§ 'Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act any Order in Council or statutory instrument to be made in pursuance thereof which is not subject to affirmative procedure shall be submitted for the approval of the House of Commons if notice has been given by not less than one hundred Members of Parliament of a Motion to that effect'.—[Mr. Shore.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. ShoreI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In spite of the obvious importance of the two new Clauses which we have managed to debate today, it is a welcome fact that we have been able to reach this one, however brief the time we have for it. It is an important Clause in its own right, and as this appears to be the last opportunity we shall have to amend this apparently unamendable Bill, the Clause takes on a special and extra importance because of the occasion. Apart from its inherent importance, the Clause, as I hope to demonstrate, puts to the test the whole approach of Ministers to the Bill, to this Committee, and to Amendments.
The first point to make is that the Clause does not ask that there should be the affirmative procedure for all Orders in Council issued under the Bill. It does not ask for that. Under Clause 2 and Schedule 2 Ministers have the right to choose as they think fit either the negative or affirmative procedure for getting an order approved. That is the present situation. What we are asking for in the new Clause is that the affirmative procedure should be brought into play if at least 100 Members of Parliament putdown a Motion to that effect. This is obviously a very modest proposal. Matters of genuinely small importance, for which the Minister would, presumably, recommend the negative procedure, would not, I think, be likely to be affected at all by what we are proposing, for one would not easily get 100 Members of Parliament to put down a Motion on a matter generally thought to be of no great weight.
However, what the Clause allows for is that on those occasions—there will not 698 be many—on which 100 Members of Parliament disagree with the Minister about the importance of an Order in Council which seeks to impose obligations upon us under the Treaties they—the Members of Parliament—should then have the opportunity under the affirmative procedure to debate the order. That is what the Clause seeks.
This is a small but important proposal. Hon. Members on both sides are by now acutely aware of the problem we face on secondary legislation of all kinds. The volume of it has grown and will continue to grow. At present the Brooke Joint Select Committee is looking at the matter, but it has not even been able to produce the interim report we hoped to have before the conclusion of these Committee proceedings on the problems that will arise in dealing with secondary legislation under the Bill.
We must take the facts as they are, and the facts are simple and have been stated on a number of occasions. Under our negative procedure, we have reached the stage when many important matters are prayed against and no time is found for debates to take place. The only real guarantee we have that an Order in Council under the Bill will be debated is the occasion on which it comes under the affirmative procedure. It is only then that the Government need to seek the positive assent of the House.
I turn to what I expect will be the only serious argument against adopting the proposal. Hon. Members object if the volume of secondary legislation—Orders in Council, statutory instruments—under the Bill turns out to be so great that, even with this rather guarded procedure of invoking the affirmative resolution procedure, the House could be swamped by the number of orders that came forward. That would be a serious argument against what we are proposing.
I have a strong reason for assuring the Committee that this worry would not be justified in the case of the Bill. It is a curious fact that we do not face armies of Community regulations which have to be turned into statutory instruments by the House. We do not face this situation, not because there are no great armies of Community law that will soon be on the march, but because, since they will move under the command of Clause 2(1), 699 they will not march through the House at all. That is the point. Therefore, the procedures of the House, whether affirmatime or negative, will not be invoked at all.
What we are concerned about is not the bottleneck which might be caused by the thousands and thousands—as there will be—of regulations and decisions, the self-enacting directly applicable law which we shall have no right to inspect, so far as I can judge, and certainly no right to approve or disapprove. We are not concerned about the great armies of Community law, but only the occasional straggler or deserter who will wander into the House under the requirement of translating a directive into a piece of secondary legislation in this Parliament.
§ Sir Robin TurtonSurely the right hon. Gentleman must also mention that there is already a large phalanx of directives, going back to 1962, lying there waiting to be brought up to this House after our entry.
§ Mr. ShoreI shall be coming to that point shortly and it will be of interest to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I have asked questions of the Chancellor of the Duchy about these matters, and perhaps he may now be able to answer them. I am surprised to learn that only six statutory instruments need to be laid this year under Clause 2(2), which is the only provision of the Bill which relates to statutory instruments. Furthermore, he has a requirement to lay only 12 in the whole of 1973. That is the position as it emerges.
Partly the answer to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is that a number of very important matters which have to be translated from Community directives into English law will not be introduced under the procedures of this legislation but will be enacted through the secondary legislation procedures in relation to other British legislation into which the new wine Community law is about to be poured. In other words, if we are forced to accept the unacceptable Eurolorries, the new regulations which will pertain to the length, size and weight of lorries in this country will be enacted by means of 700 a Statutory Instrument under the Road Traffic Act of 1972, changes in our exchange control system will come through the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and so on. That is why there are only six instruments in 1972, only 12 in 1973, and not all that many more after.
One reason for this is that it is part of the desire of the Community and its institutions to have as much of its law enacted in a way which cannot be challenged by Parliament and which does not even need the translation into our law which a directive forms. Instead, it opts for the unchallengeable, unalterable, unget-atable Community directly enforceable law in the form of regulations and decisions. However, I think that I have made my point. All that we have to deal with is a very small number of directives.
Even if I had been recommending to the Committee that we use affirmative procedures for all Community secondary legislation, it could not be argued that this was a bit of machinery which would gum up, delay or throw out of gear ministerial timetables or the ability of the Government to bring the law of this land into line with the requirements of the Community.
Let me sum up my arguments. I said that there are no practical reasons for opposing the Clause. We are dealing with a trickle of subordinate legislation, and that is all. In our modesty, we have not even asked that all such orders should take the affirmative procedure. We have simply made it possible, in those cases where 100 Members ask for that right, that an order should have to go through the affirmative procedure for approval.
While there is no reason why the Clause should be rejected, obviously there are very strong reasons why it should be accepted. No one with any regard for Parliament and for the democratic process could fail, in the absence of strong opposing considerations which do not operate in this case, to opt for more rather than less parliamentary control. Those who resist this proposal will be doing nothing either for or against Europe. There will be time to talk for or against Europe. There will be time to talk about that matter on other occasions. This debate is wholly about 701 whether we choose to give greater power to a Minister to issue Statutory Instruments or whether we keep a bit more of that power for ourselves under the Clause.
I said at the beginning that this was not only a test of the attitude of pro-Common Market Members on both sides of the Committee but also perhaps the acid test of the approach of the Chancellor of the Duchy to whether we are to be able to amend the Bill. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman turns down this Clause, as he has so many others, he will have demonstrated for all to see that he is not concerned at all with any possibility of improvement, and that he is concerned simply to railroad this Bill through with a minimum of public discussion and in the shortest possible time.
§ [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRISin the Chair]
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. RipponThe right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made his last speech in the Committee very much in the same tone as his first. He has made his usual reference to the directly applicable Community law, to which he takes exception but which we must accept, as we must always have accepted if we were ever to have made an honest application to join the EEC. Again he has misunderstood—a kinder description than "misrepresented"—the nature of the Bill.
This Bill is designed to enable us to give effect to the necessary changes in our domestic law in order to comply with our treaty obligations. The new Clause proposes an innovation, and one which would not be an improvement. Its effect would be that parliamentary procedure for dealing with certain subordinate legislation under the Bill could be determined simply by the number of hon. Members who put their names to a Motion. Such a statutory method of determining parliamentary procedures would be wholly unprecedented and its inclusion in a Statute would be contrary to the long-held, and rightly held, tradition that these matters are decided by Parliament itself without recourse to the Statute Book.
This indication that the new Clause would be the wrong way to proceed is demonstrated by the fact that the House has set up the Joint Committee on Dele- 702 gated Legislation, under the Chairmanship of Lord Brooke, which is at present examining the whole question of the methods of scrutinising subordinate legislation. Schedule 2 already contains a completely flexible provision which enables instruments to be laid in draft for affirmative resolution in particular cases.
If hon. Members believe that the Government have chosen to make by a negative resolution an instrument which should be debated, the proper course is for them under the appropriate procedures to put down a Prayer. That is the proper procedure and not to try to introduce a new hybrid procedure which would make an instrument in effect neither properly an affirmative nor properly a negative one. The matter was considered recently by the Select Committee on Procedure. It considered among other things the time available to debate Prayers which may be put down in these circumstances. The evidence is that there has never been a case in which there has been tremendous pressure for a particular Prayer where time has not been found.
But, of course, Parliamentary pressure in a case of this kind is measured not by the number of hon. Members who put their names to a Motion but in terms of the quality and strength of the Opposition. After all, it is possible, although not something which hon. Members opposite want to contemplate, that after the next General Election there will not be 100 members of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, but under the new Clause they would then find written into a Statute a procedure which would enable the Government of the day to say, "We need to take no further action." But we know perfectly well that, as happened in 1931, Parliament evolves procedures which protect the rights of a minority, however small it might happen to be after a particularly disastrous visit to the electorate. These are matters of substance and principle which enable me to advise the Committee to reject the new Clause.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)Surely the new Clause does not specify that 100 Opposition Members shall put down a Motion but that 100 Members shall do so. Why should not hon. Members on the Government side of the House be allowed to take action of this kind?
§ Mr. RipponWe do not know what might happen in a future Parliament. It may be that in a future Parliament the Government—it might be a Labour Government—will impose their will on a Conservative minority. Judging by the ferocity with which the Labour Party is inclined to whip its Members against their consciences, it may be a difficult situation.
Apart from what I believe to be a point of substance and principle, the new Clause is a non-runner by any standards. It is defective, because it is not clear. Instruments concerned, subject to the negative Resolution procedure, will have been made and may be in effect before a Motion is put down. There is no indication of the time within which a Motion must be put down or what happens to the instrument when the required number of signatures has been obtained. Is it annulled, temporarily suspended, or does it continue, as before, until it has been debated and then cease to have effect only if not approved? If it is approved within the time limit for a Prayer for annulment, is it still subject to annulment by a Resolution of the other House?
All those technical objections are of secondary importance compared with the point of principle which I put to the Committee at the outset and have reiterated throughout the Committee proceedings, namely, that it is inappropriate to deal with matters of procedure in a Bill of this kind and so import an unnecessary and unprecendented degree of inflexibility into our procedures which are properly dealt with by Standing Orders.
I hope I have said enough to illustrate the good and sufficient reasons for rejection of the new Clause.
When the time comes for those who wish to write their memoirs to re-read the Committee proceedings, they will find that every Amendment which the Opposition have put forward has been dealt with entirely on its merits and that we have provided good and sufficient reasons for its rejection.
§ Mr. ShoreDoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the view that he has dealt with Amendments which have come from his own side on their merits?
§ Mr. RipponMost certainly I do. The replies which I and other Ministers have 704 given have illustrated that. I firmly hold the view that we have dealt with all the Amendments on their merits.
§ Mr. Spearing rose—
§ Mr. RipponFinally, and I hope with the approval of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although it is probably out of order on this new Clause, I should like to say how much we have appreciated the way that you, Sir Robert, and your colleagues have conducted these long and ar—
§ Mr. Rippon—arduous procedures with so much good humour and concern for the Committee as a whole.
§ Mr. KaufmanI should like to ask the indulgence of the Committee on the occasion of my maiden speech on the European Communities Bill.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can indulge in the extraordinary acrobatics in which he accuses the Opposition of putting forward a new Clause of unprecedented inflexibility. If ever there was unprecedented inflexibility, the Committee has seen it since the Bill received Second Reading by the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has turned down every Amendment proposed by either pro-Marketeers or anti-Marketeers on both sides of the Committee.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that he cannot accept this so-called new Clause because it proposes something new, as though this whole Bill, which has been dragooned through the House of Commons, is not inflicting new, unprecedented, intolerable and undemocratic practices on us of a kind that have never been inflicted upon this Parliament before.
All that my right hon. Friends seek to do at this stage of the proceedings is to put forward one small, puny, whimpering new Clause asking that if 100 Members wish to debate something they shall be permitted to do so. But when we put this Clause forward the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that my right hon. Friends are indulging in unprecedented inflexibility.
§ Mr. SpearingMy hon. Friend has not been in the Committee throughout the day. Does he not recall, however, that at an earlier stage in our debates an Amendment in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself sought to define the phrase "enforceable Community right"? The question was discussed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee but the Chancellor of the Duchy did not even deign to reply, giving reasons why he wished the Amendment not to be accepted. That was an example of the way in which he has treated the Committee throughout this stage of the proceedings.
§ Mr. KaufmanThe miasma of Brussels has fallen upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That being so, we scarcely expect him to treat this assembly with respect, especially when accompanied by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has managed to turn British law into a dog's breakfast. I trust that hon. Members opposite—and hon. Ladies, too—who were elected to this Parliament on the ground that they would not vote for entry into the Common Market unless the people accepted the idea will now, at literally the eleventh hour, find their consciences, look at their election manifestoes, examine their mandates and at least help to defeat this Government and have a Report stage of the Bill.
§ Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)The speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is characteristic of a party that is trying to narrow its base by excluding all those Members who genuinely believe that we should support the Bill. That contrasts with the position of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who belong to a party that is keeping its base broad
§ by respect of the sincerity of those of its Members who oppose the Bill.
§ The speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was rather strange, because it expressed hopes of a procedural point that would not have been fulfilled by the Clause that he was moving. He was dealing with a purely procedural point, which turned on the difference between the affirmative and the negative procedure in the House of Commons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the principal difference between those two procedures is that under the affirmative procedure the Government have an obligation to use their intiative and under the negative procedure back benchers have an opportunity to use their initiative if they wish.
§ I must come clean and point out that there is one further difference, namely, that often more time is given to the discussion on the affirmative procedure than on the negative procedure. During the course of these discussions it has become clear that hon. Members opposite are much more interested in the length of time spent upon debate than upon its content.
§ The right hon. Gentleman's new Clause frustrates his intention because, under it, instead of using the negative procedure and the initiative available to hon. Members anyway, he would have to go—
§ It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 277.
711| Division No. 269.] | AYES | [11.0 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Body, Richard | Clark, David (Colne Valley) |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Booth, Albert | Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Cohen, Stanley |
| Ashley, Jack | Bradley, Tom | Coleman, Donald |
| Ashton, Joe | Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) | Concannon, J. D. |
| Atkinson, Norman | Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Conlan, Bernard |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Buchan, Norman | Crawshaw, Richard |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Cronin, John |
| Baxter, William | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cant, R. B. | Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) |
| Biffen, John | Carmichael, Neil | Dalyell, Tam |
| Bishop, E. S. | Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Darling, Rt. Hn. George |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Davidson, Arthur |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) | Jones, I. Alec (Rhondda, W.) | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Judd, Frank | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Kaufman, Gerald | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Kelley, Richard | Pentland, Norman |
| Deakins, Eric | Kerr, Russell | Perry, Ernest G. |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Kilfedder, James | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Kinnock, Neil | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Doig, Peter | Lambie, David | Prescott, John |
| Dormand, J. D. | Lamborn, Harry | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Lamond, James | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Latham, Arthur | Probert, Arthur |
| Driberg, Tom | Leadbitter, Ted | Rankin, John |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) |
| Dunn, James A. | Leonard, Dick | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lestor, Miss Joan | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Edelman, Maurice | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold | Richard, Ivor |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Robertson, John (Paisley) | |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Lipton, Marcus | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Ellis, Tom | Lomas, Kenneth | Roper, John |
| English, Michael | Loughlin, Charles | Rose, Paul B. |
| Evans, Fred | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) |
| Ewing, Henry | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Sandelson, Neville |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | McBride, Neil | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | McCartney, Hugh | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McElhone, Frank | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Foley, Maurice | McGuire, Michael | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Foot, Michael | Mackenzie, Gregor | Silverman, Julius |
| Ford, Ben | Mackie, John | Skinner, Dennis |
| Forrester, John | Mackintosh, John P. | Small, William |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) |
| Freeson, Reginald | McNamara, J. Kevin | Spearing, Nigel |
| Garrett, W. E. | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Gilbert, Dr. John | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Marquand, David | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Marsden, F. | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Marten, Neil | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Strang, Gavin |
| Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Mayhew, Christopher | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mendelson, John | Swain, Thomas |
| Hamling, William | Mikardo, Ian | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Hardy, Peter | Millan, Bruce | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Harper, Joseph | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Milne, Edward | Torney, Tom |
| Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) | Tuck, Raphael |
| Hattersley, Roy | Moate, Roger | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Kealey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Molyneaux, James | Urwin, T. W. |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Horam, John | Morris, Charles (Openshaw) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) | Wallace, George |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Moyle, Roland | Watkins, David |
| Huckfield, Leslie | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Weitzman, David |
| Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Murray, Ronald King | Wellbeloyed, James |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Oakes, Gordon | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Ogden, Eric | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | O'Halloran, Michael | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | O'Malley, Brian | Whitlock, William |
| Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill) | Oram. Bert | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Janner, Greville | Orbach, Maurice | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Orme, Stanley | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena | Oswald, Thomas | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Jenkins. Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Padley, Walter | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| John, Brynmor | Paget, R. T. | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Paisley, Rev. Ian | Woof, Robert |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Palmer, Arthur | |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Pardoe, John | Mr. John Golding. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Awdry, Daniel | Benyon, W. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Berry, Hn. Anthony |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord | Biggs-Davison, John |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Blaker, Peter |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Batsford, Brian | Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) |
| Astor, John | Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Boscawen, Hn. Robert |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Bossom, Sir Clive |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Bray, Ronald | Hannam, John (Exeter) | Normanton, Tom |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Nott, John |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Haselhurst, Alan | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hastings, Stephen | Osborn, John |
| Bryan, Paul | Havers, Michael | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) | Hawkins, Paul | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Buck, Antony | Heseltine, Michael | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Burden, F. A. | Higgins, Terence L. | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Hiley, Joseph | Peel, John |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray& Nairn) | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Percival, Ian |
| Carlisle, Mark | Holland, Phillip | Peyton, Rt. Hn. John |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Holt, Miss Mary | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hordern, Peter | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Channon, Paul | Hornby, Richard | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Howell, David (Guildford) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Churchill, W. S. | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Raison, Timothy |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Hunt, John | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Iremonger, T. L. | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Cockeram, Eric | James, David | Redmond, Robert |
| Cooke, Robert | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Coombs, Derek | Jessel, Toby | Rees, Peter (Dover) |
| Cooper, A. E. | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Cordle, John | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Jopling, Michael | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Cormack, Patrick | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Costain, A. P. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Critchley, Julian | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) |
| Crouch, David | Kershaw, Anthony | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Kimball, Marcus | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Rost, Peter |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Royle, Anthony |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Kinsey, J. R. | Scott, Nicholas |
| Kirk, Peter | Scott-Hopkins, James | |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James | Kitson, Timothy | Sharples, Sir Richard |
| Dean, Paul | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'ch & Whitby) |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | Lambton, Lord | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Lamont, Norman | Simeons, Charles |
| Dixon, Piers | Lane, David | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Le Merchant, Spencer | Soref, Harold |
| Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Speed, Keith |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Spence, John |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Longden, Sir Gilbert | Sproat, Iain |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Loveridge, John | Stainton, Keith |
| Emery, Peter | Luce, R. N. | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Eyre, Reginald | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Steel, David |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | MacArthur, Ian | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Fidler, Michael | McCrindle, R. A. | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | McLaren, Martin | Stokes, John |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Stuttatord, Dr. Tom |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Fortescue, Tim | Maddan, Martin | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Foster, Sir John | Madel, David | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Fowler, Norman | Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest | Tebbit, Norman |
| Fox, Marcus | Mather, Carol | Temple, John M. |
| Fry, Peter | Maude, Angus | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Gardner, Edward | Mawby, Ray | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Tilney, John |
| Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Goodhart, Philip | Miscampbell, Norman | Trew, Peter |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Gorst, John | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Gower, Raymond | Money, Ernle | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Monks, Mrs. Connie | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Gray, Hamish | Monro, Hector | Waddington, David |
| Green, Alan | Montgomery, Fergus | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Grieve, Percy | More, Jasper | Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) |
| Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Wall, Patrick |
| Grylls, Michael | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Walters, Dennis |
| Gummer, J. Selwyn | Morrison, Charles | Warren, Kenneth |
| Gurden, Harold | Mudd, David | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Murton, Oscar | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Neave, Airey | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Wilkinson, John | Woodnutt, Mark | |
| Winterton, Nicholas | Worsley, Marcus | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. | Mr. Bernard Weatherill and |
| Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard | Younger, Hn. George | Mr. Walter Clegg. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Then The Chairman left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to Order [2nd May].
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time tomorrow.