HC Deb 23 November 1972 vol 846 cc1644-61

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. Merlyn Rees

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. There was some confusion about the last vote and we seek your advice. If you recall, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) asked leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 9. He gave his reasons. That Amendment would have had considerable support, on this side of the Committee at least—certainly the argument underlying it received much support. At that point, however, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) attempted to move Amendment No. 16. In the confusion which followed, and because it seemed that Amendment No. 16 could not be moved, the vote on No. 9 took place, although not for reasons connected with the merits. This led to more confusion.

Could it be explained to the Committee why it was that Amendment No. 16, sponsored by hon. Members who have not been concerned with the arrangements of the Amendments, should not have been allowed a Division? This would not have led to the confusion on Amendment No. 9.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It is open to any hon. Member to oppose the withdrawal of an amendment. That is what happened in this case.

Mr. Wellbeloved

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I think that it is clearly within the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) withdrew his Amendment without dissent. It was at a later stage—after my hon. Friend had withdrawn the Amendment and no objection had been taken—that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised the question of his Amendment No. 16. It was at that point that any confusion, if indeed there by confusion, arose. There is no question in the recollection of the majority of hon. Members in respect of the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I never had any intention of saying that the hon Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) did not wish to withdraw his Amendment. What I said was that afterwards other hon. Members rose and prevented that from happening.

Mr. McNamara

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Will you cast your mind back to the second part of the point of order put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), when he asked about the situation of an Amendment put down by hon. Members who had no part in the arrangement of the business of the Committee—to wit, Amendment No. 16, standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)? It was the opinion and hope of many of us that there would be an opportunity to divide on that Amendment. I understand that you said that it had not been selected for a Division, but at the start of the debate no indication was given as to which Amendments had or had not been selected for Division. In an earlier debate, when we divided on an Amendment which had been taken with another Amendment, when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South said that we were having one for the price of two, or two for the price of three, we had no indication then of what the Chair was doing. We reasonably thought that we should be able to divide, if we wanted to, on Amendment No. 16.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I understand the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself and it will probably meet the case if I were to say that I shall select Amendment No. 16 for Division in due course.

Mr. Rose

Further to that point of order. Mr. Mallalieu. If Amendment No. 16 is to be selected the position remains that I sought to withdraw Amendment No. 9, but a vote then took place ostensibly on that Amendment when we were voting on the principle of Amendment No. 16. To vote on Amendment No. 9 was the only way in which we could vote on Amendment No. 16. If we can now vote on Amendment No. 16 that is all very well, but in the Division only 25 Members voted because they thought they were voting on the principle of Amendment No. 16. Therefore, because of the decision the amendment which I sought to withdraw was voted upon but it was not voted upon by a large number of people. [Interruption.] It is a farce and it shows perhaps what a farce the Bill is.

Mr. English

Further to the point of order. May I make clear that the confusion is even worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) thinks. A large number of Members who came in from outside the House for the Division were voting, as everyone has to vote, on the text of the Amendment. The supporters voted for it because they believed in my hon. Friend's amendment. There is therefore utter confusion. I can only suggest—and it is feasible within our rules of procedure—that the last Division should be declared void, and that we should have the whole thing ab initio.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I cannot permit taking the Division again. It is not for me to say what hon. Members voted on, but I am prepared to permit a Vote on Amendment No. 16, in due course if that is desired.

Mr. Wellbeloved

Further to the point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. We are in a serious difficulty because many of us were quite clearly under the impression that Amendment No. 9 had been withdrawn. If it had been clear to the House that Amendment No. 9 was being voted upon many hon. Members would have supported it. Now we are in a ridiculous position because of the advice tendered to you. Amendment No. 9 was withdrawn and we voted on it unknowingly. That vote must stand and we can now return to what was said before for a vote on Amendment No. 16. It would be better if you could reconsider and allow Amendment No. 9 to be taken again so that those who wish to vote for it can do so. In the absence of that I can see this argument going on for some time and that would be a most unfortunate waste of time.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have already ruled that I am unable to take again a Division which has already been held. If the Committee wishes to vote on Amendment No. 16 it can do so.

Mr. English

Further to the point of order. Mr. Mallalieu. If you cannot hold the Division again, although I am in some doubt as to the position, I know that provided the matter is raised immediately after the Division, if hon. Members declare that for various reasons they voted under certain misapprehensions, within our rules of procedure there are provisions for the voting record to be adjusted. May I suggest that if you cannot take the Division again, in this state of utter and absolute confusion that you ask hon. Members whether they wish to adjust their vote accordingly.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If hon. Members were under a misapprehension, I am sorry, but there was no misapprehension here. The amendment was not withdrawn, a vote was taken and I can do nothing about that now.

Mr. Wellbeloved

On a point of order. It is quite unacceptable for it to be recorded that the amendment was not withdrawn. It is clearly within the recollection of all who were in the Chamber that my hon. Friend did withdraw it and, because of the advice tendered by those sitting beside you there was a mess-up. If you cannot put the matter right, Mr. Mallalieu, should not the Committee be adjourned, and Mr. Speaker called back to the Chair in the hope that he can sort out the unholy mess we have been allowed to get into because of incompetence?

The Second Deputy Chairman

There is no misapprehension whatever on the part of the Chair. If the hon. Member wishes to make a charge of incompetence against the Chair, he may do so—there are proper procedures for that—but he should not go on asserting that the amendment was withdrawn when it has been ruled that it was not withdrawn.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

On a point of order. Would it not be right for those in opposition who are unable to resolve their difficulties to be given an opportunity to do so? After all, it is quite understandable that they have their difficulties and the sooner they can sort themselves out the better. Why not adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes so that they can decide where they stand and then we shall know where we are.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It would be very much better if the Committee proceeded to discuss Amendment No. 12 and carried on with the business.

Miss Devlin

Further to that point of order. Perhaps it would assist the Committee, and the farce of the procedures of this Committee could be resolved, if two Divisions could be taken on the one set of amendments. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and I, who in protest forced the Division on the group of amendments as a whole, having first been refused permission to divide on Amendment No. 16—you, Mr. Mallalieu, have now changed his mind—are happy that we have made our point and, if the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) can reconsider his position, we are willing either to accept a decision to divide the Committee now if it is desired or to let the matter drop.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I understand what the hon. Member is saying, but I am afraid that I cannot allow the decision on the Division to be undone.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'elections' to the end of line 9.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 9, at end insert: 'Provided that no such provision shall modify or exclude any enactment or statutory provision specifying the qualifications governing entitlement to vote'.

Mr. Archer

We have reached the debate for which the Minister of State gave such a kind "commercial" a few moments ago. The amendments relate to Clause 1(2). On the Second Reading I asked the Secretary of State whether he knew of any precedent for giving to a Minister in a Statute such wide powers as those in this subsection. Non-committally, but fairly, he replied that he would see that someone was carefully briefed to answer the point in the course of our debates. I misheard him, and thought that he was undertaking to give a reply during the Second Reading, so I settled down to await an answer, hoping that my own store of knowledge would be augmented in the process. No answer came. When the Minister of State replied to the Second Reading debate, I reminded him of the promise, and asked again for an answer. Again, alas, no answer was forthcoming.

The Department has now had time to do its homework, and a few moments ago the Minister of State, fairly and with commendable honesty, gave us the answer, namely, that no precedent exists. These powers, as I suspected, are unprecedented. This clause is reminiscent of a series of clauses which were fashionable a few years ago and which came to be known as "Henry VIII Clauses"—recalling the Statute of Proclamations passed by that authoritarian monarch which authorised him by proclamation to alter the law. It was perhaps rather less than fair to Henry VIII, since the Statute of Proclamations made it clear that no proclamation should alter common law, nor should it affect an existing statute, nor estates offices, goods, or lives nor yet any lawful and laudable customs of this realm". By comparison with the draftsman of this subsection, Henry VIII was a pedantic constitutionalist. I looked at the list of Henry VIII Clauses contained in what used to be the bible of the laissez faire lobby, Lord Hewart's "New Despotism". There are 66 pages of them.

I looked, too, through the list of Henry VIII Clauses contained in the Report of the Donoughmore's Committee on Ministers powers. By comparison with this subsection they are a milk and water lot not one was as all-embracing in its scope, not one so absolute in its terms, not one so subservient to the executive, as this provision.

There was a time when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were wary of the increasing power of the executive and mindful of the dangers of delegated legislation. Perhaps it is understandable that their enthusiasm has waned while they are in Government, but as the Minister of State said, this is a narrow Bill and far reaching regulations are wholly inappropriate.

I have no doubt that we shall be reminded that these powers are subject to annulment by resolution of either House. Perhaps I should warn the Government benches that we in Opposition are unconvinced by this argument. I say this for three reasons. The first is that we do not accept that that would offer adequate parliamentary control, and I propose to enlarge, if required, in subsequent debates, on the seductive fallacies entailed in that apparent concession.

Secondly, even if there were adequate parliamentary control, we believe that matters as wide and as vital as this which require attention should be dignified by inclusion in a statute. If there are matters in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman which ought to be dealt with, there seems to be no reason why they should not be included at this stage, so that the House may vote on them.

Thirdly, I ask for pity for the lawyers. It is highly desirable that we should be able to go to a statute and find our law written in it. We should not be driven to a series of statutory instruments, hoping that we have not overlooked one, and then proceed to see what they all say individually about the subject.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 refer to specific powers which are not suitable for ministerial legislation. Amendment No. 12 relates to a power to alter the criminal law, actually to create criminal offences. I accept that some criminal offences rest on statutory instruments, but they are usually strictly limited and carefully defined.

There is no limit here to the practices which the Secretary of State may penalise, nor to the penalty that he may impose. He may decide to make canvassing a criminal offence. We believe that the Committee has a responsibility to retain careful control of the criminal law, and especially to ensure that rights practised in democratic election processes are not prohibited by the criminal law. These, admittedly, are one instance of a few words in one Bill. But I find it shocking that they were ever included and, having been included, that they did not evoke an immediate storm of protest.

Amendment No. 14 seems to be wide enough to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the law relating to the franchise—actually to decide who shall be included in the election register. If that interpretation is correct, I cannot believe that that was the intention. But it is a matter of great concern to the people of Northern Ireland, as I have no doubt the Committee has not failed to notice. Certainly they would not be content to allow that kind of power to depend upon a statutory instrument procedure, even if there were an effective control.

Having said that, I hope that neither the Secretary of State nor his colleagues will take it personally. We do not suggest that any of them would deliberately do anything improper. If the matter rested on confidence, I say at once that we would repose a greater proportion of confidence in them as a team than in certain of their ministerial colleagues in other Departments, and certain other figures concerned with Irish politics.

That is not the issue. Two reasons prompt us to move the Amendment. The first is that we believe that, while as students some of us smiled at the hysteria of comments then fashionable about delegated legislation, suggesting that all our liberties might be endangered by a single statutory instrument, we wonder whether the process has not gone too far. Surely Parliament should keep some control, retain some principles for inclusion in statutes, and impose some conditions at which the courts can look and by which they can exercise some control over the Executive. It may be that recently the legislative function of this House has diminished relative to the importance of other functions. But even now the House should not wholly renounce the legislative function.

Secondly, the people of Northern Ireland look to this Parliament to safeguard their interests, and specific groups look to specific hon. Members. We cannot evade that responsibility by transferring it in total to other shoulders.

[Mrs. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee

It might be for the general convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage though, of course, not in any way to prevent further discussion. The Committee will have appreciated from what I said during our last debate that I wanted to have an opportunity to express some views on these two amendments.

Let me deal with them in reverse order, taking Amendment No. 14 first. Obviously it was not the intention, but I am advised that the inclusion of these words would be more restrictive than those who drafted the amendment intended. In Clause 1(1)(a) there is defined those entitled to vote on the poll. Subsequent words cannot detract from that. In the event of any proceedings arising out of the words that the amendment seeks to insert, a court would be bound to question the object of those words and it might be argued that they referred to such matters as the power to modify or exclude, and that might refer to the absent voting facilities.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State desires to have power by regulation to extend, if he thinks fit, the absent voting facilities for reasons which have been adduced already. I think this is common ground between both sides of the Committee. We should like the Secretary of State for the time being to have these powers in respect of the poll for all the reasons pressed upon me by both sides.

If the advice I have received is correct, may I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider not pressing those words upon me, simply because of the unforeseen results of so doing, the definition of those entitled to go to the poll already being set out?

Mr. Archer

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment, but one matter is troubling me. If the Secretary of State is given power to modify any statutory provision, would not that normally include any provision in this Bill?

Mr. van Straubenzee

Yes, I think it would.

Mr. Archer

That is inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I think not. I am saying this is not a position of absolute certainty, because it is not easy to see what decision a court might come to. But, there already being in the appropriate subsection a clear definition of those who are entitled to go to the poll, these words clearly cannot refer to that.

Mr. Archer

Why not?

Mr. van Straubenzee

Because surely the court would hold that Parliament, having made its intentions clear by virtue of Clause 1(1)(a), would not then give power in the same Act to take away or alter the group of those who are entitled to vote. At any rate, there might be a very real point of doubt. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I am perhaps rather closer than we thought at first. If what I have stated is a correct view, the court might well cast around for what other reasons there were for Parliament's inserting those words. I only state it as a danger that we see, that it might then look at some of the other powers vested in the Secretary of State.

The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to refer to the Government team. I have no sinister motive. I am anxious only to give my right hon. Friend the widest powers, which I think is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. McNamara

I have referred in particular to the constitutional implications of the Bill. I appreciate the Minister's point. Could he help the Committee by saying that he will reconsider the immediate advice he received on the importance of the words—we appreciate that he has had only 24 hours to consider that advice—and that he will deal with the matter in another place, to meet our mutual wish on the subject?

Mr. van Straubenzee

I willingly give that undertaking. My noble Friend, the Minister of State, will deal with it in another place. I shall draw it to his attention. It is common ground between both sides of the Committee that we do not want to be restrictive in this constitutional matter.

It may be of assistance if I move to Amendment No. 12. I was previously inhibited by our rules of procedure, but I must not be taken as accepting all the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures. In particular, I hope that he will find on reading my words that they related to the Bill rather than to the limited words we are now discussing in Amendment No. 12. There are some analogous provisions in parts of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. My right hon. Friend made very clear on Second Reading that he wished to listen closely to the arguments. There are undoubted anxieties, which were raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and other hon. Members. They feel that the concluding words of subsection (2) are too widely drawn and that they might be misused. Certainly my right hon. Friend has no wish to give cause for anxiety in that respect. Therefore, I am happy to accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will feel that it will be an improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Archer

We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Amendment No. 12. We accept that what is being said in Committee is being heard and making an impact.

It was the intention of my hon. Friends and myself, if necessary, to ask at the Amendment No. 14. However, I do not appropriate stage for a division on advise my hon. Friends to take that course for three reasons. First, I accept that there is a doubt about the possible construction of the words, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Secondly, I am impressed by the undertaking that he gave in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Thirdly, we accept that, whatever may be the width of the powers, it is not the Secretary of State's intention to use them in that way.

In those circumstances, we shall not be making that request.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Archer

I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, leave out lines 12 to 15 and add 'shall not take effect until a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'. I have a feeling that I have been here before. This is the third time during the course of this Parliament that I have moved amendments on behalf of the Opposition seeking to subject ministerial rule-making power to parliamentary control by affirmative resolution. I have always done so with a feeling of some confidence, because traditionally right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been mindful of the dangers of delegated legislation when it is not properly controlled by the House. On previous occasions I have enlarged on the deficiencies of the negative procedure, and I do not propose to take up a great deal of time doing so now.

What concerns us about the procedure proposed in the Bill is that, as we understand it, if an hon. Member wishes to annul rules he must set down a prayer to annul for a particular day. Whether that prayer is debated depends on two factors: first, whether the business of the House is terminated by 11.30; and, secondly, whether the Government choose to set it down, according to the rather curious process which the right hon. Gentleman wearing his former hat will understand much better than I do, above the line.

Certainly 10 years ago if a prayer of that kind were set down there would be a reasonable prospect that time would be found to debate it. Then if the House were persuaded in the debate that the rules should be annulled, time would be found for a Division. Now an hon. Member is fortunate indeed if time is found even to debate, let alone to divide on, a prayer of that nature. We had an example, not so long ago, of time being found to debate a prayer on condition that no Division was called upon the debate.

This matter was dealt with in the Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, 1970–71, in paragraph 14 where it said: Your Committee do not consider that the present practice of the House regarding instruments subject to negative procedure and general instruments is satisfactory. Until fairly recent Sessions, it was the practice of the House that time was found for a debate in the House on all motions praying that statutory instruments be annulled; if for any reason time could not be found within the forty days' praying time, it was the convention that time would be found for a motion in similar terms to be debated (these motions are called ' out-of-time ' prayers). In recent sessions the practice of the House has changed. It is now not uncommon for prayers to remain undebated either 'in time' or 'out of time'. The people of Northern Ireland look to this House to safeguard their interests. As I said a few moments ago, there is a special relationship, because particular groups in Northern Ireland look to certain hon. Members here. Some hon. Members do not have access to the consultations behind the Speaker's Chair, which sometimes ease the relations between the major parties; they do not have access to the usual channels. Therefore, there is a real need to ensure that backbench Members can obtain a debate when the Secretary of State introduces a principle which has not previously been debated. For that reason, the negative procedure is not enough.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell)

It may help the Committee if I indicate at this stage the Government's thinking on the amendment and the objective behind it as outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). The Government are in sympathy with the aims of the amendment, although we believe that as drafted it has a defect in that it would deprive my right hon. Friend of all power to revoke or vary an order, which he would have to do by a further order once it has been made. The Government are willing to accept the affirmative resolution procedure in place of the negative resolution procedure in the circumstances of the Bill, but we believe it essential to retain the power to vary or revoke as a precaution. The deletion of this additional power would be unacceptable to Government.

In those circumstances, the Government have prepared a manuscript amendment to substitute the affirmative Resolution procedure—in page 2, line 11, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 15 and insert: but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a further order made by him. In these circumstances I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Lena Jeger)

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I state that I have been authorised to accept the manuscript amendment.

Mr. McNamara

Will any order made under the new subsection (4) also be under the affirmative procedure?

Mr. David Howell

Yes. All orders will be under the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Archer

We are grateful to the Minister of State and fully accept the point he makes about the draftsmanship. You, Mrs. Jeger, having indicated that the Chair is prepared to accept the manuscript amendment which meets the case advanced by my hon. Friends and myself, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Manuscript Amendment made: In page 2, line 11, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 15 and insert: but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a further order made by him."— [Mr. David Howell.]

10.45 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman

Is it the wish of hon. Members to press for a Division on Amendment No. 16?

Mr. Fitt

I should clarify the position. It is not my intention to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 16, but perhaps we can revert to what happened on an earlier occasion.

I had intended to divide the Committee on Amendment No. 16 because of the matters which have already been referred to—the Flags and Emblems Act, the Public Order Act, and the Special Powers Act. As yet, I have not received an adequate answer to the questions which I posed. It may be that some of my hon. Friends feel that at this time, in these circumstances, the Committee should not be divided because of the complications of the Public Order Act. But as yet I am not entirely convinced that I am doing the right thing in the interests of my constituents, many of whom are deeply concerned, particularly about the application of the Flags and Emblems Act.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is re-opening the whole question. He said when he rose to his feet that he was going to explain his position about a Division.

Mr. Fitt

Then, knowing the concern of my constituents about this matter, I ask for a Division on Amendment No. 16.

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 2, line 15, at end add: '(4) For the duration of the campaign and poll the Public Order Act, the Flags and Emblems Act and the Special Powers Act will be suspended '.—[Mr. Fitt.]

Question put. That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 69.

Division No. 23.] AYES [10.48 p.m.
Atkinson, Norman McNamara, J. Kevin Stallard, A. W.
Deakins, Eric Marsden, F.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Horam, John O'Halloran, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald Rose, Paul B. Mr. Gerrard Fitt and
Latham, Arthur Skinner, Dennis Miss Bernadette Devlin.
Atkins, Humphrey McMaster, Stanley Shelton, William (Clapham)
Benyon, W. McNair-Wilson, Michael Soref, Harold
Biffen, John Mather, Carol Speed, Keith
Biggs-Davison, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Spence, John
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stanbrook, Ivor
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Carlisle, Mark Moate, Roger Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Chapman, Sydney Molyneaux, James Tebbit, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Money, Ernie Tugendhat, Christopher
Clegg. Walter Monks, Mrs. Connie van Straubenzee, W. R.
Eyre, Reginald Mudd, David Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Neave, Airey Ward, Dame Irene
Fortescue, Tim Normanton, Tom Warren, Kenneth
Fowler, Norman Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Weatherill, Bernard
Fox, Marcus Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Goodhew, Victor Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Green, Alan Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hawkins, Paul Pounder, Rafton Wilkinson, John
Howell, David (Guildford) Price, David (Eastleigh) Winterton, Nicholas
Jopling, Michael Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Kilfedder, James Raison, Timothy
Kinsey, J. R. Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kirk, Peter Rossi. Hugh (Hornsey) Mr. John Stradling Thomas and
Knox, David Russell, Sir Ronald Mr. Oscar Murton.
Lane, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Question accordingly negatived.

[Mrs. LENA JEGER in the Chair]

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Lena Jeger)

The Question is, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Foley

On a point of order, Mrs. Jeger. I wanted to speak on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman

The Question has already been put. The hon. Gentleman was not perhaps quick enough on his feet.

Mr. McNamara

Further to that point of order, Mrs. Jeger. With great respect, you had not properly read the Question when my hon. Friend was on his feet. He was trying to attract your attention.

The Temporary Chairman

What I saw of the hon. Gentleman's movements must be a matter for me.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to