HC Deb 20 June 1972 vol 839 cc241-77

Amendment proposed [14th June]: No. 445, in page 4, line 26, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Ronald King Murray.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

When I was somewhat rudely interrupted at 11 p.m. on 14th June I was in the process of quoting an article by Mr. Gerhard Bebr. In all the circumstances, however, it would be right if I were recapitulate the main points I was seeking to make.

First, from the available legal authorities it would appear that the courts in this country will be fundamentally affected by the Bill, which is not what the House has been told on numerous previous occasions by Government spokesmen.

The second point I sought to make was that there was a mass of legislation emanating from Brussels, along with regulations and opinions, which cannot be adequately understood by lawyers, let alone by laymen. Yet, it is clear that individuals as well as corporate bodies and nations will be seriously affected by those regulations and laws, an effect which has not been previously accepted by Government spokesmen.

The third point I sought to make was that the Bill seeks to say on behalf of the Government that the Community law is unlimited, absolute, and supreme. This is in conflict with the situation in Holland, where, notwithstanding the Common Market legislation, it is arguable that a Dutch court can deprive an international treaty of its supremacy, and this is particularly relevant to the self-executing provisions of international treaties. This factor could be recognised in this legislation but it is not, and whether or not the Dutch interpretation of the law is correct—presumably this will have to be decided in the course of time, and it is the subject of disputation among constitutional lawyers—I would have thought the Government were bound to give the Committee some indication of their views about these propositions.

There are very real dangers in all this, and this was recognised in a case decided in December, 1970. In the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case the court stated: no provisions of municipal law, of whatever nature they may be, may prevail over Community law…lest it be deprived of its character as Community law and its very legal foundation be endangered. The validity of a Community act or its application in a member State remains, therefore, unimpaired, even if it is charged that the basic rights…or the national constitution were violated. That is a very important legal proposition which should be clearly understood I would submit that it has not been clearly understood either by members of the Committee or by the country at large. There is a real risk, therefore, that the basic constitutional rights of individual subjects in this country, recognised by the municipal laws of this country, may be sacrificed, and again I urge the Government to let us hear from them on this proposition.

If these arguments are correct, should the Bill not, therefore, contain some guarantee of basic individual liberties in the face of the alleged supremacy of Community law and the proposition which is advanced by constitutional lawyers in the Community that nothing enshrined in municipal law may be allowed to override anything in Community law? This guarantee is not at present contained in the Bill or in the treaty. I submit that very real dangers are lurking here, dangers which have not been widely recognised but have been camouflaged by Government spokesmen throughout the course of the debates.

There are legal concepts in this country which will be uprooted, legal concepts which have been honoured by time and have proved to be valid. It is right to draw attention to these factors, and I hope that the Government will not ride roughshod over these arguments as they have over so many others.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I should not be rising to make this short contribution to the debate if I had received an answer to the point I am about to raise when I raised it in a previous intervention. I should like to make the point again because, although it is a slightly technical point and does not really concern entry to the Common Market either way, it is a matter that interests many lawyers and should interest us all.

One of the cornerstones of British constitutional practice is the refusal of the courts to give effect to legislation which is imprecise and ambiguous. That is why Parliament spends so much time dealing with the wording of Bills in Committee—when it has the opportunity, of course. Most Bills are amended by Parliament because Members of Parliament have a different outlook upon a Bill and what it tries to implement. Parliament looks at some of the nooks and crannies in a slightly different way from the excellent civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen who draft the Bill.

But now the whole body of EEC law is to apply in the United Kingdom, and where it conflicts with our domestic law it prevails, this is a new departure for us. Previously, treaties affecting our domestic law required specific translation into our language and the language of British jurisprudence before they became effective in this country. One example is the United Kingdom's adherence to the 1952 Geneva Copyright Convention, which was totally meaningless in this country until its intentions were carried out by the 1956 Copyright Act.

I doubt whether the courts in the United Kingdom today are capable of giving effect to much of the EEC law and regulations as they are today, if our courts are to continue to operate under the same criteria as they operate under today. As I see it, the Community courts—I prefer to call them Community courts rather than European courts, which Amendment we shall come to later—can give effect to their more generalised and rather vaguely worded legislation because each country in the Common Market has a written constitution to act as a sort of longstop against misinterpretation, and also for the protection of individual civil rights. We have no such written constitution.

Under this Bill, the courts will have to hear cases arising out of the EEC law, and I doubt very much—my hon. and learned Friends may have a different view—whether the courts will listen for long to cases based on some of the EEC law, such as we have seen in our examination of this Bill, and the secondary legislation which we have been discussing.

I can imagine that the Government would argue that all that would be all right because Clause 2(2) empowers Ministers, and, I regret to say, also Departments, to implement the European Communities obligations by Order in Council. But what would be challenged in the British courts is whether those Orders in Council are ultra vires. The European Community regulations are so imprecise as to be incapable of precise and specific implementation, in my view.

For example, Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome says that improper exploitation by an undertaking in a dominant position within the Common Market shall be prohibited. Among the items deemed to be improper exploitation is direct or indirect imposition of unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions. I do not wish in advance to criticise the bench in this country, but we can almost hear our judges asking counsel, "Can you explain what is 'improper exploitation'? What is the meaning of 'a dominant position'? What are 'unfair purchase or selling prices'?"

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Send it to the Appeal Court.

Mr. Marten

That would be very good business for the lawyers.

The Community courts have not defined those words yet, so we cannot rely upon any Community court decisions. Therefore, I believe that a British court will have to refuse to entertain any action based upon such very imprecise law. It might be different if the litigants had at least an up-to-date Bill of Rights, which we have not, to fall back on to protect their liberty. If we are to give effect to the Common Market law, much of it will have to be made much more precise before it becomes effective—much more precise than the Bill stipulates. I hope that that is recognised by the Government and the enthusiasts for joining the Common Market. Either way, it will be a bonanza for the lawyers.

The Committee must remember that we in Parliament are not the sole guardians of constitutional freedom, though some of us sometimes think we are. The Court of Appeal, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree, has recently made two decisions in the interests, as it thinks, of the liberty of the individual. Therefore, the courts are also the guardians of constitutional freedom. We can legislate here ad nauseam, but the legislation we pass will not be implemented by the courts unless it conforms to the existing canons of British jurisprudence as we know it.

Therefore, I hope that when my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replies he will this time comment on the position. I asked him once before, but he failed to do so. Whether or not we want to go into the Common Market, we are here considering a fundamental of British jurisprudence, which has such a long and historic reputation.

Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

The debate on the Amendments to subsection (1) has been marked by the large number of important questions raised on both sides in an attempt to comprehend the significance and meaning of the subsection. The number of questions emanating from experienced lawyers and skilled parliamentarians reflects the serious imprecision and even the ambiguity of the subsection.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) seemed to think that lawyers like imprecision and ambiguity. The exact contrary is the case. We have always struggled in our legal system towards achieving certainty, which is why we have clung to the principle of precedents, of stare decisis, except for the recent liberality allowed in the House of Lords. In the continental courts the certainty is sought to be established by the codes of laws themselves. We rely, and have relied in the past, on the certainty and clarity, we hope, of the law when Parliament makes it and when the judges propound it.

The subsection is marked above all by its imprecision, when, surely, it is a part of the Bill which should have been made crystal clear and should have given clear guidance to our judges, who will have the unenviable task of giving effect to its provisions. What does it do? It places requirements on our judges whenever they may have to decide …any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties…". I am speaking of first instance judges When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was suggesting that a matter should be referred to the court of appeal, he will know that our court of last instance will not have power in this matter. All points of construction must, if appeal arises, go to the European Court itself.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

It was wishful thinking on my part.

Sir Elwyn Jones

That may well be.

The subsection requires the judges, when they have to consider a Community instrument, to do two things—first, to deal with the matter as a question of law, and, secondly, to decide it … in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court. The first leg, therefore, is the requirement that the matter shall be dealt with as a question of law. Normally, foreign law, colonial law, and even the law of Scotland have, except in the House of Lords, to be proved as a fact by skilled witnesses, and to that extent, of course, the judges are given assistance. Here, in considering Community instruments, they will not have that assistance, and they are required, under subsection (2), to take judicial notice not only of the decisions of the European Court but even of expressions of opinion emanating from that court. Therefore, our judges will not have the assistance about Community law itself. What they are required to do is to determine any question of construction not in accordance with our own and well-tried rules of interpretation of Statutes but …in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) gave us a most illuminating and highly entertaining exposé of the implications of this provision, as he understood it, notwithstanding the presence in the place to which I am not allowed to refer of the Lord Chancellor himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman did so with much courage and much skill. He interpreted the words we are now examining as giving our judges free rein, a bonanza, glorious liberation from the shackles of precedent, a privilege which, as he pointed out, is now only reserved for the House of Lords.

But is this so? Insofar as the words require the judge to act …in accordance with the principles laid down by…the European Court I agree with the hon. and learned Member. It is extremely wide. Nor are our judges much assisted as to what that phrase means by what I submit is the quite inadequate and certainly laconic note in the explanatory memorandum dealing with the matter, which says: Clause 3 deals with the treatment and proof of the Treaties and Community instru- ments in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom, and makes it clear that questions of their validity, meaning and effect are to be determined in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court. No doubt "jurisprudence" and application of "principles" are familiar ground to continental lawyers—I use that phrase in no disrespect to their eminence and skill—accustomed as they are to applying their philosophy of law to their codified system of law. But that has not been our approach to the problem, or the approach of our common law or of our judges through the centuries.

Our approach has been essentially pragmatic, and it has been based on the binding force of judicial decisions. In our law and practice we take a far stricter view of the effect of previous decisions of our courts than, for instance, do the French. We regard these previous decisions as binding, and that approach applies no less to precedents which interpret Statutes. Our rules of interpretation of Statutes are strict, especially when the rights of the subject are affected.

What are the "principles" referred to in subsection (1)? Are these principles to have the same status as the actual decisions in a given case—the ratio decidendi—the rule of law applied by and acted on by the courts, or the rule which the court regarded as governing the case? Are they to have the same force as that? One of the features of the jurisprudence of codified systems of law is that judicial decisions need not, and generally do not, have binding force. Yet in the second part of the duty imposed as a mandatory duty on our judges they are also required to determine a matter of construction …in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court", which would seem to contradict one of the elements in the jurisprudence of the European Court, which does not regard itself as bound by any relevant or previous decision. So our judges are to be placed in a position of intolerable, indeed insoluble, difficulty.

If the requirement of construction …in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court is to be adhered to—and the judges are commanded to do so—by the subsection—this would seem to be an attempt to introduce into the code system the doctrine of precedent, and I am not quite sure how these two bed-fellows are to get along together. As I have submitted to the Committee, no such doctrine binds continental courts, least of all the European Court itself.

Why then is it intended that the doctrine shall apply here? Why does Clause 3 saddle our judges with such a doctrine? Is the court of any Community member State restricted in the same way? A German judge of first instance, as I understand it, is free to decide the meaning of Community instruments on the basis of his own judgment, of what he thinks right, unfettered by …any relevant decision of the European Court. I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us whether that is right or not. Will the English judge of first instance be equally free? If he is equally free, however, to apply his own mind unfettered by precedent, will he not be throwing overboard his mandatory duty under the terms of subsection (1) to follow and decide the matter …in accordance with…any relevant decision of the European Court"? It places, as I have said, a judge in England in an impossible situation.

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

The European Court is not bound by precedent. Suppose that in 1975 the European Court decides a case in one way and the following year it decides a case that is on all fours with the first in precisely the other way because it is not bound by precedent. Which case does the English law follow?

Sir Elwyn Jones

Presumably if the judge's task came in point of time after the latest decision of the European Court he would be expected to comply with that decision.

Mr. Tuck


Sir Elwyn Jones

I would have thought so, yes. It is not unknown even for courts in this country to change their minds—

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

Hear, hear.

Sir Elwyn Jones

—on matters of fact as well as of law.

One of the matters which disturbs me about what seems to be contemplated, and I say this cautiously because there is a good deal of fog about it, is that of course the European Court can change its mind but if our judges are to be deemed bound by the Court's decisions, then our own courts will be deprived of the opportunity of anticipating, so to speak, the pending changes in the law which might be propounded by the European Court and thereby of making their own contribution to the evolution of a sensible body of Community law. Those are the matters of importance, and, I readily concede, of difficulty, which are not resolved by the terms of this subsection which goes to the very root of not only our judicial but our parliamentary sovereignty.

A parallel difficulty which has been much discussed is: what is the position if the Bill becomes law and a future Act of Parliament is passed which conflicts with some aspect of Community law? This question was raised I think on Second Reading by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and for my part I am by no means satisfied with the answer we have had from the Government. The approach of our own judges in somewhat parallel situations up to now has been clear. If a Statute is clearly inconsistent with international law or the law as to comity of nations, it must be so construed in our courts, and is so construed in our courts, whatever the effect of such a construction may be. The Statute prevails, and the international law and the considerations of comity fall.

The classic exposition of the approach of our judges was made by Viscount Simonds who is a former Lord Chancellor, in the case of Colles Dealings v. IRC reported in 1962 Appeal Cases when he said: It is said that the plain words of the Statute are to be disregarded…in order to observe the comity of nations and the established rules of international law. I am not sure on which of these high-sounding phrases the appellant company chiefly relies. But I would answer that neither comity nor rule of international law can be invoked to prevent a sovereign State from taking what steps it thinks fit to protect its own revenues from gross abuse, or to save its own citizens from unjust discrimination in favour of foreigners. To demand that the plain words of the Statute should be disregarded in order to do that very thing is an extravagance to which this House will not, I hope, give ear. That has been the classic approach of our judges repeated many times before and since.

If the Bill becomes law will our judges, despite the words of Clause 3, be equally free to deal in that sort of way with a situation if there is a clash between a later Act of Parliament and the law of the Community? As I understand it from the speeches by the Government spokesmen, the Government think not. Certainly the European Court thinks not, and the matter has been put clearly by the Court in 1964 in Costa v. ENEL in words which I think have already been quoted but part of which I will repeat. These words come from the judgment: The transfer by member States from their national order in favour of the Community order of the rights and obligations arising from the Treaty, carries with it a clear limitation of their sovereign right upon which a subsequent unilateral law incompatible with the aims of the Community cannot prevail. 4.15 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy has appeared to blow hot and cold on this matter. In one breath he has said "That is perfectly all right; we accept that". He has said more than once that directly applicable provisions of Community treaties ought to prevail over future Acts of Parliament insofar as they may be inconsistent with them. Yet in almost the same breath he has said "Of course nothing in this Bill breaches the sovereignty of Parliament".

The result is that our judges will be in a hopeless situation. The Clause gives them no guidance. The Minister's guidance will not be before the courts and that may or may not be a good thing in the circumstances of its ambiguity. How are the judges to decide this matter? Are they to be free to overrule Community law in the light of a new Act? The subsection does not resolve that dilemma, neither do the speeches of Ministers.

Because of this and the many profoundly important unanswered questions which emerge from our consideration of this subsection, in my submission the only safe course for Parliament, the country and the courts is for subsection (1) to be left out. I greatly hope the Committee will agree.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

One always follows the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) with the closest attention and respect. As one listens to that musical voice and the reasonableness with which he puts forward his argument one is lulled, not, I must say, to sleep, but into acquiescence with a case so reasonably presented. Nevertheless, there are some fundamental flaws, if he will allow me to say so, in his approach to this extremely complicated problem.

The right hon. and learned Member has addressed a number of rather technical questions to the Treasury Bench, and I must leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to give an authoritative reply. The right hon. and learned Member does not want to hear my opinion on these issues; he obviously wants the official reply. I will, however, venture into this minefield which has blown up those more learned in the law than myself.

I am encouraged to do so not by my efficiency in the practice of the law, because my practice in the law took place a long time ago, but because in my academic work as a lawyer I was particularly concerned with constitutional law and the law governing the interpretation of Statutes and of treaties.

The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South based his case on a complete dichotomy between the continental system of law, the code system, and our own. According to the picture which the right hon. and learned Gentleman painted—I must say it was attractive—the continental courts operate purely on code provisions. There is clarity, certainly and consistency there, whereas we have to meander through the maze of precedent trying to find our way as best we can.

Sir Elwyn Jones


Mr. St. John-Stevas

When I have finished my description of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech I will give way. It was a contrast between the laws of the Medes and the Persians, on the one hand, representing the laws of continental countries, the tablets of stone that came down from Mount Sinai, and a system of the utmost flexibility, on the other, but given a backbone by precedent.

Sir Elwyn Jones

I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is allowing himself to be blown up prematurely in the minefield. I did not caricature the position in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said he will find that to be the case.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not been blown up. Perhaps a mine has blown up, but I have escaped unscathed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gentle explosion.

The English system of law is not as governed by precedent as the right hon. and learned Gentleman made out. Nor is the continental system of law so free of precedent as he made out.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his case away almost entirely—I hope I quote him correctly—when he said: "It is not unknown for courts in this country to change their minds". How do they change their minds? They change their minds by the lawyer's art of distinguishing between one precedent and another. That art of distinguishing heavily reduces the binding force of precedent, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman places so much importance. It is right that that should be so. After all, the law is a living and flexible system; it is not rigid and given for all time.

The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) far underestimated the skill of our judges. The hon. Gentleman also misrepresented the rôle of judges in our system of law. That error was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). The rôle of judges in our law is not slavishly to follow precedent but to create law. The Clause gives new material to our judges to create new law. That, after all, is how the common law was created in the first place.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West) indicated dissent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) shakes his head. That shows a lack of knowledge of history. It does not refute the argument I am presenting.

Mr. English

Do not be so arrogant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt he should rise to his feet and not shout things across the Floor of the Committee.

Mr. English

The hon. Gentleman is being arrogant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The common law was created—[Interruption.] I have every intention of keeping going, because I have an argument to develop. I shall not be put off by the sedentary and horizontal interruptions coming from the other side of the Committee.

The common law was created by a fusion of the cannon law of the time and the Anglo-Saxon custom. It is precisely that situation that we are seeing again in another form now. We are seeing a fusion of our system of law with the system of law of the European courts. It will be the function of our judges to weld these two systems together, certainly changing our law, contributing to a new body of law in this country and to a new body of European law at the same time.

We must see this as a creative opportunity as well as a defence of our institutions. This negative theme, which has run through all our debates on the Clauses, has been present in the speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who regarded this whole matter not as an opportunity for the extension of British law but as some kind of attack on our institutions.

Mr. Marten

I am grateful and most honoured that my hon. Friend should have mentioned me. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will recognise that under Clause 2(2) a Department can make a regulation. If a Department made a regulation based on some fairly vague piece of law from the Community, would he, if he were practising at the Bar, accept a brief to try to prove that the Department was ultra vires in making that law because of the lack of definition of Community law?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That is a hypothetical question. I understand that it is the duty of all members of the Bar to take briefs which are offered to them and to put forward their arguments irrespective of their assessment of the cause involved, so the question is totally irrelevant.

I return to my argument from which unsuccessful attempts were made to deflect me. I turn to the rules on the interpretation of Statutes. Again the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the former Attorney-General, presented this as a process of loss rather than gain, as though the principle of interpretation of English Statutes had reached perfection and was given for all time. That is not so. In many ways we want a more flexible approach to Statutes than we have had in the past. For example, the rule of continental jurisprudence, that travaux preparatoires are admissible, has never found favour in English law. This has been a loss to our law, not a gain. Often the will of Parliament has not been able to be given effect to by the judges precisely because they could not look and see what Parliament intended in passing a particular Statute. So, here again, something would be gained, something would be added to our law, not lost.

I turn from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying—

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

Surely one of the disadvantages of the doctrine of les travaux preparatoires is that it leads to uncertainty in the law. If one is able to interpret the law according to the natural meaning and the context of the words in the Statute there is a reasonable chance that people will arrive at the same interpretation. If one can interpret the Statute only by looking at the travaux preparatoires, that must lead to a much greater ambiguity of interpretation and many more contested views of what the law actually is. Is not that a disadvantage.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I pay great attention to the words of my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the classic argument that is put forward for excluding travaux preparatoires, but I do not think it is a valid argument. The travaux preparatoires, provided they are reasonably interpreted, may cast light precisely on what is uncertain in the words of the Statute. Either with or without travaux preparatoires, there must be a great deal of uncertainty in the law; there always will be. Had there been no uncertainty in the law, my right hon. and learned Friend and others would be totally unemployed.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Will the hon. Gentleman say what kind of travaux preparatoires—that is to say, reports of preliminary and preceding discussions—he has in mind which would be helpful in this context? Is he referring to the deliberations of the Commission—which I think are in secret—the discussions of the Council, the discussions of the European Assembly? The "preparations" of whose "travaux" has he in mind that could throw light on the difficult problems of interpretation?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the translation, which I feel sure was for my benefit, as other hon. Members could be presumed to know what "travaux preparatoires" means. I do not confine myself, to any particular category, but, clearly, one category of travaux preparatoires is the debates in the Assembly.

Mr. English


Mr. St. John-Stevas

No, I cannot give way any more; I must continue my argument.

Mr. English

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? He has just referred to the debates in the Assembly, but the Assembly has no power of decision.

The Chairman

Order. Mr. St. John-Stevas.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That was an out of order interruption, but nevertheless I heard it. The Assembly does have powers of decision; in any case where it does not have the power of decision it can give expressions of opinion.

To give an example of travaux preparatoires nearer home, the statement of my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General this afternoon in answer to the important questions put to him by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South is of great significance and would be able to be taken into account if we had a less rigid system of interpretation of Statutes.

I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in which he made three principal points against this part of the Clause. He said that our courts would be fundamentally affected by the Clause. I hope I have made it clear that I welcome that. I welcome change, growth and development. Rigidity is an undesirable factor either in the law or anywhere else.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that in the new system of law developed by the Community, there was a mass of regulations which would affect individuals. To take the positive as opposed to the negative side of the argument, Article 173 of the Treaty of Rome extends the rights of individuals and declares that: Any natural or legal person may…institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former. The point of that provision, which is directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman was saying, is that not only do States have rights under the new system of law but individuals have rights as well.

Mr. English


Mr. St. John-Stevas

The third point made by the hon. Gentleman was that Community law establishes itself as in certain cases taking precedence over municipal law. That is true, and we must accept it, but everyone knew it. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, who was advising the leaders of his party when it was in office at the time the application to join the Community was made, knew that that was an instrinsic part of the Community. If that provision were not in Community law, there would be no Community. It would not be a Community; it would be something different. Therefore, we must accept that a new legal order is being created which will in limited circumstances have a direct impact on our municipal law.

In the case of Costa v. Enel which was decided in 1964 the European Court stated: The Treaty instituting the EEC has created its own order which was integrated with the national order of the member States when the Treaty came into force. As such it is binding on them. The member States, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves. So there is within a limited sphere—and nobody has ever denied it—a sur- render of sovereignty, but there is also a gain. If we are subject to the European Court in certain respects, so we shall have representation on that Court and we shall gain influence over the creation of law within the Community.

The hon. Member for Hackney, Central said that our judges would face great difficulty in assessing what the law was. That underestimates the skill of our judges. They will be able to call on technical assessors when their testimony is relevant, they will be able to get an uninterrupted supply of the regulations in the various languages of the Community, and they will be able to adapt themselves to these changes as they have been able to adapt themselves to changes in our law in the past.

The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South was marred by his totally negative approach. I agree that there are reasons and causes for anxiety which we in Committee want to probe, but let us not look only at the difficulties. Let us see the opportunities that are opening up for a new season of development in our law as well as seeing the risks, some of which are real but many of which are wholly imaginary.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

In the course of the debate on this subsection a number of questions have been directed towards me. Fortunately, although the answers will not be exactly exhilarating, I am not at least required to answer all the questions. Some of the broader ones have been answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) about the status of the Luxembourg Agreement and the meaning of the treaties have been dealt with in previous debates and do not arise on this subsection.

The general attack on the subsection has been not so much many-pronged as ambiguous. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), in one of his characteristically analytical speeches, said that the subsection was on the one hand draconian and on the other hand otiose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) described it as, in effect, a further unnecessary invasion of our sovereignty, and I will return later to that argument.

The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) did not regard it as either draconian or otiose, but he thought that it did not go far enough in making the position clear. That was very much in line with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who posed a number of specific questions with which I shall try to deal, but he did not suggest that it was an unnecessary provision for the guidance of the courts. A provision of this kind is necessary and helpful specifically to give guidance to the court so far as it is possible to do so.

Not all the questions posed by hon. Members on either side of the Committee can be answered by this legislation or any other. The removal of subsection (1) altering the substance and effectiveness of Community law would create uncertainty—at least temporarily—in this country's courts. Perhaps the right hon. Member for West Ham, South would say that it would create more uncertainty than exists at present, but it would certainly be harmful rather than helpful to remove the provision.

The subsection is confined in its formulation to legal proceedings, because it is in legal proceedings that it is necessary for certain practical consequences to flow from the status of Community law as a question of law rather than as a question of fact.

First, there will flow a proposition that there will be no need for expert evidence about Community law. That removes the anxiety expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East about the additional cost that would arise in calling expert evidence on questions of Community law. The more general question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend about a possible extension of legal aid is probably, in the great generality of cases, unnecessary because most of the parties in proceedings before the European Court are likely to be substantial bodies corporate, but consideration would be given to the expansion of legal aid services should the need be seen to arise.

The second proposition which follows from making this a question of law is that Community law will be part of the law administered by United Kingdom Courts—law which the United Kingdom courts, like any branch of our own law, are assumed to know. Plainly, in other fields that assumption is not always well founded but it underlies the operation of any legal system. Advice will be needed from lawyers with suitable expertise in dealing with this branch of the law.

The other practical consequence that follows is that there will be rights of appeal within our own system where such rights of appeal are confined to questions of law and not fact and they will be more readily available in the United Kingdom courts.

I appreciate the point made by several hon. Members about the doctrine of binding precedent. This point was particularly mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). There is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford pointed out, much contrast between the Continental system and the United Kingdom system in this respect even in terms of a judge of the German lower court; though he is not strictly bound by precedent, he is expected to follow it. Therefore, the kind of difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind would not arise.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the chair]

4.45 p.m.

As for the situation which will arise when our courts are dealing with Community law, I would point out that under Article 177 the European Court gives an abstract ruling but does not give a final conclusion of the case. The national court applies this ruling and any application will fall within the United Kingdom rules of precedent. If a Community point of law arises before a United Kingdom court, the principles of the European Court must be followed at that point. The United Kingdom court is free not to follow established European Court jurisprudence only if it has reason to believe that the European Court within its own principles would not follow its earlier decisions. This approach is in line with the approach set out in paragraph 27 of the 1967 White Paper.

The co-existence of Community law alongside our national law is bound to give rise in the early stages to some problems; some questions are bound to arise on matters of interpretation. The United Kingdom courts would normally interpret legislation in accordance with our treaty obligations. They are now being further enjoined to do so in accordance with the principles laid down by decisions of the European Court. If the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South looks again at paragraph 27 and 28 of the 1967 White Paper he will see the practical difficulties lucidly analysed in that document, as one would expect in a White Paper for which he was responsible. He will see that these matters are answered as effectively as they can be in the provisions of this Bill. The subsection serves a useful purpose, and to remove it would create uncertainty, at least temporarily, in our courts.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, North)

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal specifically with one matter which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and myself? What is the effect of subsection (1) on a decision by a member State of the Community—for example, one of the existing Six—on a question of interpretation of the Treaty? Is that to be regarded as foreign law or as Community law within the meaning of Clause 3(1)?

The Solicitor-General

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be a little patient, he will find that I shall answer all questions which have been put to me—though the point he has raised is an additional one which was not part of my marked-out course.

So far as I understand the position, the principles and decisions to which one would look would be those emanating from the European Court, but in practice if a decision were to be given in a French or German court applying the provisions of the Treaty that would be regarded as a persuasive authority.

Sir Elwyn Jones

Where will an English judge obtain the appropriate French authority? This is a troublesome feature and is one of the problems which our judges will have to face.

The Solicitor-General

Indeed, and that is why one would not normally expect an English judge to be confronted with a decision of the French courts. Arrangements are being made—in addition to the availability of the Law Reports of decisions given in the lower courts of Community members—for the full publication of decisions so far given in the European court. That will be the corpus to which our courts will have to have regard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect the occasional cases in which he has been engaged, as I have, in the fastnesses of Wales in which we have taken along with us a Canadian, Australian or New Zealand report which we thought to be relevant to our point. Whether the learned judge throws his hat in the air with delight at the appearance of such a persuasive authority is open to question, but the matter would be dealt with in a practical way.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) seeks by Amendment No. 135 to change the name by which the court is referred to in this legislation. I cannot see how the Committee can accept that Amendment, nor do I see why the case was put in the way in which my right hon. Friend put it. We are here dealing with the European Communities Bill and the European Court has always been referred to by that name—and it was certainly so referred to in the 1967 White Paper. The only other court with which it could be confused is the Human Rights Court. The description "European Court" is in general use, it is convenient to use the customary name and it would be misleading to take a different view.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East asked a number of questions about the inclusion of the word "instrument" in Clause 3(1), contrasting it with the word "act" in the treaty and also with the appearance of the word "act" in Clause 3(2). The word "act" means a formal action in the exercise of executive powers. Such an act is not necessarily embodied in an instrument emanating from a Community institution. For example, the fixing of a date, the fixing of wages or the fixing of appointments could amount to a Community act. Written evidence of such an act might well be needed to be put in evidence under Clause 3(2), but it could not give rise to questions which could arise under Clause 3(1).

All these follow from the nature of Community law, which has been expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East acknowledges them to be necessary if we are to have a Community at all. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) regards them as undesirable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West regards them as undesirable and unnecessary, and especially unnecessary in this form.

The way in which my right hon. Friend seeks to approach the question of form, looking at what he said at column 1648 when we last discussed this matter, is the argument that we should make Community law expressly the law of this country in the way that the rest of the law of this country is made. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend means that we should do that by the interposition every time of the normal parliamentary process. With respect, that is founded on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the need arising from the treaties and the nature of the law flowing from the treaties.

The nature of Community law is that it should be a single system of law, singly propounded by the institutions of the Community and singly interpreted in the last resort by the European Court of Justice. It should not be filtered or translated in different forms by means of national legislation. It is a separate system of law taking effect alongside national systems. Thus a United Kingdom court may not directly invalidate or declare invalid a Community instrument. But it may do so if the issue of validity arises indirectly in proceedings before it.

The question of the vires of a regulalation or decision under Article 86 is a matter which could be raised by the person against whom it was being launched in our courts, and our courts would make a decision about it in the light of the principles laid down by the Community court. But the Community court would be the final arbiter.

In course of that interchange between the two systems, we shall derive some benefit from our experience of the way in which continental legal systems work. But our courts will make their own important contribution to the absorption of the jurisprudence of the common law into that of the European court. There will be a useful cross-flow of thought—

Mr. Powell

Are not directives and decisions just as much Community law as regulations?

The Solicitor-General

Yes, certainly. But directives and decisions are directed to and binding upon member States and give rise to a Community obligation which can then be translated into our law by means, for example, of Clause 2(2). But the proposition about regulations, decisions of the Commission under the restrictive practices Articles, 85 to 87, and decisions of the court are all part of a separate single system of law designed to have effect alongside the national system within each member State. This is the meaning of the much used and repeated phrase "directly applicable". It is something which applies directly in each of the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom alongside each of the three systems, and, in case of conflict, taking precedence over the law of each of the three jurisdictions within this country.

I do not want to go back to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South about the possible conflict between Community law and United Kingdom law. However I will answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West that Community law would prevail over a prior United Kingdom provision before the consequential changes in United Kingdom law were made. But Community law of that kind is not made at short notice. We expect authentic English texts of applicable regulations to be available. As for subsequent United Kingdom legislation and the effect of that alongside Community law, the position remains the same as it was at the time of the 1967 White Paper, which was written three years after the decision in the Costa case, and I answered it at col. 1320 of our debate on 13th June.

When I say that Community law takes precedence over each of our three jurisdictions, it will be applied by the judges of our three systems. The United Kingdom judge at Luxembourg will make his contribution conscious of the tripartite character of the United Kingdom legal system, and directly applicable Community law applies here in respect of procedures, for example. That answers the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, about Article 177. That Article takes effect directly in this country. Where our courts need guidance as to the procedure to be followed that will be made available in rules of courts. In the same way, judgments and decisions take effect directly in this country, including any judgment which might be given as to the meaning of "judicial remedy" in Article 177. I do not dissent from what my right hon. and learned Friend said about it. All these matters take effect directly here.

As for the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, execution of a judgment or decision of a Community institution, when it has to be enforced in this country, can be stayed or totally suspended only by the European court under Article 192. As to the method of execution, including the nature of instalment orders, for example, that can be decided by the United Kingdom courts, and regulations are directly applicable in consequence of the words of Article 189.

I come back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. There is no room for any options as to the necessity for securing the result secured by Clause 2(1) and supported by Clause 3(1). Direct applicability means what it says. It means applying directly.

I go back to the description of it given in a very important paragraph in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, on 8th May, 1967. Every word helps to understand the proposition. Referring to the European Communities Bill, the noble Lord said: This legislation would include an enactment applying as law in the United Kingdom"— not as part of the law of the United Kingdom— so much of the provisions of the Treaties and of the instruments made under them as then had direct internal effect as law within the Member States and providing that future instruments similarly took effect as law here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 1202.] That is the nature of "direct applicability". It is spelled out in more detail in the 1967 White Paper.

The Leader of the Opposition explained the nature of the law taking effect directly within member States and said that membership of the Communities involves a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields, in the Community institutions and acceptance of a corresponding limitation of the ordinary exercise of national powers in those fields."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1088.] That is what direct applicability means. That is what it was explained then as meaning at the beginning of the debate, at the conclusion of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West along with the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South voted in support of the application to join the Communities on those terms.

They are entitled to say, in so far as they have, that they have changed their minds. My right hon. Friend is entitled to say that he does not like what is involved. But I suggest that he is not entitled to criticise the Government for achieving what is necessary to produce this novel but important feature of the Community institutions, namely, direct applicability of the law made by the Community institutions.

The approach suggested by my right hon. Friend, namely, separate re-enactment by Parliament of each bit of Community law is not only in breach of the Treaty obligations but is wholly contrary to the best interests of Parliament itself. In a characteristic article my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said in The Times on 23rd July, 1971: No doubt in Britain they"— that is the Community regulations— would be dressed up as Statutory Instruments to clothe the nakedly supra-national reality with a mini-skirt of seemingly constitutional propriety. It is that which the Bill does not adopt, which nobody thought that it should adopt, which my right on. Friend is urging upon us.

The result of that kind of approach would be to involve Parliament on a substantial scale in the obligatory yet inadmissible and unnecessary manufacture of legislative mini-skirts and to divert Parliament in the last resort from the important and continuing exercise of parliamentary sovereignty in the context of membership of the Communities of control of our Executive and through that of Community law-making institutions.

That is the way in which the Clause helps our courts in their application of Community law explained in that way. The Clause—and in particular the sub section—is a useful and necessary part of the legislation to give effect to our Treaty obligations and to provide for direct internal effectiveness of Community

law, and the removal of either part of the subsection would be positively unhelpful. So much, I think, was acknowledged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. So much, I think, was acknowledged by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. In each of their cases it may not go far enough to answer all the questions which could arise, but to remove it would be irresponsible.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 266, Noes 281.

Division No. 227.] AYES [5.2 p.m.
Abse, Leo Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Dempsey, James Hunter, Adam
Allen, Scholefield Doig, Peter Janner, Greville
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Dormand, J. D. Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Armstrong, Ernest Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ashley, Jack Douglas-Mann, Bruce Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ashton, Joe Driberg, Tom Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Atkinson, Norman Duffy, A. E. P. John, Brynmor
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dunn, James A. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Barnett Guy (Greenwich) Dunnett, Jack Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Eadie, Alex Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Edelman, Maurice Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Bidwell, Sydney Ellis, Tom Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Biffen, John English, Michael Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Bishop, E. S. Evans, Fred Judd, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ewing, Harry Kaufman, Gerald
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Faulds, Andrew Kerr, Russell
Body, Richard Fell, Anthony Kinnock, Neil
Booth, Albert Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Lambie, David
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lamborn, Harry
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lamond, James
Bradley, Tom Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Latham, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Foley, Maurice Leadbitter, Ted
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Foot, Michael Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Ford, Ben Leonard, Dick
Buchan, Norman Forrester, John Lestor, Miss Joan
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Fraser, John (Norwood) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Freeson, Reginald Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Gilbert, Dr. John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Cant, R. B. Golding, John Lipton, Marcus
Carmichael, Neil Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lomas, Kenneth
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Gourlay, Harry Loughlin, Charles
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Grant, George (Morpeth) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) McBride, Neil
Cohen, Stanley Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McCartney, Hugh
Concannon, J. D. Hamling, William McElhone, Frank
Conlan, Bernard Hannan, William (G'gow. Maryhill) McGuire, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hardy, Peter Mackenzie, Gregor
Crawshaw, Richard Harper, Joseph Mackie, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Harrison Walter (Wakefield) Mackintosh, John P.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Maclennan, Robert
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Hattersley, Roy McMaster, Stanley
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Dalyell, Tam Heffer, Eric S. McNamara, J. Kevin
Davidson, Arthur Hilton, W. S. Maginnis, John E.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Horam, John Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Huckfield, Leslie Marks, Kenneth
Davis, Tarry (Bromsgrove) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Marsden, F.
Deakins, Eric Hughes, Mark (Durham) Marshall, Dr. Edmund
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Marten, Neil
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Perry, Ernest G. Strang, Gavin
Mayhew, Christopher Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Meacher, Michael Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Prescott, John Swain, Thomas
Mendelson, John Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Taverne, Dick
Mikardo, Ian Price, William (Rugby) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Millan, Bruce Probert, Arthur Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Rankin, John Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Milne, Edward Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Tinn, James
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Rhodes, Geoffrey Tomney, Frank
Moate, Roger Richard, Ivor Torney, Tom
Molloy, William Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Tuck, Raphael
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Urwin, T. W.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Robertson, John (Paisley) Varley, Eric G.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor Wainwright, Edwin
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Rodgers, William (Stockton on-Tees) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Moyle, Roland Roper, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wallace, George
Murray, Ronald King Rowlands, Ted Watkins, David
Oakes, Gordon Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Weitzman, David
Ogden, Eric Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Wellbeloved, James
O'Halloran, Michael Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
O'Malley, Brian Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Whitehead, Phillip
Oram, Bert Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Whitlock, William
Orbach, Maurice Sillars, James Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley Silverman, Julius Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Oswald, Thomas Skinner, Dennis Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Small, William Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Padley, Walter Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Paisley, Rev. Ian Spearing, Nigel Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Palmer, Arthur Spriggs, Leslie Woof, Robert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Stallard, A. W.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Pavitt, Laurie Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Stoddart, David (Swindon) Mr. Tom Pendry.
Pentland, Norman Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Adley, Robert Coombs, Derek Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cooper, A. E. Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Cordle, John Grylls, Michael
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Gummar, J. Selwyn
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Cormack, Patrick Gurden, Harold
Astor, John Costain, A. P. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Atkins, Humphrey Crouch, David Hall, John (Wycombe)
Awdry, Daniel Dalkeith, Earl of Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hannam, John (Exeter)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Batsford, Brian Dean, Paul Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Dodds-Parker, Douglas Haselhurst, Alan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hastings, Stephen
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Drayson, G. B. Havers, Michael
Benyon, w. du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hawkins, Paul
Berry, Hn. Anthony Dykes, Hugh Hayhoe, Barney
Biggs-Davison, John Eden, Sir John Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Blaker, Peter Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Heseltine, Michael
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hicks, Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Higgins, Terence L.
Boscawen, Robert Emery, Peter Hiley, Joseph
Bossom, Sir Clive Eyre, Reginald Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Bowden, Andrew Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Braine, Sir Bernard Fidler, Michael Holland, Philip
Bray, Ronald Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Holt, Miss Mary
Brinton, Sir Tatton Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Hordern, Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hornby, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fortescue, Tim Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Foster, Sir John Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Bryan, Sir Paul Fowler, Norman
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Fry, Peter Howell, David (Guildford)
Buck, Antony Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Burden, F. A. Gardner, Edward Hunt, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gibson-Watt, David Iremonger, T. L.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) James, David
Carlisle, Mark Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Glyn, Dr. Alan Jessel, Toby
Cary, Sir Robert Goodhart, Philip Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Chapman, Sydney Goodhew, Victor Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Gorst, John Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Chichester-Clarke, R. Gower, Raymond Jopling, Michael
Churchill, W. S. Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Clegg, Walter Gray, Hamish Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Cockeram, Eric Green, Alan Kershaw, Anthony
Cooke, Robert Grieve, Percy Kimball, Marcus
King Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Soref, Harold
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Neave, Airey Speed, Keith
Kinsey, J. R. Nicholls, Sir Harmar Spence, John
Kirk, Peter Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sproat, Iain
Kitson, Timothy Normanton, Tom Stainton, Keith
Knight, Mrs. Jill Nott, John Stanbrook, Ivor
Knox, David Onslow, Cranley Steel, David
Lambton, Lord Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Lamont, Norman Osborn, John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M
Lane, David Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Stokes, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Page, John (Harrow, W.) Tapsell, Peter
Le Merchant, Spencer Pardoe, John Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Parkinson, Cecil Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Peel, John Tebbit, Norman
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Temple, John M.
Longden, Sir Gilbert Pike, Miss Mervyn Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Loveridge, John Pink, R. Bonner Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Luce, R. N. Pounder, Rafton Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
MacArthur, Ian Price, David (Eastleigh) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
McCrindle, R. A. Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
McLaren, Martin Proudfoot, Wilfred Tilney, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham) Quennell, Miss J. M. Trew, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael Raison, Timothy Tugendhat, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maddan, Martin Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Madel, David Redmond, Robert Vickers, Dame Joan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Waddington, David
Mather, Carol Rees, Peter (Dover) Walker. Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Wall, Patrick
Mawby, Ray Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Walters, Dennis
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ridsdale, Julian Ward, Dame Irene
Meyer, Sir Anthony Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Warren, Kenneth
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Weatherill, Bernard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Miscampbell, Norman Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wiggin, Jerry
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Rost, Peter Wilkinson, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Royle, Anthony Winterton, Nicholas
Money, Ernle St. John-Stevas, Norman Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Monro, Hector Scott, Nicholas Woodnutt, Mark
Montgomery, Fergus Sharples, Richard Worsley, Marcus
More, Jasper Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Shelton, William (Clapham) Younger, Hn. George
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Simeons, Charles
Morrison, Charles Sinclair, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mudd, David Skeet, T. H. H. Mr. Marcus Fox and
Murton, Oscar Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Shore

Those of us who glanced at the provisional selection of Amendments will be aware that an unusually large number of debates—no fewer than 18—await us. This is an extraordinarily large number. Having regard to the time—it is already 5.15—to the fact that we have to complete consideration of all these matters by 11 p.m., the fact that we have at least managed to give some

attention, both on the previous evening and in the first part of this afternoon, to Amendments relating to Clause 3, under great protest I shall not move the remaining Amendments to Clause 3 which stand in my name.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 266.

Division No. 228.] AYES [5.16 p.m.
Adley, Robert Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Benyon, W. Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Berry, Hn. Anthony Bryan, Sir Paul
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Biggs-Davison, John Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Astor, John Blaker, Peter Buck, Antony
Atkins, Humphrey Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Burden, F. A.
Awdry, Daniel Boscawen, Robert Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bossom, Sir Clive Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Bowden, Andrew Carlisle, Mark
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Braine, Sir Bernard Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Batsford, Brian Bray, Ronald Chapman, Sydney
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brinton, Sir Tatton Cary, Sir Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Pounder, Rafton
Chichester-Clark, R. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Churchill, W. S. Howell, David (Guildford) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Clegg, Walter Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Cockeram, Eric Hunt, John Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Cooke, Robert Iremonger, T. L. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Coombs, Derek James, David Raison, Timothy
Cooper, A. E. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cordle, John Jessel, Toby Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Redmond, Robert
Cormack, Patrick Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Costain, A. P. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Rees, Peter (Dover)
Crouch, David Jopling, Michael Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dalkeith, Earl of Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Ridsdale, Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kershaw, Anthony Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Kimball, Marcus Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Dean, Paul King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kinsey, J. R. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Kirk, Peter Rost, Peter
Drayson, G. B. Kitson, Timothy Royle, Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Knight, Mrs. Jill St. John-Stevas, Norman
Dykes, Hugh Knox, David Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Eden, Sir John Lambton, Lord Scott, Nicholas
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lamont, Norman Sharples, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lane, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Langford-Holt, Sir John Shelton, William (Clapham)
Emery, Peter Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Simeons, Charles
Eyre, Reginald Le Marchant, Spencer Sinclair, Sir George
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Skeet, T. H. H.
Fidler, Michael Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Longden, Sir Gilbert Soref, Harold
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Loveridge, John Speed, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles MacArthur, Ian Spence, John
Fortescue, Tim McCrindle, R. A. Sproat, Iain
Foster, Sir John McLaren, Martin Stainton, Keith
Fowler, Norman Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stanbrook, Ivor
Fry, Peter Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham) Steel, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McNair-Wilson, Michael Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Gardner, Edward McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin Stokes, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Madel, David Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Tapsell, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan Mather, Carol Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Goodhart, Philip Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Goodhew, Victor Mawby, Ray Tebbit, Norman
Gorst, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Temple, John M.
Gower, Raymond Meyer, Sir Anthony Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gray, Hamish Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Green, Alan Miscampbell, Norman Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Grieve, Percy Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tilney, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Money, Ernle Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Grylls, Michael Monks, Mrs. Connie Trew, Peter
Gummer, J. Selwyn Monro, Hector Tugendhat, Christopher
Gurden, Harold Montgomery, Fergus Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) More, Jasper Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Hall, John (Wycombe) Vickers, Dame Joan
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Waddington, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morrison, Charles Wall, Patrick
Hannam, John (Exeter) Mudd, David Walters, Dennis
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Murton, Oscar Ward, Dame Irene
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Warren, Kenneth
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Neave, Airey Weatherill, Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hastings, Stephen Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael White, Roger (Gravesend)
Havers, Michael Normanton, Tom Wiggin, Jerry
Hawkins, Paul Nott, John Wilkinson, John
Hayhoe, Barney Onslow, Cranley Winterton, Nicholas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Heseltine, Michael Osborn, John Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Hicks, Robert Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Woodnutt, Mark
Higgins, Terence L. Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Worsley, Marcus
Hiley, Joseph Page, John (Harrow, W.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pardoe, John Younger, Hn. George
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Parkinson, Cecil
Holland, Philip Peel, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Holt, Miss Mary Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Mr. Marcus Fox and
Hordern, Peter Pike, Miss Mervyn Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
Hornby, Richard Pink, R. Bonner
Abse, Leo Freeson, Reginald Mayhew, Christopher
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gilbert, Dr. John Meacher, Michael
Allen, Scholefield Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Armstrong, Ernest Golding, John Mendelson, John
Ashley, Jack Gordon Walker. Rt. Hn. P. C Mikardo, Ian
Ashton, Joe Gourlay, Harry Millan, Bruce
Atkinson, Norman Grant, George (Morpeth) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Bagier, Gordon A. I. Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Milne, Edward
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Moate, Roger
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Molloy, William
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hamling, William Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bidwell, Sydney Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Biffen, John Hardy, Peter Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bishop, E. S. Harper, Joseph Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Moyle, Roland
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Murray, Ronald King
Body, Richard Hattersley, Roy Oakes, Gordon
Booth, Albert Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Ogden, Eric
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Heffer, Eric S. O'Halloran. Michael
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Hilton, W. S. O'Malley, Brian
Bradley, Tom Horam, John Oram, Bert
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orbach, Maurice
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Huckfield, Leslie Orme, Stanley
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oswald, Thomas
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Mark (Durham) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Padley, Walter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Paisley, Rev. Ian
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hunter, Adam Palmer, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Janner, Greville Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Cant, R. B. Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Carmichael, Neil Jeger, Mrs. Lena Pavitt, Laurie
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pentland, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley) John, Brynmor Perry, Ernest G.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Prescott, John
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Price, William (Rugby)
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Probert, Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Judd, Frank Rankin, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kaufman, Gerald Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Kerr, Russell Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Kinnock, Neil Richard, Ivor
Dalyell, Tam Lambie, David Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davidson, Arthur Lamborn, Harry Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lamond, James Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Latham, Arthur Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Leadbitter, Ted Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Roper, John
Deakins, Eric Leonard, Dick Rose, Paul B.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lestor, Miss Joan Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Rowlands, Ted
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Dormand, J. D. Lipton, Marcus Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'stle-u-Tyne)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lomas, Kenneth Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Loughlin, Charles Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Driberg, Tom Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Sillars, James
Duffy, A. E. P. Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Silverman, Julius
Skinner, Dennis
Dunn, James A. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Small, William
Eadie, Alex McBride, Neil Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Edelman, Maurice McCartney, Hugh Spearing, Nigel
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McElhone, Frank Spriggs, Leslie
Ellis, Tom McGuire, Michael Stallard, A. W.
English, Michael Mackenzie, Gregor Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Evans, Fred Mackie, John Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Ewing, Henry Mackintosh, John P. Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Farr, John Maclennan, Robert Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Faulds, Andrew McMaster, Stanley Strang, Gavin
Fell, Anthony McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood) McNamara, J. Kevin Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Maginnis, John E. Swain, Thomas
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Taverne, Dick
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Foley, Maurice Marks, Kenneth Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Foot, Michael Marsden, F. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Ford, Ben Marshall, Dr. Edmund Tinn, James
Forrester, John Marten, Neil Tomney, Frank
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Tuck, Raphael
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin Weitzman, David Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Urwin, T. W. Wellbeloved, James Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Varley, Eric G. White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Wainwright, Edwin Whitehead, Phillip Woof, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Whitlock, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wallace, George Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Watkins, David Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) Mr. Tom Pendry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to