HC Deb 27 July 1977 vol 936 cc702-19

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 34, line 7, for the following Reason— Lords Amendment No. 15, Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 21.

Mr. John

I beg to move, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

This matter concerns the question of the repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. It does not and did not appear in the Bill, yet this is the fifth time the matter has been debated during its passage. It has acquired a familiarity, not to say notoriety, amongst all those who have been concerned with the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it right that I should explain briefly what Section 3 is concerned with.

Section 3 was enacted to prohibit the court from passing a sentence of imprisonment of between six months and three years for those in the age band 17 to 21 or, if previously borstal training has been ordered, between six months and 18 months, and makes borstal training the appropriate medium-term sentence in such cases.

What worries me about the debate in the other place is that it seemed to be assumed by those who took part that the only alternatives proposed were a sentence of less than six months or more than three years. But it is quite clear from the leading case upon the subject, the Lowe case, in which the previous Lord Chief Justice, the present Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Stephenson took part, that the appropriate penalty in such cases was not a longer term of imprisonment than three years but borstal training.

The other place has now repeated its repeal of Section 3. I ask the House to disagree with that decision, first, on practical grounds, and, secondly, on grounds of principle. First, it has throughout been the concern of all of us in the House to try where proper to reduce the prison population. The effect of the repeal of Section 3 is a matter on which no precise evidence can be given at this stage, but I believe that it would have an effect on the length of time and the number of sentences. I am prepared to say that we cannot correctly predict the absolute effect. If we could, it would certainly be much easier to plan prison buildings than it is now. I think that it was accepted in Committee by the hon. and learned Members for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the effect of the repeal would be to increase the prison population. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, if he looks back at his contribution, will see that he said in terms not only that the prison population would be increased but that the use of Borstal as a sentence would be decreased.

The House ought to weigh the effect when it tries to legislate, because we cannot legislate blind to the consequences of what we are doing. First, there is the fact that young prisoner centres are overflowing. The majority of young prisoners are now serving their sentences not in young prisoner centres but in local adult prisons. We know from our experience and our prison debates over the past few months that the local prisons are areas of maximum pressure within the prison system. Already the percentage of prisoners who receive immediate prison sentences has almost doubled to 25 per cent. in the last decade.

By repealing Section 3 we should add to the numbers who go to local prisons to be locked away for most of the day without sufficient work, education or recreation. The House should ponder the effect not only on the prisoners' lives but on the chances of their committing further offences through being committed to that sort of régime.

Even if the House were to agree to what the Lords have done, there are no resources to carry it out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to issue a consent order under the Bill to bring this proposal into effect, would not be able to do so for some considerable time for public expenditure reasons. I could easily tell the House "Let us accept it", knowing that the commencement order would not be laid for a considerable time, but I believe that it is wrong for anybody to tell the House "Do what you like, and we shall try somehow to shelter you from the practical consequences". The House must legislate in the belief that its wishes will be carried out, that they cost money, and that that money is not only findable but can be found within the time scale.

Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)

Does not my hon. Friend equally recognise that, whatever the administrative difficulties may be, there is a vital principle at stake? That should perhaps concern the House more than any other consideration.

Mr. John

If my hon. Friend had been here at the beginning of my contribution he would know that I was dealing not only with the practicalities, which is as far as I was allowed to go before his intervention, but with the principle of the matter. If my hon. Friend will wait for the passage in which I deal with the principle, I think that he will be satisfied with what I have to say.

There are severe practical problems. If there is to be an addition to the already overcrowded prisons I should be wrong not to advise the House of the bad effect it would have on the staff in young prisoner prisons and local prisons through having an additional burden placed upon them. It would weaken morale greatly, and there is great anxiety in the prison service about the result of this debate.

Mr. John Lee(Birmingham, Handsworth) rose—

Mr. John

May I be allowed to develop my point?

I wish to deal with the effect that this proposal would have on the borstal staff, who do a great deal of very good work. I regret that implicit in the argument is a devaluation—perhaps an unconscious devaluation—of the borstal system. I ask hon. Members, not only to consider the Angell case and the other cases relating to the width of régime in the borstal system, but to be clear about the effect on borstal staff of a devaluation of the kind which I have mentioned.

Mr. Lee

Plainly we are all concerned about the deleterious effect of overcrowded prisons upon young prisoners. However, assuming that the practical objection which my hon. Friend makes is valid, is there not a strong argument, on the criteria he has put forward, for abolishing prison sentences of six months or less for young offenders? Surely that would get away from the situation which almost everybody agrees has many objections.

Mr. John

The difficulty of making an argument which is in two parts is that people jump in on the first part when one intends to deal with the matter in the second part. I shall deal with the question of sentencing and policy towards young prisoners in the second part of my argument.

The 1961 Act moved away from imprisonment which had the containment philosophy in it towards a greater training element with a greater possibility of constructive development and therefore diminution of the chance of re-offence. Many hon. and learned Members and the judiciary have expressed dissatisfaction with Section 3. No one denies that Section 3 is not wholly satisfactory. Certainly it is not the last word in the matter—it was never intended to be—but the question which must be considered is whether by repealing Section 3 we should move back to the penal policy of the 1950s, which is what that would mean, or move forward to the future.

The blueprint for the future is the Younger Report, which recommended abolition of the three separate sentences of prison, borstal and detention and their replacement with a generic sentence of custody and control in which the court would set a determinate sentence.

Custody and control orders would avoid the false dichotomy between training and punishment. This is the way forward. and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) appeared, in his recent speech to the NACRO conference, to accept the wisdom of the custody and control order.

However, there is implicit even in the custody and control order a resource problem, but I repeat our determination to work out a scheme which implements the Younger recommendation without substantial new resource implications. It cannot be a complete adoption of the Younger proposals, but I believe that it will be a worthwhile step forward. We shall bring the scheme to the House well within the time which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have had to delay the commencement order so that right hon. and hon. Members may debate it. In the meantime, they can discuss certain choices, because choices are implicit in this new form of order, and as a result they can replace Section 3 with a more constructive and forward looking policy, which is the right policy for prisoners in the age group in question.

6.45 p.m.

Also at stake is the future of the Bill. The Bill has much of value in it. It reforms the law of conspiracy; it modernises the forcible entry statutes; it secures a vital redistribution of work from overloaded courts; and it secures the necessary increase in penalties to deal with many matters which need to be dealt with. It enshrines the work of two committees which would be brought to nought if the Bill were not passed, because I am bound to tell hon. Members that there would be no prospect of early reintroduction. It would be ironic if the Bill were to be defeated, supposing that the House follows my advice, on a provision which was not in the original Bill, which on any view of the central issue of the Bill is peripheral to the Bill and which was not considered by either of the committees whose work is enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle

I am very bad at understanding the procedure, but is not the position that, as the Lords have passed the amendment, should this House choose to pass it the Bill would go forward with the amendment and it would not be killed? If the House chooses to reject the amendment, the only way in which it can be killed is by the Lords insisting on it.

Mr. John

We are at the end of a long and tiring Session, but I did not think that I was making myself as unclear as that. I was addressing myself to the other place as well as to hon. Members, but it is right that I should put on record the consequences of the rejection by the other place of our decision.

Sir Michael Havers

Why not simply agree with the other place?

Mr. John

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a very good way of compromising. He must be excellent in the robing room on civil cases. His idea of a compromise is unconditional surrender on all occasions.

If the House were to accept my advice and to insist on the retention of Section 3, those who have to consider the matter at a later stage will weigh up the benefits of the Bill and the constructive way in which, I think, I have responded to their anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will bring forward the principle of the custody and control order and will discuss it within the time scale with the House. To look forward to the future with Younger is better than to look back to the 1961 legislation. That is why I think the House should disagree with the Lords.

Sir Michael Havers

When one reads the various Home Office explanations given on the many occasions that amendments to repeal Section 3 have been before either this House or the other place, one is struck by the variety of arguments put forward. It is almost as if Mr. Micawber had said that he was waiting for something to turn down rather than for something to turn up, because every time the request is made a different reason for refusing it is given. I wish to make several points which need emphasising.

The judges speak with a single voice on this matter. The cases that we have been able to demonstrate where the consequences of Section 3 lead to ridiculous results are exceptions. It is not right to say that the prisons will be crowded with young men sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between six months and three years if Section 3 is repealed.

It is really the exceptions—the cases where there is no other proper alternative—which have led to some of the troubles that we have had already this summer. It is quite impossible to judge how many there would be. In a number of cases the Court of Appeal has upheld a judge who has said that he would like to impose a two-year sentence because six months was totally inadequate. He has been bound to give the prisoner three years because of the provisions of Section 3. In many cases a judge has awarded two-year sentences and has been told by the clerk of the court that he can give only three years or six months. The sentence has been changed to three years because the judge has felt that the seriousness of the crime made six months quite inadequate.

These are cases in which prisoners are serving longer terms because of the operation of Section 3. This is filling up the prisons with young offenders who should he released after 18 months or two years. However, their crimes are so serious that a six-month sentence is ridiculous. It is really these exceptions that have led to longer rather than shorter sentences, and therefore my hon. Friends and I will support these amendments.

Mr. Sandelson

The case against Section 3 is immense. This section is indefensible in principle, and in practice it is opposed by the judiciary at all levels. The overwhelming majority of Members at the Bar of all political sympathies and attachments who witness—unlike many hon. Members—these things in their professional experience in the courts are opposed to it. They see the deplorable consequencies that flow from the absurdities and anomalies in the operation of the section.

This is not a political issue. Loyal as I am or believe myself to be to my party and my colleagues, I am not prepared to vote today in support of such a restrictive measure which, under the guise of a social benefit in practice will result in serious individual injustice. It will give rise to a sense of grievance on the part of one defendant as opposed to another of equal guilt.

Our duty must be to show our concern here and now, and to take account, in our immediate concern of the issue, of the fact that the prospects for legislation in the future are very uncertain. I very much hope that the Government—I welcome the assurance that my hon. Friend gave just now—will introduce a measure along the lines of the Younger proposals.

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome legislation embodying an entirely new approach to sentencing policy. But that lies in the future. My concern is for the present and the dilemma which one or more judges will face tomorrow morning in sentencing young men in this age group who have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences.

The present restriction is illogical and harmful to individuals who, through no fault of their own, will fall victim to it. It is also damaging to the proper administration of justice and the law. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has so ably steered the Bill through Committee, are both well aware of my views on this matter and, therefore, my vote tonight will be no surprise to them.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) I must congratulate the Minister of State because he has thought up a totally new set of reasons for opposing this amendment on this occasion. However, although his reasons are new they are no better than his previous ones. In fact they are worse. His reason about devaluing the borstal system and the effect on prison staff morale is one that I have never heard mentioned before in the confines of the Home Office in relation to the arguments against Section 3. The other reason the Minister of State gave was the effect on prison resources, but I must point out that the Government of which he is a member put a stop to the prison building programme that they inherited from us. Now they come forward and say that the shortage of resources makes it impossible to implement these amendments.

The Minister of State was right to remind me that in 1972–73 I was under pressure from both sides of the House when I resisted a Private Member's Bill to give effect to the matters contained in the amendment. At that time I also resisted an all-party attack on the Crimi- nal Justice Act 1973. But my reasons for doing so then were twofold.

First, the Younger Committee was about to report; and secondly, I gave an undertaking in Committee that in future judges who thought that it proper to give a different sentence could indicate the length of time that they would prefer and the Home Office would bear it in mind. The Younger Committee reported and now, three years later, no action has been taken. Also, the Lord Chancellor's Department has put out a circular totally contradicting the principle that judges should indicate the length of the sentence that they want to impose. Therefore, the two bases on which I opposed these provisions in 1972–73 no longer exist.

I admitted in Committee that these amendments could increase the prison population. However, I think I pointed out that, if one looked at prisons as against borstal, in practice it might mean that some of those who go to borstal at present might go to prison instead. Therefore, in the narrow term this could increase the prison population, but it would not affect the 42,000 global population of prisons because this includes those in borstals and detention centres.

I believe, as do numerous judges who must have approached the Minister of State, that there are cases in which, as a result of this provision, people will get higher sentences than they otherwise would have done. While I concede that this will mean some change of resources in the Home Office, I still believe that three years after the Younger Committee has reported the argument against putting right something that has been bitterly opposed since 1961 has disappeared completely. I hope that the House will put this right tonight.

The Minister of State is worried about losing his Bill, but I think that his fears are groundless. If the amendment is carried the Bill will go through with the amendment in it. Therefore he need have no fear of losing it.

7 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

the discussion seems to have emphasised two points. The first is the feeling that we are postponing a desirable reform, and the second is the danger of accepting undertakings from the Home Office. We face a choice, whether to accept the undertaking given by the Minister or to press on with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to support the Lords amendment.

I believe that Section 3 of the 1961 Act was passed for reasons entirely of principle. Yet we have been asked to continue that provision as a matter of expediency. The Minister says that the administrative difficulties are so great and the prison population so large that the result of such a repeal will increase the prison population. Young men who now go to borstal might go to prison, and it is said that it is desirable that in their interests they should continue to go to borstal. The argument is put basically on the grounds of the pressure on the prison population.

I believe that it is better for the House to support the Lords amendment for the reason that there has to be a commencement order before the provision can come into effect. It is better for the House to decide this matter on the question of principle—namely, whether it is desirable to maintain this provision. Nobody tries to defend it.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk(Ormskirk) rose—

Mr. Hooson

I do not wish to give way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—

Mr. Hooson

I cannot give way because I cannot decide to which hon. Member to give the Floor. However, since the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is in my chambers, I suppose I ought to give way to him.

Mr. Lyon

That is the only benefit I have ever acquired from it.

The clause was introduced to stop young men who would otherwise have gone to borstal going to prison. Nobody is arguing the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—narnely that the alternative lies between prison and freedom. It lies between prison and borstal. It is thought right that young people under the age of 21 should go to borstal rather than prison. That still leaves open the principle, and every reforming organisa- tion is in favour of that pinciple being continued. The only people the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has been listening to is the judges. He should listen to NACRO and take heed of what it says.

Mr. Hooson

The hon. Member for York gets these things wrong so often, and he has done so again on this occasion. Judges are required not to send anybody to prison unless that is the only appropriate sentence. In the judicial process it might be thought "Is this an appropriate case for borstal?" The court will have to decide whether the sentence should be one of three months or six years, and that is what judges are required to do.

Having listened to the arguments think that it is better for the House to support the Lords and for the Home Secretary to use the powers he has. I appreciate the fact that this country has not spent enough on its prison service. Any additional pressure on the Government to repair this omission and to make more prisons than borstals available should be encouraged, but it is difficult for this House to rely entirely on an undertaking such as that which was given by the Minister.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery Mr. Hooson), who speaks on behalf of the Liberals, surely missed the point. The real issue of principle is whether we should treat young offenders differently from the way in which we treat adult offenders. Many people may disagree with that view, but, if we agree that we should treat young offenders differently, it behoves us to agree with the Government on this issue.

I regard the Lords amendment as a retrograde step, because it would mean that we would punish rather than train those involved. It would mean that we should contain people rather than rehabilitate them. This is the issue of principle, which we have not discussed.

The initiative and pressure for the deletion of Section 3 of the 1961 Act has come from the judiciary. The pressure comes from the Law Lords and from nobody else. One can understand that the judiciary wants its sentencing policy unfettered, and presumably wants to be able to impose longer sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Yes. One of the major complaints is that the judiciary does not have sufficient discretion. The result of this amendment would be that large numbers of young offenders would go to our already overcrowded prisons.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that when the Minister argued about the practical effects, that did not involve a matter of principle. But that is the issue of principle involved. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, and many thousands of prisoners live two, three and sometimes four to a cell and are locked up for 23 hours out of the 24. They have little recreation, or association with other people, and they have little or no educational facilities available to them. I submit that if we allow this Lords amendment to go through, more young offenders will be subjected to that kind of treatment.

This argument relates to whether we feel it appropriate for young offenders to clog up even further our local prisons, or whether we should seek to pursue a policy of training, reform and rehabilitation. Nobody would argue that that is the way the matter works in practice, but it certainly works out a little more perfectly now than if we were to accept the amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) said that everybody knew the way he would vote. I have observed him twice in Standing Committee galloping enthusiastically to the brink and then hobbling dejectedly back from it. I am not sure how he will vote later. This is not just a matter of whether my hon. Friend accepts the word of his fellow lawyers on the Bench on this issue, because it must be remembered that there are outside the House other people who are as well informed and as sincere as are my hon. Friend and his colleagues who take a different view.

It is a pointless exercise to go through a public relations exercise for the sake of bowing to the virility of Lord Hailsham and his fellow travellers in the House of Lords, and we shall demean ourselves if we join in that charade. The Minister has said clearly, openly and fairly that, even if we accept the Lords amendment, he has no intention in practice of implementing it, and will implement the Younger Committee's Report, which was favoured by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). We have to accept not the Minister's undertaking in this respect but his threat. I believe that there is no case to answer, and that we should accept the Minister's advice.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

The House is anxious to move on, and I shall not repeat the arguments I put in Standing Committee. I stand by what I said then. I refer to the threat to this Bill following the Government's decision to stand by their decision in Standing Committee. If Judge Alan King-Hamilton were sitting listening to our deliberations he would have to retire for two hours to cool down. This is an even bigger gang-bang with the judges and the Lords against us, led by Lord Hailsham.

Lord Hailsham did not even trouble to intervene in the debate in the Lords, but he has hung a threat over the House that it will not be able to obtain a most important Bill, reforming many aspects of the criminal law, because he takes a different view from the Government on this one item, which was not included in either of the two reports on which the Bill is based. It is insufferable that, during the passage of the two criminal law measures passed by the House over the last year or so, we should have faced a threat from Lord Hailsham that if he does not get his way he will kill the Bill. Lord Hailsham did that to the Bail Act. The result of his amendment to it has been that the Act has had no effect on judges in the way that they exercise their new powers in relation to bail. If we were now to succomb to this blackmail by Lord Hailsham it would be insufferable.

The arguments on Section 3 are as strong now as they ever were. Those aged under 21 should not go to prison. Most people who are concerned about what happens to offenders after sentence are agreed upon that principle.

The judges are unanimously against it because they dislike their discretion being fettered in any way. They are strongly urging that there should be a reform precisely because they want to send people to prison rather than to borstal. The suggestion that that would not increase the prison population is absurd. Of course the judges want to send people to prison, because they feel that the only way to deal with young men aged between 17 and 21 who have committed serious offences is to send them to prison. The Younger Committee Report, advocating generic sentencing. was wholeheartedly against that.

It would be absurd to repeal Section 3 now with the intention of bringing in the Younger proposals in a year or so's time. The result of that would be completely different from what is envisaged by this repeal. Quite apart from the logical arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about the overlap, it would be absurd for us to repeal Section 3.

I feel most strongly about the threat by the Lords. There must be an end to such continual threats.

Mr. John

I hope that the advantages of the Bill, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and I have expounded, will be thoroughly considered. This is a worthwhile Bill, and it goes much wider than what the Lords wish to do by way of Section 3.

I should like to respond to the debate briefly and to refer first to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I quote his exact words in Committee: I think one must accept that the likelihood of the abolition of Section 3 is that more people will be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16th June 1977; c. 422.] I do not think that we in the House are right to ignore the very proper feelings of prison staff who, because of the size of the prison population, are unable to do the job that they want and who are in a state of low morale. That is a strange argument, but that is not to say that it is a bad argument. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, who belongs to a party that calls for even more cuts in public expenditure, is almost the last person who should refer to that particular issue.

I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He must have listened to only half of the argument that I adduced. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps more than five minutes of my oratory wearies anybody, most of all the hon. and learned Gentleman. I split my contents into two arguments about practicality and principle. We should not be moving backwards in our policy, but towards the recommendations of Younger and a policy that should last us into the 1980s. That is the right course and that is why my undertaking offers a better assurance of an enlightened policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has said that he is concerned with the here and now. Here and now there are no resources, and no one should be under any illusions about that. If the House tonight rejects my advice, that will not make the task of judges any easier at all tomorrow.

My final point is in response to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who has said that we are talking about exceptional cases. That is no guarantee. We must assume that when the judiciary asks for its discretion not to be fettered it intends to use that discretion in such a way as to sentence more offenders to terms of imprisonment.

7.15 p.m.

Faced as we are with the problem of resources, it is better to keep borstal as the right repository for offenders aged between 17 and 20 for medium-term sentences, because there they will receive training as well as containment. Through training we assure ourselves against re-offence rather more than by putting offenders into local prisons, three to a cell and locked up for many hours a day. I hope that the House will accept my advice and reject the amendments.

Question put, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 196.

Division No. 224] AYES [5.49 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Anderson, Donald Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Armstrong, Ernest Buchan, Norman Davidson, Arthur
Ashley, Jack Buchanan, Richard Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ashton, Joe Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Atkinson, Norman Campbell, Ian Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Canavan, Dennis Deakins, Eric
Bain, Mrs Margaret Cant, R. B. Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Carmichael, Neil Dempsey, James
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Carter, Ray Doig, Peter
Bates, Alf Carter-Jones, Lewis Dormand, J. D.
Bean, R. E. Cartwright, John Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Duffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Clemitson, Ivor Dunnett, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Cohen, Stanley Eadie, Alex
Blenkinsop, Arthur Coleman, Donald Edge, Geoff
Boardman, H. Conlan, Bernard Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Corbett, Robin Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Cowans, Harry English, Michael
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Ennals, David
Bradley, Tom Crawshaw, Richard Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cronin, John Evans, John (Newton)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Luard, Evan Roper, John
Flannery, Martin Lyon, Alexander (York) Rose, Paul
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Ryman, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mabon Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Sandelson, Neville
Ford, Ben McCartney, Hugh Sedgemore, Brian
Forrester, John McDonald, Dr Oonagh Selby, Harry
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McElhone, Frank Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'W'd) MacFarquhar, Roderick Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Freeson, Reginald McGuire, Michael (Ince) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S) MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Gilbert, Dr John Maclennan, Robert Skinner, Dennis
Ginsburg, David McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Small, William
Golding, John Madden, Max Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Gould, Bryan Magee, Bryan Snape, Peter
Gourlay, Harry Mahon, Simon Spearing, Nigel
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Spriggs, Leslie
Grocott, Bruce Marks, Kenneth Stallard, A. W.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Hardy, Peter Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Stoddart, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Mason, Rt Hon Roy Stott, Roger
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Strang, Gavin
Hatton, Frank Mendelson, John Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Hayman, Mrs Helene Mikardo, Ian Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Swain, Thomas
Heffer. Eric S. Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hooley, Frank Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Horam, John Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Molloy, William Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Huckfield, Les Moonman, Eric Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Tierney, Sydney
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Tinn, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Moyle, Roland Torney, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Tuck, Raphael
Hunter, Adam Newens, Stanley Urwin, T. W.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Noble, Mike Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Ogden, Eric Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Orbach, Maurice Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Janner, Greville Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Ward, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Ovenden, John Watkins, David
Jeger, Mrs Lena Padley, Walter Watkinson, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Palmer, Arthur Weitzman, David
John, Brynmor Parker, John Wellbeloved, James
Johnson, James (Hull West) Parry, Robert White, Frank R. (Bury)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Pavitt, Laurie White, James (Pollok)
Judd, Frank Pendry, Tom Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Kaufman, Gerald Perry, Ernest Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Kerr, Russell Phipps, Dr Colin Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Prescott, John Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lamble, David Price, C. (Lewisham W) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Lamborn, Harry Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Lamond, James Richardson, Miss Jo Woodall, Alec
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Woof, Robert
Leadbitter, Ted Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lee, John Robinson, Geoffrey Young, David (Bolton E)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Roderick, Caerwyn
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Rodgers, George (Chorley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Mr. Thomas Cox and
Litterick, Tom Rooker, J. W. Mr. Ted Graham.
NOES
Adley, Robert Bulmer, Esmond Finsberg, Geoffrey
Aitken, Jonathan Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Fisher, Sir Nigel
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Carlisle, Mark Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Arnold, Tom Chalker, Mrs Lynda Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Churchill, W. S. Fookes, Miss Janet
Awdry, Daniel Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Forman, Nigel
Baker, Kenneth Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Banks, Robert Clegg, Walter Fox, Marcus
Beith, A. J. Cockcroft, John Freud, Clement
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Cope, John Fry, Peter
Benyon, W. Corrie, John Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Biggs-Davison, John Costain, A. P. Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Blaker, Peter Crouch, David Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Dodsworth, Geoffrey Glyn, Dr Alan
Bottomley, Peter Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Drayson, Burnaby Goodhew, Victor
Braine, Sir Bernard du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Goodlad, Alastair
Britten, Leon Dunlop, John Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C Durant, Tony Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Brooke, Peter Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Brotherton, Michael Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Gray, Hamish
Bryan, Sir Paul Elliott, Sir William Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Fairbairn, Nicholas Grylls, Michael
Buck, Antony Fairgrieve, Russell Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Hampson, Dr Keith Maxwell-Hyslop Robin St. John-Stevas, Norman
Hannam, John Mayhew, Patrick Scott, Nicholas
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Meyer, Sir Anthony Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Shepherd, Colin
Haselhurst, Alan Mills, Peter Shersby, Michael
Hastings, Stephen Miscampbell, Norman Silvester, Fred
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Sims, Roger
Hawkins, Paul Moate, Roger Sinclair, Sir George
Hayhoe, Barney Molyneaux, James Skeet, T. H. H.
Higgins, Terence L. Monro, Hector Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Hooson, Emlyn Moore, John (Croydon C) Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)
Howell, David (Guildford) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Speed, Keith
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Spence, John
Hunt, David (Wirral) Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Hunt, John (Bromley) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Hurd, Douglas Mudd, David Sproat, Iain
Hutchison, Michael Clark Neave, Airey Stainton, Keith
James, David Nelson, Anthony Stanbrook, Ivor
Jenkin, Rt Hon p. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Neubert, Michael Stanley, John
Jessel, Toby Newton, Tony Steel, Rt Hon David
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Normanton, Tom Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Nott, John Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Onslow, Cranley Stradling Thomas, J.
Kershaw, Anthony Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Tapsell, Peter
Kilfedder, James Osborn, John Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Kimball, Marcus Page, John (Harrow West) Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Tebbit, Norman
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Page, Richard (Workington) Temple-Morris, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy Pardoe, John Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Knox, David Parkinson, Cecil Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Lamont, Norman Pattie, Geoffrey Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Latham, Michael (Melton) Penhaligon, David Townsend, Cyril D.
Lawrence, Ivan Pink, R. Bonner van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lawson, Nigel Price, David (Eastleigh) Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Le Marchant, Spencer Prior, Rt Hon James Viggers, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Pym, Rt Hon Francis Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Lloyd, Ian Raison, Timothy Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Luce, Richard Rathbone, Tim Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
McAdden, Sir Stephen Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Wall, Patrick
McCrindle, Robert Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Walters, Dennis
Macfarlane, Neil Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Warren, Kenneth
MacGregor, John Ridley, Hon Nicholas Weatherill, Bernard
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Ridsdale. Julian Wells, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Rifkind, Malcolm Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Winterton, Nicholas
Marten, Neil Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Younger, Hon George
Mates, Michael Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mather, Carol Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Maude, Angus Royle, Sir Anthony Mr. Peter Morrison and
Mawby, Ray Sainsbury, Tim Mr. Michael Roberts.
Division No. 225] AYES [7.16 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Forrester, John Noble, Mike
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Ogden, Eric
Armstrong,, Ernest Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) O'Halloran, Michael
Ashley, Jack Freeson, Reginald Orbach, Maurice
Ashton, Joe Garrett, John (Norwich S) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Gilbert, Dr John Ovenden, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Ginsburg, David Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Golding, John Palmer, Arthur
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Gourlay, Harry Parker, John
Bates, Alf Graham, Ted Parry, Robert
Bean, R. E. Grant, George (Morpeth) Pavitt, Laurie
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Grocott, Bruce Pendry, Tom
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hardy, Peter Perry, Ernest
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Phipps, Dr Colin
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hart, Rt Hon Judith Prescott, John
Boardman, H. Hayman, Mrs Helene Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Healey, Rt Hon Denis Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Heffer, Eric S. Richardson, Miss Jo
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Horam, John Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Huckfield, Les Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Robinson, Geoffrey
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hughes, Mark (Durham) Roderick, Caerwyn
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Roy (Newport) Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Buchanan, Richard Hunter, Adam Rooker, J. W.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Roper, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Rose, Paul B.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Ryman, John
Campbell, Ian Janner, Greville Sedgemore, Brian
Canavan, Dennis Jeger, Mrs Lena Selby, Harry
Carmichael, Neil Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Carter, Ray John, Brynmor Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis Johnson, James (Hull West) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Cartwright, John Jones, Barry (East Flint) Skinner, Dennis
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Judd, Frank Small, William
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Kaufman, Gerald Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Cohen, Stanley Kilroy-Silk, Robert Snape, Peter
Coleman, Donald Lamborn, Harry Spearing, Nigel
Conlan, Bernard Lamond, James Spriggs, Leslie
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Stallard, A. W.
Corbett, Robin Leadbitter, Ted Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Cowans, Harry Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Stott, Roger
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Strang, Gavin
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Litterick, Tom Swain, Thomas
Crawshaw, Richard Lyon, Alexander (York) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cronin, John Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) McCartney, Hugh Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) McDonald, Dr Oonagh Tierney, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur McElhone, Frank Tinn, James
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) MacFarquhar, Roderick Torney, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) McGuire, Michael (Ince) Tuck, Raphael
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Urwin, T. W.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Maclennan, Robert Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Deakins, Eric McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) McNamara, Kevin Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Dempsey, James Madden, Max Ward, Michael
Doig, Peter Magee, Bryan Watkins, David
Dormand, J. D. Mahon, Simon Watkinson, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mallalieu, J. P. W. Weitzman, David
Dunnett, Jack Marks, Kenneth White, Frank R. (Bury)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) White, James (Pollok)
Eadie, Alex Mason, Rt Hon Roy Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Edge, Geoff Meacher, Michael Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Mendelson, John Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Mikardo, Ian Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
English, Michael Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ennals, David Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Woodall, Alec
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby) Woof, Robert
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Young, David (Bolton E)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Molloy, William
Flannery, Martin Moonman, Eric TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Moyle, Roland Mr. James Hamilton and
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Mr. David Stoddart.
Ford, Ben Nawens, Stanley
NOES
Adley, Robert Hampson, Dr Keith Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hannam, John Page, Richard (Workington)
Awdry, Daniel Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Parkinson, Cecil
Baker, Kenneth Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Pattie, Geoffrey
Banks, Robert Haselhurst, Alan Penhaligon, David
Beith, A. J. Hastings, Stephen Pink, R. Bonner
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Price, David (Eastleigh)
Benyon, W. Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Prior, Rt Hon James
Biggs-Davison, John Hawkins, Paul Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Blaker, Peter Hayhoe, Barney Raison, Timothy
Bottomley, Peter Hicks, Robert Rathbone, Tim
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Higgins, Terence L. Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Braine, Sir Bernard Hooson, Emlyn Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Brittan, Leon Hunt, David (Wirral) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brocklebank-Fowler, C Hunt, John (Bromley) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Brooke, Peter Hurd, Douglas Ridsdale, Julian
Brotherton, Michael Hutchison, Michael Clark Rifkind, Malcolm
Bryan, Sir Paul James, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bulmer, Esmond Jessel, Toby Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carlisle, Mark Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Royle, Sir Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Kilfedder, James Sainsbury, Tim
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Kimball, Marcus Sandelson, Neville
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Scott, Nicholas
Clegg, Walter King, Tom (Bridgwater) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Cockcroft, John Knox, David Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Cope, John Lamont, Norman Shepherd, Colin
Corrie, John Latham, Michael (Melton) Shersby, Michael
Costain, A. P. Lawrence, Ivan Silvester, Fred
Crouch, David Lawson, Nigel Sims, Roger
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Skeet, T. H. H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Luce, Richard Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Drayson, Burnaby McAdden, Sir Stephen Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward McCrindle, Robert Speed, Keith
Dykes, Hugh Macfarlane, Neil Spence, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John MacGregor, John Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Elliott, Sir William McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Sproat, Iain
Fairbairn, Nicholas Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stanley, John
Fairgrieve, Russell Marten, Neil Steel, Rt Hon David
Finsberg, Geoffrey Mates, Michael Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fisher, Sir Nigel Maude, Angus Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Mawby, Ray Stradling Thomas, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Tapsell, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet Mayhew, Patrick Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Forman, Nigel Meyer, Sir Anthony Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Tebbit, Norman
Fox, Marcus Mills, Peter Temple-Morris, Peter
Freud, Clement Miscampbell, Norman Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Fry, Peter Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Moate, Roger Townsend, Cyril D.
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Molyneaux, James Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Gilmour, Sir John (East File) Monro, Hector Viggers, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan Moore, John (Croydon C) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Goodhart, Philip Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Wall, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Walters, Dennis
Goodlad, Alastair Mudd, David Warren, Kenneth
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Nelson, Anthony Weatherill, Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Neubert, Michael Wells, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Newton, Tony Winterton, Nicholas
Gray, Hamish Nott, John Younger, Hon George
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Onslow, Cranley
Grist, Ian Oppenheim, Mrs Sally TELLERS FOR THE NOES;
Grylls, Michael Osborn, john Mr. Spencer le Marchant and
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, john (Harrow West) Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.