we have not been wearied today.

I can understand why, on the polling day of three by-elections, the Government are unwilling to talk about their own position as an elected authority. They certainly would not be elected now if anyone was given the chance to vote against them.

I submit that the Lords are right in pursuing the advice of Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the authority chosen by the Government to advise them until he gave them advice which, rightly or wrongly, they thought would be hostile to their party interests.

When the Home Secretary speaks as a statesman and as a responsible Minister, I always listen to him with great admiration and respect, as I hope I have shown on many occasions during this Parliament since his appointment; but when he speaks as a party politician he deceives nobody, and he should not try.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Test)

Having had 13 years' experience in local government, I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to reject this Amendment from the other place.

A simple principle is involved here. If a man wants to be a member of a council, there is no reason why he should not live in the area of that council. If a town is not good enough for a man to live in, then it is not good enough for him to sit on its council. It is as simple as that.

I was interested in the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). He said that by rejecting the Lords Amendment the Government were flying in the face of public opinion. I do not know what public opinion he was talking about. The only representation that I have had has been from one chamber of commerce. If there was a lot of public opinion in favour of the Lords Amendment, particularly in relation to "the principal place of work" which would allow people working in the area to stand, I should have expected large-scale representations from the trade union branches in my constituency urging me to support the Amendment. This has not happened. The only representation I have had has come from the local chamber of commerce. I suspect that the only representations to other hon. Members have come from local chambers of commerce.

It is fairly obvious that the Opposition are making such a fuss about the issue because they are being pushed from behind by their own supporters in the chambers of commerce, which do a lot, financially and otherwise, helping them at election times.

There seems to be no reason why we should support the principle of people being allowed to sit on a council and make judgments about all sorts of services when they do not use those services because they live outside the area. I hope that the Government will stand very firm on this matter.

Mr. Tom Boardman (Leicester, Southwest)

I will briefly apply the experience of the City of Leicester in support of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I will not follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) because he has misconceived the whole argument.

Leicester is divided by an artificial boundary drawn and fixed by a Labour Government for—let us not mince words—purely political ends. The result is that we have an invisible line dividing communities. The council estates were brought within the city and the private estates were left outside. We can guess the reasons for this, but they misfired.

All those people living on either side of the line are part of that community. I believe that a man who lives five yards over the boundary but still directs and focusses his life on the city is more capable of representing the ward five yards away than a man who lives three miles away at the other end of the city, but within the city boundary, who is able to come over and stand for a ward at a remote part of the city from where he lives.

There has been a great body of support for the Amendment no only from the chambers of commerce, but from many quarters.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

Could the hon. Gentleman name the quarters from which he has had representations?

Mr. Boardman

I have had representions from county councils, various local authority associations and a number of commercial interests concerned with the welfare of the city life with which they are connected.

If democracy means anything, it is that the electorate have a right to elect somebody that they want. Let them call the man who lives five yards over the city boundary a carpet-bagger if they wish and let them vote against him, but at least allow him to stand. To deny him that right is, in my view, a denial of democracy. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Lubbock

All things being equal, I am sure that the House would agree that it is better for a candidate to live in the area which he represents because he will be making more use of the services and, therefore, is likely to be in tune with the electors who support what he stands for.

Education is one of the most important services provided by a local authority. For instance, if a candidate sends his children to the same school as the children who actually live in the borough he will be more sympathetic to the improvements in education that all parents would like to see. In the City of Leicester, of which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has knowledge, it is possible that in some cases a candidate living outside the city will send his children to a school within the city boundary. His interests will be identical to those of the people he is to represent, and I imagine that this must occur in many cases.

If, as a result of redevelopments in city centres, people who were formerly inside the borough go outside—I know that there are cities where this has happened to a great extent—they still make great use of the services provided by the local authority. In particular, if their children started at a borough school, in no case of which I know would the education authority ask them to transfer to the county. Once they have been accepted for a school, in order to maintain continuity the education officer is happy to continue to provide a place for them in spite of the fact that they have moved outside the area.

I have taken the view all along that all these alterations provided for in Clause 15 should be left on one side until the Royal Commission on Local Government in England and Wales has reported and we have much bigger electoral areas which will embrace many of the people who live just outside the boundaries of cities. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West said, some of these people may be only five yards on one side of the boundary but that will be enough to disqualify them from standing as candidates on the other side of the boundary even though all their interests may be there.

I do not wholly sympathise with the Amendment because I can see it creating difficulties in places like London or Westminster where a vast number of people come to work every day, far more than live in it, and we might get a preponderance of candidates who do not have interests which coincide with those of the permanent residents. But because the Government have been so adamant in resisting the idea of deferring Clause 15, or that part of it which relates to candidates, until after the Royal Commission has looked at the matter and has advised us so that the House can take the necessary action, I intend to vote with the Opposition against the Government.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Brierley Hill)

I cannot understand the Government's altitude to this Amendment. The Home Secretary talked about keeping local government local. Why not go a stage further and say that candidates must live in the wards they represent, and that Members of Parliament must live in the constituencies they represent? What the right hon. Gentleman is doing by trying to delete the Amendment is refusing to allow people who spend a lot of time in a city from representing that city on the council. Such people show a great deal of interest in how the city is run, they are anxious to serve the community, and they are prepared to give up a great deal of their time in doing so.

Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of the difficulty of finding suitable people to stand for election to local councils? We know that the Labour Party has an enormous reservoir of defeated councillors who are all too willing to stand for election because they have been swept out of office during the last two years, not because of their sins, but because of the sins of the Government. There are safeguards in the law. There are local selection committees which decide whether they want somebody in the city. As has been said, people have the choice of voting for somebody who lives in the city, or for somebody who lives outside it.

In 1967 in the County Borough of Dudley—part of my constituency is in that borough—a lady stood as a Conservative candidate. She had lived in the town for most of her life, but had moved outside the boundary just before the election. At the last minute the Labour Party sent out a leaflet warning people about her having moved. I am delighted to say that virtue triumphed and the lady won the seat, which was another Conservative gain. The electors decided that although she did not live within the county borough boundary she was a good representative to have on the council.

I hope that the Government will reconsider this and decide to act in the interests of local government, and will not look at it from what they consider to be a politically advantageous viewpoint.

Mr. R. W. Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

There is a marginal argument for saying that people should be able to stand for election in the area where they work, but I think that the overpowering argument is as my right hon. Friend has put it. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I had 21 years experience of local government, and, therefore, my experience is limited! I have never found it necessary for people outside the area to be drafted in to stand for election.

It is wrong to argue this issue on the idea of gerrymandering, because my right hon. Friend ought to understand that if he enters into a fight with the Opposition on the question of gerrymandering they start a long way ahead of him. They have been gerrymandering for a long time. The classic example is the 1963 Local Government Act for London. It was a most scandalous and disgraceful Act, and it was passed for purely party political reasons.

When we debated the Bill the argument was that a vast number of people would be lost to local government unless the Measure was passed. That argument has not been used today. It is the argument of the local government associations, and it is one that ought to be clearly understood. It is not a true argument, and it never was, to say that a vast number of people will be precluded from standing for election.

What the House ought to realise is that because of the 1963 Act, because of the gerrymandering of the party opposite, a vast number of people in London are no longer able to participate in local government. People who had served for 30 years and more in local government were no longer able to do so because of that piece of gerrymandering. When I and others pointed out what was likely to happen if that Bill became law we were told that it was not important if people were no longer able to be elected to local authorities; the important thing was to get the principle right. The principle, of course, was to make sure that the G.L.C. would be Tory-controlled, and everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite did was designed to achieve just that. I hope that we shall not allow this argument to go on that people should be permitted to have more than their share of voting rights.

My local council has changed from Labour to Conservative. To try to get some sense into the standards of people serving there people from other areas have been drafted in to serve on the aldermanic bench. I cannot believe that anyone regards this as an improvement in local government. If the party opposite is unable to find candidates to represent it, that is its problem. We do not want to start mucking about with laws to try to help

hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that we shall stand firm on this issue.

Anyone has a right to stand for election to his local council. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to cause confusion by suggesting that we are disfranchising people or stopping them from serving the community. This is not true. Every individual has a right to put himself forward as a candidate for election to his local council, and this is the basis on which the law ought to be founded.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 202.

Division No. 133.] AYES [5.28 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lestor, Miss Joan
Anderson, Donald Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Archer, Peter Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ashley, Jack Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Finch, Harold Lipton, Marcus
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (lslington, E.) Loughlin, Charles
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Luard, Evan
Barnes, Michael Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Barnett, Joel Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Beancy, Alan Forrester, John McBride, Neil
Bence, Cyril Fowler, Gerry McCann, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Fraser, John (Norwood) MacColl, James
Bishop, E. S. Gardner, Tony Macdonald, A. H.
Blackburn, F. Garrett, W. E. McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ginsburg, David Maclennan, Robert
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Booth, Albert Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) MacPherson, Malcolm
Boyden, James Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Bradley, Tom Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brooks, Edwin Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Manuel, Archie
Mapp, Charles
Buchan, Norman Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marks, Kenneth
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Marquand, David
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hamling, William Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Cant, R. B. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Carmichael, Neil Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Maxwell, Robert
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hattersley, Roy Mayhew, Christopher
Chapman, Donald Hilton, W. S. Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Coe, Denis Hooley, Frank Mendelson, John
Coleman, Donald Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Millan, Bruce
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Crawshaw, Richard Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Cronin. John Howie, W. Molloy, William
Crosland. Rt. Hn. Anthony Huckfield, Leslie Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Dalyell, Tam Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Hunter, Adam Murray, Albert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hynd, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Neal, Harold
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Janner, Sir Barnett Newens, Stan
Delargy, Hugh Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Noel Baker Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Dell, Edmund Jeger, George (Goole) Oakes, Gordon
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Ogden, Eric
Dickens, James Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) O'Malley, Brian
Dobson, Ray Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Orme, Stanley
Doig, Peter Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Oswald, Thomas
Dunn, James A, Jones, Dan (Burnley) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Dunnett, Jack Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Padley, Walter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Jones, T Alec (Rhondda, West) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Eadie, Alex Judd, Frank Palmer, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Kelley, Richard Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ellis, John Kenyon, Clifford Park, Trevor
English, Michael Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Ennals, David Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Ensor, David Lee, John (Reading) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Pavitt, Laurence Ross, Rt. Hn. William Weitzman, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Rowlands, E. Wellbeloved, James
Pentland, Norman Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Whitaker, Ben
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) White, Mrs. Eirene
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Whitlock, William
Randall, Harry Skeffington, Arthur Wllkins, W. A.
Rankin, John Small, William Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rees, Merlyn Spriggs, Leslie Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Rhodes, Geoffrey Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Richard, Ivor Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Taverne, Dick Winnick, David
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy Thomson, Rt. Hn. George Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Roberts, Gwilvm (Bedfordshire, S.) Thornton, Ernest Woof, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley) Tinn, James Wyatt, Woodrow
Roblnson, Rt. Hn. KennethSt. P'c'as) Urwin, T. W.
Rodgers, William (Stockton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Roebuck, Roy Wallace, George Mr. J. D. Concannoon and
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Watkins, David (Consett) Mr. J. Harper.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McMaster, Stanley
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Gibson-Watt, David McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Astor, John Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Maddan, Martin
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n& M'd'n) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maginnis, John E.
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Glover, Sir Douglas Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Glyn, Sir Richard Marten, Neil
Batsford, Brian Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Maude, Angus
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Goodhart, Philip Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Bell, Ronald Goodhew, Victor Mawby, Ray
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Cower, Raymond Maxwell, Hyslop R. J.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos.& Fhm) Grant, Anthony Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Berry, Hn. Anthony Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Biffen, John Gurden, Harold Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hall, John (Wycombe) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Black, Sir Cyril Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monro, Hector
Blaker, Peter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Montgomery, Fergus
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.
Body, Richard Harris, Reader (Heston) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Bossom, Sir Clive Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Neave, Airey
Braine, Bernard Harvie Anderson, Miss Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Brewis, John Hastings, Stephen Onslow, Cranley
Brinton, Sir Tarton Hawkins, Paul Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Osborn, John (Hallam)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Higgins, Terence L Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Bryan, Paul Hill, J. E. B Page, Graham (Crosby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Hogg, Rt Hn. Quintin Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Holland, Philip Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bullus, Sir Eric Hordern, Peter Percival, Ian
Burden, F. A. Hornby, Richard Peyton, John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Hunt, John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Campbell, Gordon (Moray& Nairn) Hutchison, Michael Clark Pink, R. Bonner
Carlisle, Mark Iremonger, T. L. Pounder, Rafton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Channon, H. P. G. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cooke, Robert Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pym, Francis
Costain, A. P. Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Jopling, Michael Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crouch, David Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Cunningham, Sir Knox Kaberry, Sir Donald Rhys willims, sir Brandon
Currie, G. B. H. Kerby, Capt. Henry Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dalkeith, Earl of Kimball, Marcus Ridsdale, Julian
Dance, James King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Dean, Paul Kitson, Timothy Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Knight, Mrs. Jill Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Doughty, Charles Lambton, Viscount Royle Anthony
Douglas-Home, fit. Hn. Sir Alec Lancaster, Col. C. G. Russell, Sir Ronald
Drayson, G. B. Lane, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Langford-Holt, Sir John Scott, Nicholas
Eden, Sir John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Scott-Hopkins, James
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sharples, Richard
Emery, Peter Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh& Whitby)
Eyre, Reginald Lubbock, Eric Smith, Dudley (W'wick& L'mington)
Farr, John MaAdden, Sir Stephen Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles MacArthur, Ian Stodart, Anthony
Fortcscue, Tim Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Foster, Sir John Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain Summers, Sir Spencer
Tapsell, Peter Walker, Peter (Worcester) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taylor. Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Wall, Patrick Woodnutt, Mark
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Walters, Dennis Worsley, Marcus
Temple, John M. Ward, Dame Irene Wright, Esmond
Tilney, John Weatherill, Bernard Wylie, N. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wells, John (Maidstone)
van Straubenzee, W. R. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John Williams, Donald (Dudley) Capt. Walter Elliott and
Waddington, David Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Mr. Jasper More.
Forward to