§ 4.40 p.m.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)
I beg to move,That the matter of the complaint by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of Wednesday last be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Harold Wilson
In view of the fact that on Friday the House made no change in the procedures which have been followed hitherto, I am sure the House will now feel that the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman is right and that the complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Speaker
I really would ask hon. Members to hear what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has to say.
§ Mr. Orme
I want to make one or two observations before this matter proceeds to the Select Committee. Some of us feel that the case presented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) last Thursday should not go to the Committee of Privileges. Had this statement been made by the senior officer present at the conference or by the decision or resolution of the conference, then the matter should have been referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges, but this statement was made by an officer of the union speaking purely in his personal capacity, without the knowledge of the executive or of any officers on the executive. If we allow this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, it will mean that any individual in any assembly or conference throughout the country making such a statement could be dealt with similarly, and the House would be brought into disrepute.
I have read the report of what was said and have heard first-hand accounts by people who were at the conference, although the Transport and General Workers' Union is not a union to which I am attached. It should be borne in 1060 mind that this was a personal statement which contained no direct threats, and that no sponsored members of the union had received any intimation of it. Hon. Members are also aware of what the general secretary of the union has subsequently said. I therefore feel that it would be in the interests of the House for the Motion to be withdrawn. I am making no personal reference to the Leader of the House, but it would be wrong for our later debate to be concerned with accusations and counter-accusations about statements which carry no authority made by people with honest and strong feelings. Such statements should not be taken so seriously by the House.
The House should be big enough to assess the situation and not be frightened of criticism. Where there is intimidation the House, quite rightly, will take the necessary action, but no such initimidation has occurred. The dignity of the House is involved. The House of Commons should be big enough not to send this issue to the Committee of Privileges, where time and effort will be involved and the matter will be spread over several months. Having heard one or two other points of view, we should say to the Leader of the House that it is in the interests of the House that the Motion should be withdrawn. We should get on with our major debate on the Common Market, about which we all feel passionately. The facts are as I have stated. I do not distort or twist facts for the sake of political argument. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the Motion in the interests of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. Whitelaw
I am in some difficulty, because I have considerable sympathy with some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. The last thing the House wishes to do is to blow up this matter. I have no reason to dissent from the facts that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but it is not for me, as the possible Chairman of the Committee of Privileges later, to state any view on the facts one way or the other.
I put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The best course, in order to keep temperatures down and not to have rather a stormy debate at this stage, is to allow the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, 1061 where all the matters which the hon. Gentleman has put forward can be carefully considered by a Committee which over the years has enjoyed a certain amount of acceptance in the House. The Committee would take the greatest possible care and the matter would not be discussed in an emotional atmosphere. If we go on to debate it, there is a danger that that would happen. It is precisely to avoid that danger that I should like the matter to be put to a quieter forum in the Committee of Privileges, so that the matter can be considered quietly, away from what the hon. Gentleman described as the major debate in which we are engaged. I hope that he will allow this to be done. My sole desire is that this matter shall not be blown up to a size which is not justified.
§ Mr. David Steel
I do not dissent from a large part of what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said, but I have every confidence in the Committee of Privileges investigating what was said and disposing of the matter in whatever way it thinks fit. It would be wrong for a public debate on a matter of this kind to take place in the House before the Committee of Privileges is able to look at it. It is a most serious matter when a report is made in any newspaper of a speech by a delegate to the conference in question which tries to bring pressure on a Member of Parliament, and it should at least have the consideration of the Committee of Privileges.
§ Mr. Driberg
There is no need for this discussion to be long or stormy, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. If every time one of our millions of constituents made some casual remark of this kind in a public or semi-public meeting it were to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, that Committee would be in continuous session. There was no need to have bothered either the Committee of Privileges or the House of Commons on this matter. Mr. Kitson was not speaking as an official of the union or with any authority from the union. He was not addressing, either orally or in writing, any individual Member of this House.
The whole thing is a storm about nothing and should, with respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and 1062 Peebles (Mr. David Steel) never have been raised at all. Mr. Kitson is merely one of our constituents. That sort of remark is constantly being made by constituents, and every hon. Member knows it. It is a bit of nonsense and a waste of time for the Committee of Privileges. I hope that some means can be found of not bothering the Committee with this matter. I foresee with absolute certainly—I have a heavy bet on this—that the Committee of Privileges will recommend almost at once that no action be taken.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Many hon. Members had great sympathy with the case outlined by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme), but that sympathy tended to evaporate when the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) attempted to embroider his hon. Friend's remarks by suggesting that this was a matter which arose out of nothing. This is undoubtedly a case of some substance, although opinions in the House may well differ on how much importance should be attached to it. The course this debate is in danger of taking fully supports the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is certainly in order for any hon. Member to raise a question of privilege. It is then, Sir, the duty of the Chair to rule on that in a prima facie way precisely to avoid discussion of an emotive matter of this nature in a party political atmosphere——
§ Mr. Latham
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This arises directly out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, when you commented on this matter you reminded the House that you were choosing your words carefully because there were impending changes in the procedure for dealing with matters of this kind. You did not then, as has become customary, rule whether you considered the remarks to be a prima facie breach of privilege.
Surely the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) are particularly pertinent. It is true that, unless there is some limitation, every kind of trivial complaint could be raised 1063 in the House and could take up the time of the Committee of Privileges, which would spend a great part of its time considering these matters. Surely what normally would occur would be that you, Sir, in your wisdom would advise the House whether there was a prima facie case and normally you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons, would be the safeguard against the very situation suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and would prevent such a situation arising regularly, as I submit may well be the case on this occasion.
The point of order is this : since the practice has arisen of Mr. Speaker ruling whether there is a prima facie case, the procedure has been for the Leader of the House to move a Motion such as he has now put before the House. What I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you have not ruled that there is a prima facie case. Secondly, I ask whether it is right for the Leader of the House to assume that he has a duty to move such a Motion, or whether it would assist the House if he were now to let the matter drop.
§ Mr. Speaker
I do not want to get involved in an argument about this matter. It is my view—and I may be wrong—that it is not for Mr. Speaker to rule that there is a prima facie case. I have always disliked the term. It is for Mr. Speaker to say whether he will allow a Motion to take precedence. If Mr. Speaker says that there is a prima facie case, that implies a measure of guilt. I said that I would give precedence to a Motion. Then, on Thursday it was suggested that it was the general will of the House that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that the Leader of the House should have the discretion, in the light of Friday's debate, whether to put this Motion forward again today. Since following the debate on Friday the relevant Motion was withdrawn, it means I am bound to give precedence to this Motion today.
§ Mr. Whitelaw
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in saying—I am advised on these matters, and I do not act from my own knowledge—that if Mr. Speaker rules that the matter has precedence, I have no alternative but to do what I have done. You ruled on Friday, Mr. Speaker, that the matter had precedence—[An HON. MEMBER : "You 1064 can withdraw it."] I can withdraw it, but I thought it was being suggested that I was not bound to move such a Motion because of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. It has been made clear to me that in the circumstances, because of the situation following what Mr. Speaker said, I am bound to move such a Motion. That is how I understand the position and that is how I am advised.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas rose——
§ Mr. Paget
On a point of order. In view of what the Leader of the House said, it would appear that the Ruling was made upon the basis that there had been a threat. It has now been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that no threat was made, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) agrees that no threat has been made. In the circumstances, the basis of the complaint seems to have disappeared. Surely the simplest plan is for the Leader of the House to agree that the Motion should be negatived.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
It is my speech that is in danger, and I apologise for intervening with my speech into all these points of order. The point I was making was that, whether your Ruling was one giving precedence to a Motion or was a Ruling of a prima facie breach of privilege—do you wish to make a Ruling, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. Speaker
I wish to clear up the matter by reading from Erskine May, which I think bears out what I have said. I am reading from the 18th edition of Erskine May :When the document or the particular passages complained of have been read and if the Speaker has ruled that the complaint should have priority over the orders of the day, it is the duty of the Member who has brought the matter under the notice of the House, if the Leader of the House does not make a motion relating to it, to follow up his complaint with a motion.That is how the matter stands.
§ Mr. Whitelaw
I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles would like this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges. He is the Member who raised it in the first instance. I understand that that is what he wants to do, and that is why I am leaving it in this way.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
On a point of order. I was, thanks to your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, in occupation of the Floor and my speech was being interrupted by points of order. The point I am making is whether once a Ruling has been made, whether it be a prima facie Ruling or not, the procedure exists to ensure that the point of substance will be given totally impartial consideration. It is clear that in such a case as this, which concerns trade unions, there will be emotive reactions from both sides of the House. Therefore, it is much better for this discussion to be carried on in an impartial atmosphere in the Committee of Privileges. That is why the Committee of Privileges exists.
It would be quite wrong to censure any hon. Member for raising a question because in the opinion of another hon. Member it was not a very important question. It is the right of every hon. Member to raise a question of privilege without the danger of incurring censure from fellow Members. On the other hand, it is up to the Committee of Privileges whether or not it passes some judgment.
I suggest that the debate has been unduly prolonged—[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] My own speech, which was meant to be very brief, was extended by the zeal of interrupters. Would it not now be much better to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and let this issue go to the Committee of Privileges, which may be relied upon to give an impartial judgment?
§ Mr. Kaufman
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have today had two statements, both of which the House very much wanted to hear and neither of which the House would have wished to see curtailed in any way. We are now having a discussion which no one would wish to see curtailed, because the subject is of great importance. But there is on the Order Paper provision for a debate in which many hon. Members wish to take part. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to amend his Busi- 1066 ness programme in order to extend that debate by one hour?
§ Mr. Thorpe
I shall not detain the House for more than a moment, and I wish to make only one point. I will put that point, if I may, in the nature of an interrogatory to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and I hope that he will consider it. I express no opinion on the merits of the case, because I am a member of the Committee of Privileges and it would be wrong for an opinion to be expressed. I believe, too, though the House may find it difficult to accept, that it would be wrong for any members of that Committee to form a view until they have heard the evidence.
I am asked why I took part in Thursday's discussion. I sought to intervene purely on a procedural matter. It had nothing to do with the merits of the matter whatsoever, and it would have been highly improper for me to have commented on them.
You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled no more than that the matter should have precedence if that be the wish of the House. The position is this : if the facts as put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, West are borne out by the evidence, no doubt the Committee of Privileges will come to a certain decision, but there may be a different situation—I know not. All I ask is that if the hon. Gentleman believes that at the end of the day justice must be done, in what way are individuals concerned more likely to receive justice : by a debate across the Floor of the House, with various hon. Members giving their own views, making their own deductions and expressing their own opinions, or in the more quasi-judicial atmosphere of the Committee of Privileges?
Inevitably, the atmosphere is more quasi-judicial, when any individual who feels that he is concerned or involved has the right to appear before that Committee. Alternatively, he has the right to write his version of the particular matters in question, and that document will be considered. If individuals feel that they have been wronged, or that a particular interpretation should not be placed on their actions, I can think of no better guarantee than the Committee of 1067 Privileges that they will be effectively, fairly and impartially listened to.
That is why I support the Leader of the House—and, I may say, the Leader of the Opposition—in the view that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges and, in fairness to all those persons who were involved in the last debate, the less debate we now have on the merits of the case the more likely it is that justice will be done at the end of the day.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), but first I want to deal with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party. It is certainly not the case that an hon. Member has a right to go to the Committee of Privileges. It is certainly not the case that the Committee of Privileges calls on hon. Members. It is certainly not the case that hon. Members are given the opportunity of submitting documents and being heard——
§ Mr. Thorpe rose——
§ Mr. Lewis
I say that it is not the case, and I can substantiate what I say. I myself made a complaint of breach of privilege concerning one of the servants of the House. Not once was I asked to give evidence. Not once was I asked to submit any written document.
To my way of thinking, it was wrong that of those who took part in last Thursday's discussion every one, with the exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who raised the case, was and is a member of the Committe of Privileges. It is, therefore, rather strange to hear talk of an impartial judgment being passed when before the case was referred to that Committee, for it to come to any decision at all, five or six hon. and right hon. Members of that Committee took part in Thursday's discussion——
§ Mr. Thorpe
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has implied that hon. Members of the Committee of Privileges who took part in Thursday's discussion on purely procedural matters had, by so doing, expressed a clear opinion on the merits of the case in question. In my submission, that is a grossly improper allegation, and should be withdrawn.
§ Mr. Lewis
I never suggested that the right hon. Member or any of the five or six members of the Committee of Privileges who took part in Thursday's discussion passed any judgment on the issue. What I said was that they passed an opinion on the procedural point, which is just the point made my my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. The procedural point is : why should this complaint go to the Committee of Privileges? Why should the issue, which is a dangerous issue, be discussed?
I have read Press comments on certain action which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is alleged to have taken or failed to have taken, because he is on the paid lobby of commercial radio, but I would not say that that sort of thing should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Comments are made in every newspaper every day of the week on whether an hon. Member will be persuaded one way or the other.
Only last week I heard on the radio, and I read in the Press, that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to be threatened if they did not vote for the Common Market. That was said in public. If hon. and right hon. Members are to be threatened that unless they vote in favour of the Common Market they may find that they are not adopted as candidates, and so lose their seats, is the Committee of Privileges to investigate that sort of threat also?
Will the Committee of Privileges investigate the fact that almost every day of the week in every constituency party, whether it be the Tory Party or the Labour Party, members of that party say, "Unless my Member does this, that or the other I will tell him that I will take certain action against him"? That sort of thing is said in every party at every meeting on almost every day of the week.
1069 The same can be said of the unions. Over the years, I have heard trade union members say, "This is not what I pay money into the union funds for—to give to this Member who does not carry out union policy, so I feel that we should withdraw his funds." The person who made this statement, and makes it every day of the week, happens to be a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. This member did not ask the union to pass any official judgment for or against it. Nor did the members of the Tory Party, who last week threatened to twist the arm of hon. Members and to take away their candidature——
§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Lewis
I and some of my hon. Friend have read about it and heard it on the radio. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) admitted on radio last week that he had heard about the twisting of his arm, and he rightly said that no one could twist his arm to do anything that he did not want to do. I agree, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is known to be a man of courage and he will still do whatever he wished. Nevertheless, other hon. Members opposite have had such threats issued against them, and I am hoping that it will make no difference to those hon. Members.
It would be wrong for this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges because there has been too much discussion of procedural points. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West clearly put the procedural point. Let the matter be withdrawn. We have had the debate. Nothing of any positive character has been said or done. An individual member of the Labour Party who happens to be employed in a trade union capacity has passed an opinion to his union members, saying that he feels that certain action ought to be taken. He may be right or wrong, but surely he ought to be entitled to pass that opinion. He has done so and I hope he will pass other opinions, and, if need be, a similar opinion on future occasions.
If the union had passed a resolution saying that it would take a Mr. X off 1070 its financial panel in view of these matters, there might possibly be a case that could be referred. This matter is certainly a storm in a teacup and is not worth bothering about.
§ Mr. David Steel
Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) recall that the Press report which I read to the House contained the sentence :Mr. Kitson's warnings carry weight, for he represents trade unions on the Labour Party National Executive.
§ Mr. Lewis
I take the point—but not so much weight as I used to. I am glad that this matter is getting the light treatment that it deserves, because the whole subject is laughable. The remarks were made by an official of a trade union. So what? I have referred to the hon. Member for Hendon, North. Let us suppose that a commercial television organisation, as an observation on one of its officials, says that he is acting only in his commercial interest. Do I then say that that should be referred to the Committee of Privileges? Of course I do not, because this happens every day of the week.
§ Mr. Lewis
The hon. Member is quite right. Nor has the Transport and General Workers' Union. There has been no threat in any of its actions. All that has happened is that a member of the union who happens to be a paid official has expressed an opinion. I say, "Good luck" to him. I hope that he passes lots of opinions. Whether they are for or against my point of view does not matter. He should be entitled to pass his opinion. If the executive comes to a decision, that executive decision should be judged on merits. No action has been taken by any organisation to interfere in any way with the rights of any Member of the House. The whole matter should be dropped.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Ashton
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance whether it would be in order for me now to move, That the question be now put?
§ Mr. Speaker
It would be in order for the hon. Member so to move, but it would be for the Chair to decide whether to accept the Motion. I am not prepared to accept it just yet.
§ Mr. McNamara
I enter the debate with some diffidence, as I am a Member sponsored by the same trade union.
§ Mr. Roy Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In this debate would it not be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if you were to hear first at least one hon. Member who was present when these remarks were made and who is a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers' Union?
§ Mr. McNamara
I have declared my interest. There would have been a case, and a very proper case, if any trade union had sought to pass a resolution to instruct its sponsored Members how they should or should not vote. No such resolution was passed ; we merely have the question of opinion.
There has been no intimation to me, nor to any other hon. Member of my Parliamentary trade union group, in any way or on any occasion, how to vote. The only three-line Whip we receive is signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), not by Len Foden or Jack Jones. We have merely had a person stating an opinion ; nor more and no less. We should let the matter drop.
§ Mr. Roy Hughes
I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers' Union. Before I came to the House, for some years I was an officer of that union. I have always felt privi-
§ leged and proud to belong to that great trade union. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) and I were the only two Members of the House present at the conference in Scarborough last week when the remarks referred to were made.
§ An amalgamation between the Scottish Commercial Motormen and the Transport and General Workers' Union has recently been concluded. Mr. Kitson was the general secretary of the Scottish Commercial Motormen and addressed the conference of the T.G.W.U. as a fraternal delegate, no more and no less. He did not speak in a debate. He was called purely to make a fraternal address. One feels, perhaps, that Mr. Kitson's remarks were rather forthright and possibly near the bone ; but I uphold his right to his opinions in this matter. I am rather disgusted that it was a Liberal Member who raised this issue, an hon. Member who has stood up for many radical causes and whom I have admired very much in the past.
§ The question of sponsorship by trade unions is purely a voluntary arrangement and any hon. Member, if he feels intimidated in any way, is entitled to withdraw at any time from that sponsorship. Nevertheless sponsorship is a long and honoured tradition in the House of Commons.
§ As a Member sponsored by the T.G.W.U., I have had no pressure put upon me at any time on any issue before the House. In pursuing this matter, the House is getting into an all-too-fragile atmosphere. The matter should be dropped without further debate.
§ Mr. Mellish rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
§ Question put accordingly :—
§ The House divided : Ayes 205, Noes 95.1075
|Division No. 435.]||AYES||[5.20 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Bell, Ronald||Boscawen, Robert|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Bossom, Sir Clive|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Benyon, W.||Braine, Bernard|
|Astor, John||Berry, Hn. Anthony||Bray, Ronald|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Biffen, John||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Biggs-Davison, John||Bruce-Gardyne, J.|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Blaker, Peter||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Body, Richard||Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Holland, Philip||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Channon, Paul||Hornby, Richard||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Howell, David (Guildford)||Raison, Timothy|
|Churchill, W. S.||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Redmond, Robert|
|Clegg, Walter||Hunt, John||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Coombs, Derek||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Cordle, John||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Costain, A. P.||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Critchley, Julian||Kilfedder, James||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Crouch, David||Kinsey, J. R.||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)||Kitson, Timothy||Rost, Peter|
|Curran, Charles||Lambton, Antony||Royle, Anthony|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||St. John-stevas, Norman|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Sharples, Richard|
|Dixon, Piers||Longden, Gilbert||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Loveridge, John||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Drayson, G. B.||MacArthur, Ian||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Dykes, Hugh||McCann, John||Soref, Harold|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||MoCrindle, R. A.||Speed, Keith|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||McLaren, Martin||Spence, John|
|English, Michael||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Sproat, lain|
|Eyre, Reginald||McMaster, Stanley||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fermer, Mrs. Peggy||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Steel, David|
|Fidler, Michael||Madel, David||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Mather, Carol||Sutcliffe, John|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Maude, Angus||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Fowler, Norman||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Fox, Marcus||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tebbit, Norman|
|Gardner, Edward||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Garrett, W. E.||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Cifmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Goodhew, Victor||Moate, Roger||Tilney, John|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Money, Ernie||Trew, Peter|
|Gorst, John||Montgomery, Fergus||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Cower Raymond||More, Jasper||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Gray, Hamish||Morrison, Chartes (Devizes)||Waddington, David|
|Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Gummer, Selwyn||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Gurden, Harold||Normanton, Tom||Ward, Dame Ireme|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Osborn, John||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Owen, Idri8 (Stockport, N.)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Haselhust, Alan||Pardoe, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Havers, Michael||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Hawkins, Paul||Peel, John||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Percival, Ian||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Worsley, Marcus|
|Heseltine, Michael||Pounder, Rafton|
|Hicks, Robert||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||TELLERS FOR THE AYES :|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Mr. Tim Fortescue.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Ashton, Joe||Eadie, Alex||John Brynmor|
|Atkinson, Norman||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Evans, Fred||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Booth, Albert||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Buchan, Norman||Freeson, Reginald||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gilbert, Dr. John||Kinnock, Neil|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Lambie, David|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Hardy, Peter||Latham, Arthur|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Healley, Rt. Hn. Denis||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Heffer, Eric S.||Lipton, Marcus|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Horam, John||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Deakins, Eric||Huckfield, Leslie||McBride, Neil|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Marsden, F.|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hunter, Adam||Meacher, Michael|
|Driberg, Tom||Jeger, Mrs. lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)||Mendelson, John|
|Mikardo, Ian||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Tinn, James|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Molloy, William||Sandelson, Neville||Varley, Eric G.|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)||Wallace, George|
|Murray, Ronald King||Sillars, James||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Silverman, Julius||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Oswald, Thomas||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Pendry, Tom||Small, William||Woof, Robert|
|Pentland, Norman||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Prescott, John||Stallard, A. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES :|
|Probert, Arthur||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||Mr. Stanley Orme and|
|Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Strang, Gavin||Mr. Kevin McNamara.|
That the matter of the complaint by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of Wednesday last be referred to the Committee of Privileges.