HC Deb 11 April 1973 vol 854 cc1332-44
Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), I wish to remind the House that under Standing Order No. 13 there can be only one speech opposing the hon. Member's application for leave to bring in his Bill. Several hon. Members have intimated to me their desire to oppose the Bill, but I repeat that under the Standing Order I can select only one.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the supreme nature of the subject we are about to discuss and in the light of your announcement that there can be only two speeches on the Bill, is it possible for you to use your discretion so that until we have a proper debate on the subject we seek to avoid a vote being taken, following only two speeches, which will not enable a full discussion to take place?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the answer is "No".

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for capital punishment to be the penalty for murder involving the use of firearms or explosives and for the murder of a police or prison officer. It is now about eight years since Parliament passed a Bill abolishing capital punishment. As a new Member at that time I was conscious of the fact that those who promoted and supported the Bill did so with sincerity and conviction and believed that the decision they were taking was a step forward to a more civilised, more enlightened and more progressive society.

At that time the big debating issue was whether abolition would result in an increase in killings, in crimes of violence and in the use of firearms by criminals, but there was no hard, detailed evidence because for centuries we had retained the death penalty.

For this reason during that debate hon. Members quoted evidence from countries all over the world—South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, France, various States of the United States, and even Portugal, to prove whether capital punishment was or was not a deterrent. Some argued that the experience in foreign countries was not relevant here and others argued that it was. We could use this information only to support the opinions which we held as to the likely effect in Britain. But we have now had eight years' experience of abolition and we can look back to see what has happened in our own country.

I believe that whether we look at the figures sideways or from any other direction, indeed from whatever standpoint— whether we include murder alone or murder and manslaughter—we see an upsurge in the number of killings and in the whole range of crimes of violence in these eight years.

The Silverman Bill was introduced in 1964. In the previous year, which was by no means an unusual year, a total of 36 people were convicted of murder in England and Wales, according to Table 6 of the Home Office Report "Murder". In Scotland it was a relatively low year and only three persons were convicted of murder. By comparison, in 1971, the last year for which figures are available, as was shown in an. answer given to me by the Minister of State on 22nd January, 97 persons were convicted of murder in England and Wales and in Scotland the total was 40. There has been a substantial increase in the number of murder convictions.

I am told that the figures are not absolutely comparable because the Home Office publication was considering the number of convictions in relation to murders which occurred in that year. The 1971 figures relate to the number of convictions in that year. But I am told that there is not a great statistical difference between the two.

But murder statistics do not tell the whole story. Some of the people who before 1957 were convicted of murder would now be convicted of manslaughter. In 1963, according to the Home Office publication, 90 persons were convicted of manslaughter. In 1971 the number of convictions was 195—more than double. In this connection it is interesting to note that 1963, far from being a low year, was itself a near record at the time.

Crimes of violence have also escalated alarmingly. In 1963 there were about 20,000 crimes of violence made known to the police in England and Wales. In 1971 the total was 47,000—again more than double.

There can be no reasonable doubt that violence and killings have increased. But the real issue is not whether there has been an increase in violence but whether any connection can be established between that and the abolition of capital punishment. Are the two linked—or is it simply, as suggested in an article in the Daily Telegraph today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the fact that it was simply an "irony of fate" that abolition coincided with an increase in violent crime?

I believe that the connection is clear and that the real evidence can be obtained from the rather startling information given to me by the Minister of State on 12th March. In 1967 the Home Office began for the first time to collect separately the statistics of the number of crimes in which firearms were fired, used as a blunt instrument to cause injury or damage or used as a threat. In that year the total recorded was 792 such crimes. Provisional figures for 1972 just published show that the total is over 2,000. There has been a dramatic increase of 161 per cent. in five short years.

It is common knowledge that when we had the deterrent of the death penalty criminals went to considerable lengths to avoid carrying or using firearms. Now the situation has changed dramatically, and I believe that the supporters of abolition must ask themselves frankly why, despite the considerable penalties of the Firearms Act, there has been such a dramatic escalation in the use of guns by criminals in this relatively short time. In the light of these changes in the pattern of crime, I believe that it is our duty to consider urgently whether capital punishment should be reintroduced.

The main purpose of this Bill is to establish whether there has been a significant change in Commons opinion since the abolition Bill was passed by 180 votes in 1964 and confirmed by a majority of 158 in 1969. It would also pave the way for what I believe we should have—a full-scale discussion on this issue. I know that some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), while not being convinced about the Bill, feel that it is right that we should have a full discussion of the issue after eight years of abolition.

I want now to say a brief word about the Bill which I seek leave to introduce. If one agrees that there is a case for the reintroduction of capital punishment, an immediate issue to be faced is whether it should be the penalty for all murders, subject to the discretion of judges and the Home Secretary, or whether categories of murder should be specified. I propose that we should specify categories, because it is wrong for Parliament to put the full responsibility on judges to decide which murders warrant the death penalty without the guidance of this House. Apart from this, although I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, there are few of my supporters who would suggest that it is a deterrent to all murders.

I have selected as categories murders involving the use of firearms or explosives and also murders of police and prison officers. I appreciate that a number of brutal murders will be excluded. However, all the four categories fall within the ambit of terrible murders, and they have the additional advantage of being clear and unambiguous. I am seeking to bring in a Bill which would strike fear into the hearts of criminals in possession of guns, of terrorists who contemplate murder by explosives, and of criminals and prisoners who encounter those whom we have charged with the special and dangerous responsibility of upholding the law and of holding prisoners in custody, I have arrived at this formula after discussions with my colleagues and others outside. But I accept that there may be a more effective and just way of deciding on these categories.

If my application is approved, we can at least have an opportunity for the collective wisdom of the House to consider this in all its aspects. I know that my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), would prefer the simple definition of … murder in pursuit of another crime. I respect their knowledge and experience and hope that the respective merits of the two suggestions can be debated.

One other point is that the Bill does not specify the reintroduction of hanging. It is concerned with the reintroduction of capital punishment. I know that there are some who regard the technique of hanging as objectionable and would wish to consider alternatives. My co-sponsors and I have open minds on the issue and accept that it should be fully probed, as it was in the Report of the Royal Commission.

I accept that any judicial decision on killing is a desperately serious matter and that those who support it are taking a very grave responsibility on themselves. However, I believe that the evidence points clearly to the fact that the upsurge in violence and killing is related to the abolition of capital punishment and to the absence of a meaningful deterrent. My own view is that if capital punishment is reintroduced, lives will be saved and criminals will be deterred from carrying or using guns.

However, we are not making law today. I ask the House to agree that the events since the 1965 Bill justify consideration whether the death penalty should be reintroduced. I believe that the House will be failing in its supreme responsibility if it does not agree to this.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford)

I rise to oppose the motion.

None of us will underestimate the widespread public concern about violence and the private fear which this can arouse. Clearly we should be neglecting our duty if we sought to sweep it aside. But in my view we should also be neglecting our duty as a House of Commons if we were to respond to it by voting, in however loose and general terms, for a Bill which in my opinion would be ineffective, impractical, damaging and wrong.

Let us be clear that what is proposed is a return in a slightly more limited form to the Homicide Act 1957. That Act, by the time that it had run its eight years of life, and perhaps well before it, had come to be regarded by almost everyone concerned with its administration as an ineffective and illogical compromise raising far more problems than it solved.

Murder by shooting is by no means necessarily a more vicious crime than murder by poisoning or a knife. Nor is it a crime peculiarly associated with the sane, cold-blooded criminal. A higher proportion of those involved in murder by shooting commit suicide or are found insane than is the case with the general run of murders.

Murder by explosive is associated, though not invariably, with terrorism. This causes more concern now than it did eight years ago. But does anyone seriously believe that in cases of political terrorism capital punishment would be a helpful deterrent? To take this view seems to me to show a grave misunderstanding of the motivation of those who commit such crimes.

Let us consider for a moment the two main areas of current concern. The first is Northern Ireland—and its repercussions. Can anyone who begins to look at this in the context of history think that to have IRA terrorists executed in a London gaol would assist the cause of reconciliation in Northern Ireland?

The second area of concern is Black September and similar organisations. What in hard practical terms does the House consider would be the position of a Home Secretary with such terrorists here under sentence of death? Would he be able to consider in a calm, judicial atmosphere whether to exercise the prerogative? Is not there a horrible possibility that, on the contrary, he would find himself faced with the impossible choice of having either to give way under duress or to condemn a group of innocent hostages —perhaps a whole plane load full—to die as well? Not deterrence but an escalation of violence would be the likely outcome.

I come to the special category of police and prison officers. Concern for both the safety and the morale of this group of public servants must be very present in the mind of anyone who has or has had responsibility for public law and order. But we must not get the matter out of proportion. In England and Wales there have been 22 such murders since the war. Six took place in the 12 years with full capital punishment. Eight took place in the eight years of special protection under the Homicide Act. Eight took place, three of them in one appalling incident, in the seven years since abolition. I do not see here even the beginning of a significant statistical case. In Scotland there have been only two in the past 16 years and four since the war.

There are considerations which go deeper than the statistics. The whole effectiveness of the police in their fight against crime depends overwhelmingly on two factors: first, public support and understanding; and, second, the likelihood of their detecting and the courts then convicting those who are guilty.

If the murderers of policemen received a different and more severe punishment from murderers of those who are killed in a private attempt to resist criminals and to uphold the law, I do not believe that this would, in other than the very short term, assist the public position of the police.

Public sympathy can be a fickle emotion. Without capital punishment it is all on the side of the victim, where it should be. With capital punishment, strange though it may now seem, when one gets to the dreadful panoply of the execution of the sentence, with the suspense, the family circumstances, the last visits and the faint doubt which is sometimes there, all of these much publicised, it can easily flow the other way.

If the House doubts this, let it consider one phenomenon. When we had capital punishment it was the names of the men and the women who were hanged —Bentley, Ruth Ellis and Hanratty— which were most remembered. Their victims were forgotten. Without capital punishment it is the other way round— and this, in the strange psychosis of criminality, is not without significance.

I turn to the likelihood of conviction. In the Criminal Justice Bill 1967 I decided, as a matter of personal judgment, to propose to the House the introduction of majority verdicts. It was a heavy battle to get it through this House. Many hon. Members on both sides, but most on the then Opposition side, had grave doubts and there was a lot of opposition. Those doubts have mostly disappeared. I believe that the system has worked well. It has certainly not been without significance. For instance, in 1970 nearly 10 per cent. of those found guilty on indictment of criminal charges were found so on majority verdicts. I am informed that these included many of the worst and most professional criminals.

However, I must tell the House that with the finality of capital punishment I should not have thought it right to propose this change. I believe that if capital punishment were reintroduced this would have to be reconsidered and probably gone back on. And I do not believe that it would in practice be possible to accept one category of verdict for one category of offence and another for others. The present Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, with this point very much in mind, wrote an article in 1965 entitled, The High Cost of Hanging. I do not believe that he has changed his mind since.

It may surely be said that any question of doubt can be dealt with by the Home Secretary's prerogative. I do not think so. First, this is too great a burden to place upon any one man. It hung heavy over the whole atmosphere of the Home Office. Second, it did not work in practice.

I was in the position of receiving a judge's report which told me that in the case of one man, Evans, had all the subsequent evidence been before the court, he, the judge, did not believe that a jury could have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt. I thought it right then to take the unprecedented step of giving a posthumous pardon. I fear that it did

not do the man much good. He had been hanged 16 years before.

Nor is this the only case with a scintilla of doubt. I had another case—a shooting, a firearms case—where the same procedure did not seem appropriate. With the passage of time the likelihood of arriving at the truth had become less, not greater, but there was unease and the man had been hanged.

I believe that there have been at least two other murder cases where similar concern has arisen since I left the Home Office. The penalty is too final to be controlled by the frailty of human judgment. I therefore ask the House to reject this motion and I hope that it will reject it decisively.

There is no significant new statistical evidence to show that, following abolition, murder has increased more than other crimes. On the contrary, it has increased less. The evidence previously available, both here and abroad, has never supported the view that hanging was a uniquely effective and necessary deterrent. Surely that at least should be shown before we contemplate returning to this gruesome penalty. It has not been shown. Let us therefore not return to a running battle on this issue which in my view can only divert energy and attention from the real battle against crime.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 320.

Division No. 104.] AYES [4.17 p.m.
Adley, Robert Bullus, Sir Eric Farr, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Burden, F. A. Fell, Anthony
Atkins, Humphrey Cary, Sir Robert Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Awdry Daniel Churchill, W. S. Fidler, Michael
Baker W. H. K. (Banff) Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Clegg, Walter Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Batsford, Brian Cockeram, Eric Fookes, Miss Janet
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Cooke, Robert Fox, Marcus
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Coombs, Derek Fry, Peter
Berry, Hn. Anthony Cooper, A.E. Gibson-Watt, David
Biggs-Davison, John Cordle, John Gilmour, Sir John(Fife, E.)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Glyn, Dr. Alan
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Costain, A. P. Goodhart, Philip
Goodhew, Victor
Bowden, Andrew Crowder, F. P. Gorst, John
Braine, Sir Bernard d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack Gower, Raymond
Bray, Ronald Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Gray, Hamish
Brewis, John Digby, Simon Wingfield Grieve, Percy
Brinton, Sir Tatton Dixon, Piers Griffith's, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Doig, Peter Gurden, Harold
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Drayson, G. B. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Bryan, Sir Paul Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hannam, John (Exeter) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Soref, Harold
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Moiyneaux, James Spence, John
Hastings, Stephen Monks, Mrs. Connie Sproat, Iain
Hawkins, Paul Monro, Hector Stainton, Keith
Hicks, Robert Montgomery, Fergus Stanbrook, Ivor
Hiley, Joseph Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Holt, Miss Mary Mudd, David Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hordern, Peter Murton, Oscar Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Nabarro, Sir Geralo Stokes, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Neave, Airey Sutcliffe, John
Hunt, John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Iremonger, T. L. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Normanton, Tom Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Jessel, Toby Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Temple, John M.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Kershaw, Anthony Page, John (Harrow, W.) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Kimball, Marcus Percival, Ian Tugendhat, Christopher
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Pink, R. Bonner Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin
Kinsey, J. R. Quennell, Miss J M. Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Kitson, Timothy Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Waddington, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill Redmond, Robert Wall, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Ward, Dame Irene
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rees-Davies, W. R. Weatherill, Bernard
Longden, Sir Gilbert Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David White, Roger (Gravesend)
Loveridge, John Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Wiggin, Jerry
McAdden, Sir Stephen Ridsdale, Julian Wilkinson, John
MacArthur, Ian Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Wlnterton, Nicholas
McCrindle, R. A. Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Rost, Peter Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
McMaster, Stanley Russell, Sir Ronald Woodnutt, Mark
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Scott-Hopkins, James Wylie Rt. Hn. N. R.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Younger, Hn. George
Marten, Neil Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mather, Carol Shersby, Michael TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Simeons, Charles Mr. Patrick Cormack and
Mawby, Ray Sinclair, Sir George Mr. Norman Tebbit.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Skeet, T. H. H.
Abse, Leo Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Foot, Michael
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cohen, Stanley Ford, Ben
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Coleman, Donald Forrester, John
Allen, Scholefield Conlan, Bernard Fortescue, Tim
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Foster, Sir John
Armstrong, Ernest Crawshaw, Richard Fraser, John (Norwood)
Ashton, Joe Cronin, John Freeson, Reginald
Astor, John Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Galpern, Sir Myer
Atkinson, Norman Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Garrett, W. E.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Dalyell, Tam Gilbert, Dr. John
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Davidson, Arthur Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Barnes, Michael Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Golding, John
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Gourlay, Harry
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Grant, George (Morpeth)
Benyon, W. Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Bishop, E. S. Deakins, Eric Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Delargy, Hugh Grylls, Michael
Body, Richard Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Gummer, J. Selwyn
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Booth, Albert Dempsey, James Hamilton William (Fife, W.)
Bossom, Sir Clive Dormand, J. D. Hamling, William
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hardy, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Driberg, Tom Harper, Joseph
Buchan, Norman Duffy, A. E. P. Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Dunn, James A. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Buck, Antony Dykes, Hugh Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Eadie, Alex Haselhurst, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Edelman, Maurice Hattersley, Roy
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hayhoe, Barney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Carlisle. Mark Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Carmichael, Neil Ellis, Tom Heffer, Eric S.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert English, Michael Heseltine, Michael
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Ewing, Harry Higgins, Terence L.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Faulds, Andrew Hooson, Emlyn
Channon, Paul Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Horam, John
Chapman Sydney Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Hornby, Richard
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Madel, David Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Huckfield, Leslie Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Rowlands, Ted
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Marks, Kenneth Sandelson, Neville
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Marquand, David Scott, Nicholas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Marsden, F. Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Marshall, Dr. Edmund Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Hunter, Adam Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Mayhew, Christopher Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Meacher,Michael Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
James, David Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Janner, Greville Mendelson, John Sillars, James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mikardo, Ian Silverman, Julius
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Millan, Bruce Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Miller, Dr. M. S. Spearing, Nigel
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Speed, Keith
John, Brynmor Milne, Edward Spriggs, Leslie
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Miscampbell, Norman Stallard, A. W.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Steel, David
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Moate, Roger Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Molloy, William Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Strang, Gavin
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Morrison, Charles Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Moyle, Roland Summerskiil, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Jopling, Michael Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Tapsell, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Murray, Ronald King Taverne, Dick
Judd, Frank Oakes, Gordon Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Kaufman, Gerald Ogden, Eric Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Kelley, Richard O'Halloran, Michael Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Kerr, Russell Onslow, Cranley Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Oram, Bert Tinn, James
Kinnock, Neil Orbach, Maurice Tope, Graham
Knox, David Orme, Stanley Torney, Tom
Lambie, David Oswald, Thomas Trew, Peter
Lamborn, Harry Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Tuck, Raphael
Lamont, Norman Padley, Walter Urwin, T. W.
Lane, David Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Varley, Eric G.
Latham, Arthur Paget, R. T. Vickers, Dame Joan
Lawson, George Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Wainwright, Edwin
Leadbitter, Ted Pardoe, John Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Parker, John (Dagenham) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Leonard, DicK Parkinson, Cecil Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lestor, Miss Joan Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Pavitt, Laurie Wallace, George
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Walters, Dennis
Lipton, Marcus Pendry, Tom Warren, Kenneth
Watkins, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Perry, Ernest G. Weitzman, David
Lomas, Kennett Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Wellbeloved, James
Loughlin, Charles Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Luce, R. N Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Whitehead, Phillip
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Prescott, John Whitlock William
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Price, William (Rugby) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
McBride, Neil Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
McCartney, Hugh Probert, Arthur Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
McElhone, Frank Proudfoot, Wilfred Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
McGuire, Michael Raison, Timothy Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Machin, George Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mackenzie, Gregor Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mackie, John Richard, Ivor Woof, Robert
Mackintosh, John P. Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Worsley, Marcus
McLaren, Martin Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham) Robertson, John (Paisley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &R' dnor) Sir Geoffrey de Freitas and
McNair-Wilson, Michael Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Mr. Ernle Money
McNamara J. Kevin Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Maddan, Martin Roper, John

Question accordingly negatived.