§ Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'the national interest' and insert
'national defence and security, and a draft of the direction has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)With this we may take amendment No. 3 in page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (7).
§ Dr. McDonaldWe have tabled amendment No. 2 because of the damage done by the Bill to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. As one of its duties, the 1977 Act laid upon British Shipbuilders the duty to consider national defence and that has been removed by the Bill. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the Secretary of State is obliged to take national defence and security into account instead of just the national interest because that concept is extremely vague and has been made even vaguer by the Government's refusal to define "national interest" in the way in which it was defined in the original Act. Therefore, any direction which the Secretary of State gives to British Shipbuilders must come before Parliament and be approved. That is to ensure that any of the directions which might be given as described in clause 2 are considered in detail by the House.
Amongst the directions which the Secretary of State might give to British Shipbuilders is the direction to dispose of any of its wholly owned subsidiaries or to ensure that one of its wholly owned subsidiaries is jointly owned by public and private enterprise. In other words, this is the part of the Bill which makes the Bill an enabling one, allowing for the privatisation of part of British Shipbuilders.
We are all entirely clear about the part of British Shipbuilders of which the Government would like to dispose—the companies in the warship building division so that the profits from Ministry of Defence contracts can go into private hands. That is really what the Bill is all about. It is aimed at selling off the wholy owned subsidiary companies in the warship building division, the only profitable part of British Shipbuilders. That is understandable enough when papers such as the Financial Times can describe the present state of world shipping by saying that there are just too many ships. Only warship building is likely to make any money at the moment. The amendment would mean that if the Secretary of State decided to sell off one of the companies the plans would come before the House of Commons for consideration so that we would be able to take into account such issues.
If the profitable elements of British Shipbuilders go into private hands, what will happen to merchant shipping? That will be a consideration entirely in line with our insistence that national defence and security must be considered. Traditionally, merchant shipping has been the fourth arm of our defences. The Falklands war showed how important merchant shipping is, not just for our economy but for our defence. The Falklands war also showed the decline in the British merchant fleet which has taken place since 1975 when, under a Labour Government, shipping was doing well and there were 1,600 ships flying the British flag compared with the expected 913 ships at the end of 1983.
Therefore, if the profitable part of British Shipbuilders is sold off, the implications are extremely important for national security and national defence. It could mean a loss of capacity for building British merchant ships, ships which would be wholly owned by British companies and which would fly the British flag. That would seriously weaken our nation's defences. If the Falklands war had occurred in 1985 rather than last year, on present trends there would have been no merchant fleet to use—nor a 986 Navy—in order to carry out the Prime Minister's directions to rescue the Falklanders from Argentina's attack.
On the other hand, if we considered a draft direction which the Secretary of State had brought forward to sell off part of the warship building division it would cause the House of Commons to look closely at the Government's plans for warship building and their treatment of British Shipbuilders. The position was admirably summed up in the first report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade in the 1981–82 Session where the evidence received was summed up when it said that British Shipbuilders protested that the Government typically
suddenly withdraw orders, cancel orders, keep limiting us with financial constraints, do not tell us what orders we are going to get and do not help us to sell our ships overseas".The Select Committee commented:We are not surprised that this should be the 'subject of very strong protestation from British Shipbuilders to both MoD and the Navy'".It goes on to quote Mr. Atkinson's cri de coeur:You cannot turn a tap on and off in warship building because of the very great national skills involved.The amendment would enable Parliament, not just the Select Committee—although its work has been extremely important and valuable—to scrutinise any draft direction which the Secretary of State brought before it. It would give Parliament the opportunity to consider the relationship between Government and British Shipbuilders and the whole process of warship building and to decide whether the Government were advancing Britain's defence and security by their actions. We would be able to consider not only the Government's behaviour but whether privatisation would help to maintain or improve our warship building capacity. Once we began to examine the privatisation proposals in detail, we would see that that was not the case because to take out one company would mean the loss to that company of the skills and technical knowledge which had been built up not just by one company but by the whole group of companies in the warship building division—the exchange of information; skilled workers; technical skills and advanced technical knowledge. There would not be such a flow of information from the warship building division of British Shipbuilders to any one company that was so privatised.The amendment obliges the Secretary of State to bring his plans before Parliament to enable Parliament to consider closely everything that the Government were doing in relation to warship building and, therefore, in relation to the nation's defence and security. That would enable not only Parliament but the people to see that the Government are failing miserably in this respect.
§ Mr. DixonI am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has referred not only to warship building but to merchant shipping, to which the amendment is directed. National defence and security mean not only warship building. As an island we depend on our merchant fleet for our trade. Indeed, 98 per cent. by weight of our trade is carried by sea. Therefore, we require not only a merchant fleet but a capacity to build and maintain it and, indeed, to safeguard it.
As my hon. Friend said, the Falklands war showed Britain's dependence on a merchant fleet. But the fleet's continued decline will make further dependence almost impossible. It is already a fact that the fortress Falklands 987 policy cannot be carried out solely by United Kingdom ships. We have had to charter foreign ships to be sent to the south Atlantic.
Over the past seven years the number of British registered ships has fallen from 1,614 to 900. United Kingdom owned and registered tonnage has fallen by almost one third since the beginning of 1981. Our capacity to have and to maintain a fleet is vitally important.
The Bill will not only hive off the warship section of our shipbuilding industry but will make it impossible for a merchant shipping capacity to be maintained. That is why we believe that the merchant shipping part of the British shipbuilding industry is important to our security.
At present, the fleet has been cut back and no training is taking place. I read in Lloyd's List of 10 February 1983 that, although the West German fleet has declined, West Germany is increasing training for personnel. We have reduced the amount of training for our personnel. When an order for a liner was given by the P and 0 company to the Finnish shipbuilding industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) wrote to the Prime Minister drawing her attention to the effect that this could have on our shipbuilding industry. In her reply, the Prime Minister said:
The problem for both United Kingdom yards"—she was referring to the Tyne shipyard and Harland and Wolff—was not the building of the engine or the steelwork of the ship but having or being able to recruit in time the large number of skilled outfitters required. A joint approach would not therefore have helped them to meet P & O's delivery date.According to the Prime Minister, that £80 million order went to Finland because we did not have the skilled tradesmen required for the outfitting. If that is so, how on earth can we depend in future on our capacity to build ships? In 1978–79 31,000 apprentices and trainee technicians were recruited. This year, only 10,670 have been recruited—fewer than 50 per cent. of the 1979 figure.We require investment, training and the capacity not only to build ships in future but to train seafarers. We have the naval architectural college in Newcastle, Sunderland polytechnic and South Shields marine and technical college, all of which train seafarers. If we do not have a combined maritime policy for shipbuilding, whether it be warships or merchant ships, the security of our islands will be diminished. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
§ Mr. Norman LamontI am sure that the House will not be surprised that I cannot recommend that the amendment be accepted.
§ Dr. John CunninghamWhy not?
§ Mr. LamontI am glad that the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) is so easily surprised. The reason for that is that the effects of the amendment, whether intended or unintended, would wreck the Bill.
The effect of the first part of the amendment would be that the Government would be able to give a direction only if that direction furthered national defence and security interests. It is difficult to see how privatisation could fulfil that objective.
§ Dr. John CunninghamI do not think that it can.
§ Mr. LamontThe hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that it can, and, indeed, that is not the purpose of privatisation. There are reasons other than furthering 988 national security for giving a direction. It may be that assets will be more productively employed in the private sector. It may be the Government's view that the organisation will be more efficiently run in the private sector. But defence and security, important though they are, are not obviously the only national interest.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasI hope that the Minister will forgive me for charging at him again. Does not the national interest—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) put it rather well—consist of what the Government define to be the national interest at any particular moment? Why on earth does the Minister go through all this convoluted nonsense when what he wants is the power to give a directive whenever the Government decide that they want to do so with no restrictions? Is that true?
§ Mr. LamontThe hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is complaining about the vagueness of the term "the national interest" as incorporated in the Bill. One has some sympathy with that complaint. We debated it at some length in Committee. But the Committee had to consider whether it was better that the Secretary of State had complete unchallenged power or whether some attempt was made to qualify it. That is why the words were inserted in the Bill. However, the political purposes of the legislation will not be satisfied by defining "the national interest" so narrowly. Of course, defence and security is an important national interest, but it is not the only one. Other legislation—the Iron and Steel Act 1982, the Gas Act 1980, the Transport Act 1981 and the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982—has given Governments the power to make directions. All those industries have strategic or defence implications. None of them has confined those directions only to where they furthered defence interests.
Mr. R. C. MitchellWill the Minister give an example of where his having to take due account of the national interest would restrict him in his decision?
§ Mr. LamontThe Government are unlikely to put forward a proposition unless they think that it will further the national interest. But the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) will understand that words in the Act are there not only for the convenience of the Government but so that other people can base legal actions and have some safeguards arising from the qualifications to the Government's power.
§ Dr. John Cunninghamrose—
§ Mr. LamontThat is why the provision was put in the Bill. The provision qualifies it. It is there for citizens who might wish to take a legal action against the Government or who felt that they could mount an action on the basis that the Government had not satisfied what was written into the legislation.
§ Dr. John CunninghamHave not my hon. Friend's amendment and the question from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) completely exposed the Government's position in this matter? The Government are forcing the Bill through on ideological grounds regardless of the national defence and security interests. Is that not why the Minister has suddenly become flustered?
§ Mr. LamontThere is no reason why defence interests should be damaged in any way by the legislation. It is a different proposition to argue that one must further defence interests before one can take any act of privatisation or denationalisation. That is an absurd proposition, which will not commend itself or be remotely persuasive to any Conservative Members.
We have taken powers in the legislation to safeguard defence interests. We have taken certain powers to ensure that the control of defence industries does not fall into hands that the Government consider undesirable. Provisions relating to the ownership of defence interests are carefully written into the legislation.
§ Mr. Mike ThomasThe Minister referred to the narrow point of the definition in the courts of the national interest and the rights of individuals and others. The hon. Gentleman cannot be serious. Can he give us any instance of an individual or organisation having the chance of going to court to obtain a ruling that an action of the Government was not in the national interest when legislation gives the Government the power to give any instruction they choose, in the national interest?
§ Mr. LamontIf the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is so inconceivable, he should explain why he voted for the original 1977 legislation, which incorporates the same concept of the national interest as defined by the Secretary of State. He supported it then, but for some reason today he finds it a wholly unacceptable argument.
The second part of the amendment also has the consequence of a wrecking amendment because most, if not all, the orders, to discontinue, restrict activities or dispose would relate to members of a specific class. Therefore, to apply an affirmative procedure to the orders would make them hybrid. They would be subject to the procedure for private or hybrid Bills. To have to adopt such a laborious and time-wasting procedure would not be attractive for the Government. It would blunt the powers considerably.
Therefore, I am afraid that for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment. I emphasise again that there is no reason why, if warship building were in private hands that should endanger our defence policies in any way any more than the fact that the aerospace industry is in private hands and is one of the most competitive and successful of our industries. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
§ Dr. McDonaldThe Opposition believe that the Minister's response was amazing.
I make it clear that the amendment is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. Throughout the lengthy progress of the Bill through Committee, when we did not hear satisfactory answers from either of the Ministers, although we gave them plenty of time to consider every aspect of the Bill, we have been concerned that the duties that the 1977 Act laid on British Shipbuilders were being transferred to the Secretary of State, not as duties, but as powers. He has powers to give all sorts of directions to British Shipbuilders, including the power to privatise wholly-owned subsidiaries in the warship building division. The Minister said in reply that privatisation should be allowed to go ahead regardless of national defence and security. That is what he implied in his remarks. The Government are fond of accusing the Labour party of being the party of ideology and unreality. In his 990 reply I thought that the Minister was momentarily going mad through his ideology. It was a matter of privatisation at any cost to the nation's defence and security. To suggest that those are not matters that cause the gravest concern to Members of Parliament that should therefore be considered by the House is extremely odd.
It is vital for strategic reasons that we retain a warship building capacity through British Shipbuilders. Part of the argument is that if some of the companies at present owned by British Shipbuilders are privatised, that could affect our ability to defend ourselves in certain respects—for example, it could affect the merchant shipbuilding capacity, which might be damaged. It is an important aspect of the nation's defence.
One can conduct those arguments in general terms, but they are much better conducted if one looks at a detailed proposal. That is part of our reason for suggesting that a detailed proposal should be considered in the House, yet the Minister seems to think that that is odd and that it would be better if his right hon. Friend were allowed to press ahead with privatisation regardless of its impact on our shipbuilding capacity.
The EC, which is currently examining shipbuilding in the Community, insists that it is extremely important for it to maintain its warship building capacity for strategic reasons. That is our point. That is what we want to be maintained. We can see the possibility, indeed the probability, of our defence being weakened by selling or flogging companies in the warship building division to private enterprise, so that the profitable part of British Shipbuilders disappears. We are well aware of the Minister's reason for wanting to do that. It is that the profits would go into the hands of private enterprise and private persons, and some might give money to the Conservative party.
For the Minister to say that the Government's purely ideological decisions should not be trammelled or considered by Parliament, as our amendment suggests, is an extraordinary and unsatisfactory reply to our arguments in support of the amendment. Therefore, I must press the amendment to a Division.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 276.
993| Division No. 78] | [7.27 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abse, Leo | Carmichael, Neil |
| Allaun, Frank | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Alton, David | Cartwright, John |
| Anderson, Donald | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie) |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) |
| Ashton, Joe | Coleman, Donald |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Conlan, Bernard |
| Beith, A. J. | Cook, Robin F. |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Cowans, Harry |
| Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) | Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Crowther, Stan |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Cryer, Bob |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Cunningham, G. (Islington S) |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Davidson, Arthur |
| Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Campbell, Ian | Deakins, Eric |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Dewar, Donald |
| Cant, R. B. | Dixon, Donald |
| Dormand, Jack | Newens, Stanley |
| Douglas, Dick | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Dubs, Alfred | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | O'Neill, Martin |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Eadie, Alex | Palmer, Arthur |
| Eastham, Ken | Park, George |
| Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) | Parker, John |
| Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) | Parry, Robert |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| English, Michael | Pitt, William Henry |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Radice, Giles |
| Ewing, Harry | Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Richardson, Jo |
| Fitch, Alan | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Ford, Ben | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Forrester, John | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Foster, Derek | Robertson, George |
| Foulkes, George | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) | Rodgers, Rt Hon William |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Rooker, J. W. |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Roper, John |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| George, Bruce | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Ryman, John |
| Golding, John | Sandelson, Neville |
| Gourlay, Harry | Sever, John |
| Graham, Ted | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hardy, Peter | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Haynes, Frank | Silverman, Julius |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark) |
| Homewood, William | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hooley, Frank | Spellar, John Francis (B'ham) |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Stoddart, David |
| John, Brynmor | Stott, Roger |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Strang, Gavin |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Straw, Jack |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Lambie, David | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Litherland, Robert | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Tinn, James |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) | Torney, Tom |
| Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| McCartney, Hugh | Wainwright, E. (Dearne V) |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Wainwright, R. (Colne V) |
| McElhone, Mrs Helen | Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster) |
| McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Warden, Gareth |
| McKelvey, William | Watkins, David |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Wellbeloved, James |
| McNally, Thomas | Welsh, Michael |
| McNamara, Kevin | White, Frank R. |
| McTaggart, Robert | Whitlock, William |
| Marks, Kenneth | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton) |
| Martin, M(G'gow S'burn) | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Winnick, David |
| Maxton, John | Woodall, Alec |
| Meacher, Michael | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Wright, Sheila |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | |
| Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and |
| Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) | Mr. Allen McKay. |
| Morton, George |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Ancram, Michael | Forman, Nigel |
| Arnold, Tom | Fox, Marcus |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) | Fraser, Peter (South Angus) |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Fry, Peter |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Gardner, Sir Edward |
| Banks, Robert | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Bendall, Vivian | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) | Gorst, John |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | Gow, Ian |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Best, Keith | Gray, Rt Hon Hamish |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Greenway, Harry |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds) |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Blackburn, John | Grist, Ian |
| Blaker, Peter | Grylls, Michael |
| Body, Richard | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hannam, John |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hawkins, Sir Paul |
| Bright, Graham | Hawksley, Warren |
| Brinton, Tim | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon | Heddle, John |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Henderson, Barry |
| Brotherton, Michael | Hicks, Robert |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Hill, James |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A. | Holland, Philip (Carlton) |
| Buck, Antony | Hooson, Tom |
| Budgen, Nick | Hordern, Peter |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Chapman, Sydney | Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman |
| Churchill, W. S. | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Jessel, Toby |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cockeram, Eric | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Colvin, Michael | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Cope, John | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Corrie, John | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Kitson, Sir Timothy |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Critchley, Julian | Knox, David |
| Crouch, David | Lamont, Norman |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Lang, Ian |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Latham, Michael |
| Dover, Denshore | Lawrence, Ivan |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Lee, John |
| Durant, Tony | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Eggar, Tim | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) |
| Elliott, Sir William | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Loveridge, John |
| Eyre, Reginald | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | McCrindle, Robert |
| Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | MacKay, John (Argyll) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Farr, John | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Fell, Sir Anthony | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Major, John |
| Marland, Paul | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Marten, Rt Hon Neil | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Mates, Michael | Shepherd, Richard |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Silvester, Fred |
| Mawby, Ray | Sims, Roger |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Speed, Keith |
| Mellor, David | Speller, Tony |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Spence, John |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Sproat, Iain |
| Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) | Stainton, Keith |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Stanley, John |
| Moate, Roger | Steen, Anthony |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Stevens, Martin |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) |
| Moore, John | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton S) | Stokes, John |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mudd, David | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Myles, David | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Neale, Gerrard | Thompson, Donald |
| Needham, Richard | Thorne, Neil (llford South) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Neubert, Michael | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Newton, Tony | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Nott, Rt Hon Sir John | Trippier, David |
| Onslow, Cranley | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Osborn, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Page, Richard (SW Herts) | Waddington, David |
| Parris, Matthew | Wakeham, John |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Pawsey, James | Walker, B. (Perth) |
| Percival, Sir Ian | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Peyton, Rt Hon John | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Waller, Gary |
| Pollock, Alexander | Walters, Dennis |
| Porter, Barry | Ward, John |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Warren, Kenneth |
| Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) | Watson, John |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Wells, Bowen |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Rathbone, Tim | Wheeler, John |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Renton, Tim | Whitney, Raymond |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Wickenden, Keith |
| Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Wilkinson, John |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Williams, D. (Montgomery) |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Robinson, P. (Belfast E) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Rossi, Hugh | |
| Rost, Peter | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Mr. Carol Mather and |
| St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Mr. Robert Boscawen. |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.