§ 3.38 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taveme (Lincoln)
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be right if I were to read once again the motion that I seek to move. I beg to move.That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed in the room of Antony Claud Frederick Lambton, Esquire, who, since the election for the said county constituency, hath accepted the office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.
§ Mr. Taverne
At some time no doubt the hon. Member will wish to discuss whether he should go to Strasbourg, but that is not my concern today.
This is a serious matter which should concern all Members of Parliament 1261 because it concerns democracy and the representation of the people. It arises for a simple reason, namely, that we are concerned with procedure that is as archaic as it is absurd, that is spattered with anomalies, and that enables the interests of constituents to be sacrificed to the electoral interests of the parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought that this was a matter that concerned every Member of the House.—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Taverne
No doubt it will be noted outside the House how much concern has been shown in certain quarters for the interests of constituents.
I start with an anomaly that is fundamental to this motion. If the writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed is not moved before the recess, the by-election there cannot take place before November. That would mean that the seat would be left unrepresented for five months, and nothing could better illustrate the absurdity of the present practice.
If a Member dies, a writ can be moved during the recess. If a Member takes up an office of profit under the Crown during the recess, I understand again, that a writ can be moved during the recess. But if, as has happened in the present case, a Member applies for the Chiltern Hundreds while Parliament is sitting, the writ can be moved only while Parliament is sitting. The effective choice is therefore between a writ in July or in late October at the earliest, which would mean an election in November.
I want to make it clear to every hon. Member who is prepared to listen that what I am asking for is patently reasonable. I am not seeking to embarrass the Government by acting in a spirit of frivolity. If they are embarrassed, it will be because of their own actions. I understand that the Conservatives have not yet completed the procedure of selecting a candidate in Berwick-upon-Tweed. Very well—it is reasonable that they should have time to do so. I shall therefore be very willing to withdraw the motion if the Leader of the House clearly says that he will move the writ before the recess.
1262 What could be more reasonable? This will give time for the adoption procedure, it will not be forcing on the constituency an unduly early by-election, but it will not leave the constituency unrepresented for an unconsionable time. I therefore ask, as is right and proper in the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that there will be an early writ. If he does not give what is clearly a perfectly reasonable undertaking, where will the duty of Members of Parliament then lie?
§ Mr. Taverne
I would remind certain hon. Members that we are not now concerned with parlour games. A writ is not the property of a party. We are concerned with the question whether a writ shall be moved and constituents represented.
The background to this delay shows a disturbing position. Let us consider the other writs which were moved last Friday. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely died on 21st May. The Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed as a Minister on 22nd May. It was therefore clear that in both these constituencies at the same time there would be a by-election. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed actually resigned his seat on 1st June.
The hon. Member for Ripon died on 15th June, yet within three weeks of his death, the writs for two by-elections are moved—for Ripon and Ely—and not a writ for the by-election in Berwick-upon-Tweed.
The Chairman of the Ripon Conservative Association made a statement. Dismay had been expressed by members of the family of the late hon. Member for Ripon at the haste with which the writ was moved. According to the Yorkshire Post, they said:We were shocked and surprised. We are opposed to this move and unwilling to offer any support or help.Whereupon, the Chairman of the local Conservative Association said that he hoped that everyone would recognise that… if this by-election is indeed held before the summer holidays, this would imply no disrespect to the memory of the distinguished 1263 Member … and servant of Yorkshire. We are sorry that Sir Malcolm's family feel so very strongly about this but we hope that for their part they will come to understand our position. We believe that it is important that Ripon should not be disenfranchised for months as many constituencies have been in the past.There could be no more glaring contrast than that between Ripon and Berwick.
Indeed, there is a fundamental inconsistency. Either there has been an attempt to seek electoral advantage in Ripon in order to catch the other parties on the hop by rushing forward a by-election, even at the expense of the personal feelings of the family, or, if the Chairman of the Ripon Association is right, there is an attempt to derive electoral advantage by delaying the election at Berwick, even at the expense of leaving the seat without a Member for over five months. Either the interests of the electors require an early election, in which case the motion should be carried, or the feelings of the family should have been respected, in which case, the writ should not have been moved last Friday. The Government cannot have it both ways. In my view, the principle stated by the Chairman of Ripon Conservative Association is right. The interests of the electorate should prevail and there should be an early writ in this election.
It is worth noting that, when a similar situation arose 10 years ago, Mr. Profumo, then the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, resigned on 5th June 1963. In that case the writ was moved before the Summer Recess and the election was held on 17th August.
§ Mr. Taverne
The 15th—even earlier. The haste then shown was phenomenal compared to the haste that the Government are now showing.
I declared on more than one occasion during the Lincoln by-election and since that I would seek to alter the absurd and archaic system that prevails today. I said that, as an independent, I would not be bound by the pact between the parties which has prevailed since 1911 and which apparently so many people in the House seem eager to preserve. I also said that I would seek to prevent the abuse, a serious abuse of Parliament and democracy, whereby constituencies can be left 1264 unrepresented for long periods because of manoeuvrings for party advantage. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are not in Strasbourg."] If some hon. Members were interested in democracy they would be interested in seeing themselves represented in the forum of the Nine—[Interruption.] I realise that hon. Members on this side seem even more keen than Conservative Members to delay this writ. Some of them seem even less concerned with the interests of constituents. If they are not careful, they should beware of their intervention—
§ Mr. Taverne
I am raising this issue at the proper time and I raised it repeatedly in Lincoln, when it was—[Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary, for whom I have considerable respect, and who is normally a man of considerable judgment, on this occasion has made a statement that is not worthy of him. He has stated that, in his period as Patronage Secretary, there has not been a delay of more than four months in a by-election between the seat becoming vacant and a by-election being held. In this case, however, if the undertaking for which I am asking is not given, the delay will be between five and six months.
That is why I appeal, first, to the Leader of the House to have second thoughts and to change his mind and give a clear undertaking to move the writ this month. If not, I appeal to Members of Parliament who do not necessarily see themselves simply as members of parties to forget for a moment their role as members of parties and to realise that there are other duties than slavish obedience to the party whip. Every hon. Member has a duty to see that the electors of Berwick are not disenfranchised for an unconscionable time. We can fulfil that duty by passing this motion.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)
The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has done the House a service in raising this matter. I am only sorry that he was subjected to a barrage of abuse from the supporters of the Government who sit on the Opposition side of the House.
1265 It has long been a convention that the writ for a by-election should be moved by the whip of the party which held the seat, but there have been too many cases in recent years where that convention has been abused by the party which held the seat. I suppose that the worse cases were Orpington, in 1962, where the election was held some six months after the vacancy occurred, and Lincoln, where the election was held some five months after the vacancy occurred.
The third case is the one to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, namely, Ripon. The writ in that case has been moved within three weeks of the death of the hon. and gallant Member.
I point out in passing that in the first two by-elections that I mentioned the electorate sought their revenge on the parties which attempted to manipulate them. They may well do so in the third case as well.
This matter has concerned my hon. Friends and I for some time. We believe that the convention ought to be maintained, but that, in view of past experience, it is right that the House should lay down a minimum and a maximum time within which the right of a party to move the writ ought to be exercised.
It is for that reason that I have sought to have the matter of the timing of by-elections included in the terms of reference of your conference, Mr. Speaker, on electoral reform, which is at present sitting. This matter was not contained in the original terms of reference. I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that it will definitely be in the terms of reference and that it has been agreed by the Opposition to be so included.
There is no need for me, therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I hope to raise the matter in detail during that conference, to repeat the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln. However, I believe that the statement made by the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Ripon, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, was calculated to lead the electorate of Ripon to believe that the writ could not somehow be moved during the Summer Recess. As the hon. and learned Member made clear, it is precisely the other way around. That writ 1266 for Ripon could well have been moved during the recess, whereas the writ for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot and must either be moved now or before the Summer Recess, otherwise the election will be delayed until the autumn.
Parts of the constituency of Ripon begin their traditional summer holidays during the very week when the Government have chosen to hold the by-election. Many people will be disfranchised as a result of being away on holiday.
The hon. and learned Member has already referred to the offence caused to the family of our late colleague in the House by this indecent haste. I was in Ripon yesterday and what struck me was the fact that difficulties have been caused to the officials responsible for organising an election at such short notice, and not least the fact that the Post Office, which traditionally installs telephones in the headquarters of the parties for candidates at General Elections or by-elections, was unable, until after I had contacted the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications late last night, to arrange for a telephone to be installed in the local headquarters of my party, long after the writ had been moved.
This sort of manipulation of the electorate will bring politics into disrepute. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln has done the House a service in giving us a chance to discuss this matter today.
§ 3.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
(Macclesfield): I shall intervene in the debate only briefly. It is sheer hypocrisy for the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) to move this motion today. When his party was in Government and when, perhaps, he was even in a position of responsibility, in 1969 when the respected former Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, died in February, the hon. and learned Member did not then urge his Government to move a writ for a by-election to be held for almost nine months.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
I have very little time for anyone who has spoken in the debate so far. I certainly disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne). He is still a friend of mine, 1267 although we disagree violently about what he has done during the last six to 12 months. I believe that what he did was misjudged. One fights the fight that he has been fighting when one is inside rather better than one can fight it on the outside. But that is a matter for him.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) comes to the House when he likes. He was not present last Friday to protest when the writ for Ripon was moved. I was present, and I made my protest.
§ Mr. Hamilton
I attend the House five days a week, which is more than most hon. Members do.
As for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), two wrongs never made a right, and a very important constitutional point is being raised.
The present position is completely indefensible. Both parties have used this traditional right, as they see it, to move the writ when they choose, for their party-political convenience, and it does not matter a damn about the inconvenience for the electorate concerned. That must stop. The House can bring a stop to it today. We can seek the assurance—it is a very reasonable request—from the Leader of the House that he will move the writ before we rise for the Summer Recess. That will give the parties the opportunity to get their candidates in order.
I understand that there is great competition for the seat, which is a very safe Tory seat—at least, it was; it is now highly marginal. Nevertheless, about 100 candidates think that they can make a go of it. The parties will have to sort the sheep from the goats. If they are neither sheep nor goats, the parties will have to get something or other. It takes time. So we give them three weeks. If we do not get that assurance, I am quite prepared to force this matter to a vote today.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood by anyone present. We must dismiss the personalities concerned in considering those who have spoken so far. This is a very important constitutional point for the House as a whole. It is 1268 completely indefensible that the Government should have taken such action on Friday and now seek to disfranchise another constituency for upwards of five months. It is an intolerable situation which defies all logic and fairness. It is a contempt of the constituents of Berwick-upon-Tweed. The salt was rubbed into the wounds by the action of the Government last Friday in respect of Ripon. The House will be shown at its best this afternoon if it votes against the Government unless the right noises emanate from the Leader of the House.
§ 3.58 p.m.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)
I very much regret that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has seen fit to take this step, which breaches the longstanding convention that the writ for a vacancy is applied for by the party which previously held the seat. The fact that this convention has continued to be honoured suggests that the House, over the years, has recognised its value.
It has been suggested that the time is due for a reappraisal. This is a matter that can be considered by the Speaker's Conference. It might suit the wishes of a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who, perhaps, have some unease over this subject that it should be considered by the Speaker's Conference. But, in refraining from independent action in the past, Members have no doubt borne in mind the possible effects of a motion for a writ which is disapproved by the House. Under our practice, a decision to this effect—to disapprove the motion—would hold for the remainder of the Session and would consequently prolong the period for which the constituency is unrepresented.
I turn to the criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman has levelled at the head of the Government. In 1969 the Conservative Party voluntarily took a decision, which was publicly announced, that wherever practicable writs would be moved within four months of a seat becoming vacant. But in proceeding in that way it must be right to try to take account of the wishes of the constituency; and the long recess is inevitably an inhibiting factor 1269 in cases where the writ cannot be moved when the House stands adjourned. That is perhaps another matter that the Speaker's Conference would care to consider.
Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention to the by-election at Stratford-on-Avon which took place at the beginning of August, I think it is generally accepted that August is not a very satisfactory month for electors to exercise their democratic rights. If I agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that the writ should be moved before the recess, that is precisely what would happen; the election would take place towards the end of August. I do not think that that would be very satisfactory.
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It has been received with some sympathy, but also with mixed feelings. It is a matter which is best left for the Speaker's Conference to consider. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his point this afternoon, because all that he could achieve by doing so would be to remove the opportunity for an earlier by-election.
Therefore, I should like to suggest an amendment. and I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:this House do pass to the Orders of the Day".
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
(York): I understand that if there is a vote which is adverse to the motion, there is then a barrier for 12 months.
§ Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that if the motion is defeated, and, therefore, cannot be reintroduced until next Session, that means that it will probably be introduced at the end of October? Will he confirm that that would probably mean an increased delay of three or tour weeks? Do we take it, therefore, that it is the Government's view that November is absolutely the right month for Berwick-upon-Tweed but that December would be a disaster? If that is their view, the hypocrisy of the whole of their argument is clear for everyone to see.
§ Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
Could we not avoid both alternatives by a procedural device? If the House were recalled for one day and if nobody opposed the motion, so that there was no Division, it would not fail for lack of a quorum. Therefore, only one hon. Member would need to be present, with Mr. Speaker, to move the motion.
My right hon. Friend's statement is possibly of convenience for hon. Members, but he will perhaps agree that it is not an accurate statement procedurally to say that if we do not move the motion before the House rises at the end of this month or the beginning of August it cannot be moved again until October or November. It could be, by what is frankly a procedural device to overcome a habitual embarrassment.
§ Mr. Prior
The position is clear. If the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln moves the motion it cannot be moved again this Session. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not move his motion but that the House should come back in the recess, albeit even if only one or two hon. Members turn up—
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ Mr. Taverne
I oppose the amendment. The Leader of the House has given a totally unsatisfactory answer to the points raised from the Opposition benches. He has said that there may be marginal inconvenience in having an August election, and has said that for that reason the electors of the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency will have to remain unrepresented until a writ is moved at the end of the Session.
The motion cannot be voted upon if the amendment is carried. Therefore, the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed will, by the decision of the House if the motion is passed, remain unrepresented for that long period, unless the Leader of the House is willing to move the motion before the 1271 Summer Recess. He has clearly indicated that he is not willing to do so. We are, therefore, condemning—
§ Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)
Many of us on the Government side have had some respect of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and have listened to what he has said this afternoon. But many of us are not only conscious that he was a member of an administration which on a number of occasions delayed the moving of by-election writs but also remember that he was a member of an administration which deliberately gerrymandered the whole electoral system by postponing the implementation of the Boundary Commission's reports. Does he not realise that some of us cannot forget those matters? Of course, two wrongs do not make a right, but is he really the right person to move the motion?
§ Mr. Taverne
It is only someone who is not tied by the pacts between the parties who is in a position to destroy this pact, or at any rate to challenge it. It is precisely because hon. Members are members of the parties that they feel themselves bound in many cases by something which has persisted over 60 years, for far too long.
It is clear that, unless the matter is raised again and again, which is a possibility, if the amendment is carried the electors in question will remain disfran-
§ chised. I hope that the motion and the record of those who supported it will be noted in the constituencies affected. I hope that they will note the disparity of treament between what has happened in Ripon and what is happening in Berwick-upon-Tweed.
§ In order that the matter shall be decided on a vote, I shall oppose the amendment.
§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved his amendment I think he meant not that we should pass to the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion but that we should move to the next business on the Order Paper, which is the Notice of Motion standing in my name. I am sure that that is what my right hon. Friend meant, but because of his amendment I shall be deprived of this most important opportunity of protecting consumers from the grave malpractices of the gas boards.
§ Mr. Speaker
I can set the hon. Gentleman's fears at rest at once. The phrase "Orders of the Day" is a generic term and includes the hon. Gentleman's motion.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 25.1273
|Division No. 192.]||AYES||[4.9 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Clegg, Walter||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Cockeram, Eric||Grylls, Michael|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Cordle, John||Gummer, J. Selwyn|
|Astor, John||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick||Gurden, Harold|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Costain, A. P.||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Critchley, Julian||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj-Gen.Jack||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Dean, Paul||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Dixon, Piers||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Bell, Ronald||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Biffen, John||Emery, Peter||Hastings, Stephen|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Eyre, Reginald||Havers, Sir Michael|
|Body, Richard||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Hawkins, Paul|
|Bowden, Andrew||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Bray, Ronald||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Brewis, John||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Higgins Terence L.|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Fookes, Miss Janet||Hiley Joseph|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Fowler, Norman||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk S.)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fox, Marcus||Holland, Philip|
|Buck, Antony||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Gibson-Watt, David||Hordern, Peter|
|Burden, F. A.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Hornby, Richard|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Goodhart, Philip||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia|
|Carlisle, Mark||Gower, Raymond||Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Hunt, John|
|Channon, Paul||Gray, Hamish||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Chapman, Sydney||Green, Alan||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Grieve, Percy||James, David|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Murton, Oscar||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Jessel, Toby||Neave, Airey||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Nicholls, Sir Harmer||Speed, Keith|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Spence, John|
|Jopling, Michael||Normanton, Tom||Sprout, Iain|
|Wilkinson, John||Onslow, Cranley||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Osborn, John||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Percival, Ian||Stokes, John|
|King. Tom (Bridgwater)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Sutcliffe, John|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Pink, R. Bonner||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Kitson, Timothy||Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Temple, John M.|
|Lamont, Norman||Prior, Rt. Fin. J. M. L.||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Raison, Timothy||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Tilney, John|
|Luce, R. N.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Redmond, Robert||Trew Peter|
|MacArthur, Ian||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|McLaren, Martin||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wall, Patrick|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice(Farnham)||Ridsdale, Julian||Ward, Dame Irene|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Rippon, Rt.||Warren, Kenneth|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Mather, Carol||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Mawby, Ray||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Moate, Roger||Russell, Sir Ronald||Worsley, Marcus|
|Monro, Hector||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Wylie, Rt. N. R.|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|More, Jasper||Shelton, William (Clapham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Shersby, Michael||Mr. Kenneth Clarke and|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Simeons, Charles||Mr. Tim Fortescue.|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Kelley, Richard||Spearing, Nigel|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Mackie, John||Stallard, A. W.|
|Cormack, Patrick||Maclennan, Robert||Steel, David|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Mayhew, Christopher||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Money, Ernie||Tope, Graham|
|Feulds, Andrew||Mudd, David||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Pardoe, John|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Rose, Paul B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Mr. William Hamilton and|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Mr. Dick Taverne.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Motion, as amended, agreed to.