§ Mr. MonroI beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 48, line 31, leave out "intoxicating" and insert "excisable".
This is a drafting amendment, to make the wording of subsection (5) consistent with that of subsection (6).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 48, line 32, leave out subsection (6).
We return to an amendment dealing with the licensing of local authority premises, which we discussed reasonably thoroughly in Committee. The intention of the amendment is to end the prohibition on local authorities to provide excisable liquor in premises owned by them.
Subsection (6) is an up-to-date version of Section 132(11) of the Local Government Act 1948. It has been included in the Bill without consideration having been given to the events that have affected our social life in the past 25 years. In that time the changes have been considerable, and we have to ask whether, in the changed conditions of 1973, there should be a change in the law.
We have come a long way from the traditional age, when Scottish pubs were simply places which people went into and staggered out of. In Scotland, traditionally, the pub was where people went to drown their sorrows and blot out the dreadful conditions in which they lived. We have moved a long way from this. There has been a modernisation of premises and the introduction of relaxed and pleasant surroundings. It is now accepted that wives go out with their husbands in the evening for a quiet drink and to meet other people.
The provision of places of entertainment has not been confined to commercial and private enterprise establishments. In the towns, cities and small burghs throughout Scotland local authorities are providing places of entertainment. They 451 are providing restaurants in parks, on beaches and in the city centres. They are providing modern restaurants at which everything from a quick snack to a full meal can be supplied. We have modern municipal dance halls and theatres.
7.15 p.m.
It is now accepted that local authorities can provide first-class entertainment—for example, they can arrange for touring companies in the theatre, opera and ballet to visit their areas. They can provide all kinds of entertainment. But the one thing which they must not do is to provide alcohol. It is true that if there is a reason for having a special licence for example, if a local authority is giving hospitality to a visiting conference it can apply for a special licence and thereby can supply liquor. The liquor cannot be supplied at the local authority's own hands. Somebody must be brought in from the licensed trade to provide that kind of service.
I attend a fair number of conferences throughout Scotland and I have heard the complaint that the existing publicans tend to go a bit over the odds when charging. I am not suggesting that local authorities should enter into vigorous competition with the licensed trade, but in this instance a little competition might not be a bad thing.
Aberdeen has a local problem which would be seriously affected by the subsection. Aberdeen provides within its parks modern restaurants and a problem is thrust upon it affecting the cultural life not only of the whole of the city but of the whole of the North-East.
There are only two theatres in Aberdeen. One is a small theatre which provides a community art centre and where generally amateur productions are put on. There is only one theatre of any size, magnitude or status—namely, Her Majesty's Theatre, Aberdeen. Those people who know Aberdeen well will know that that theatre occupies a prominent place in the cultural life of the city. It has been run by the private concern which built it.
The theatre has continued in existence during the past seven to ten years because of a fairly generous subsidy by the local authority. The owners have concluded recently that even with the subsidy they 452 can no longer continue to operate the theatre. They say that it is such a brake on their finances, that they can no longer operate it. There is the prospect that the theatre will disappear entirely. It is to be offered for sale. A number of commercial concerns from outside the city see the site—this does not apply to the building—as one of importance for commercial development.
If the theatre is sold to private industry there is no doubt that it will be destroyed. The owners have said that they are prepared to give the local authority the first option to take over the premises. That seems a reasonable proposition and one upon which the local authority is actively engaged. It is a proposition which has widespread support from those people involved in the arts, in music and in the theatre through the whole of Scotland.
It would be a tragedy of the first magnitude if the local authority were unable to take it over. The position is that if the revenue from the sale of liquor during the intervals of performances were taken away the theatre would be a total white elephant. It is my understanding of the position that even if the corporation buy the premises and then farm it out to the people who have been running it previously—that would amount, in a sense, to leasing it back to them on a contractual arrangement—it is probable that they would not be able to get a licence.
The local authority is faced with the handicap of trying to provide a service when faced with restrictions. It is difficult at the best of times to maintain theatres, and to take away the pleasantries of going to the theatre will mean a great handicap to the corporation.
We are not arguing about the general licensing laws of Scotland. This is not an argument about the age at which people should be able to consume liquor and whether the age should be reduced. We are not concerned with opening hours or about all the paraphernalia of liquor licensing. This is a discussion about whether local authorities should be allowed to provide a service in their own premises which is provided in commercial premises elsewhere.
We had a reasonable discussion about the matter in Committee but we did not 453 have an answer from the Government why the amendment which was then put forward should not be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State stood his ground. He said that the Clayson Committee was examining the whole structure of the licensing laws in Scotland and that it would be quite wrong to make any law to change the position whilst the committee was reporting.
It was suggested that the Clayson Committee might not be long in reporting. In fact, the report is long overdue. We are concerned only to see that local authorities are able to provide a service. It may be that the local authorities have fashioned a stick with which to beat their own backs. They are much concerned about the position and they have led evidence to the Clayson Committee. It seemed to them at the time that that was the only way in which to get a change in the law. However, the fact that that evidence has been led to the Clayson Committee should not take away from the House the responsibility of making a minor change of this nature. Although I am suggesting that it is a minor statutory change, it is a major change in terms of social conditions and worth while supporting.
No argument can be put forward to suggest that the provision of licensed facilities by local authorities would in any way be detrimental to our local life. In no way would it result in more drink being consumed. If people go to a restaurant and find that they cannot get a drink they leave the premises and go elsewhere. The provision of licensed facilities would be no incentive to increase the amount of drink consumed.
If there is no real case of a social character which can be led against the amendment, is there any technical case, apart from the Clayson Committee? The only case which could be advanced in the 1948 legislation, leaving aside social conditions, was that from 1948 onwards it was primarily in the burghs where the majority of licences were involved. The burghs used to be the licensing courts. In effect, they were judge and jury. When an elected member of an authority was a magistrate and a member of the licensing court then obviously as a local councillor he was interested in seeing that the facilities which as a councillor he was putting forward were of the best. I 454 accept the argument to some extent that the burgh councillors might be regarded as judges and jurors in their own courts. That no longer applies and the Government have always claimed that they would make no change in the licensing arrangements until the Clayson Committee reported.
However, a change has been made as to the manner in which licences are granted. No longer will the burgh councils be the licensing courts because the licensing courts will be composed half of elected members and half of justices of the peace. The licensing courts, therefore, will not favour local authorities.
In this day and age people are entitled to expect reasonable facilities in premises supplied by local authorities as in every other place to which they go. I do not wish to set up public houses in vigorous competition with local authority premises but to provide local authority premises with the normal facilities which are made available throughout the rest of Scotland. The Committee defeated our amendment on the casting vote of the Chairman. I hope that in the Division tonight we shall have more success.
§ Mr. Harry Gourlay (Kirkcaldy Burghs)I support this amendment. The arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) are excellent. The Government's argument in Committee that we should await the revision of the general licensing law should not apply in this case. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to liberalise the licensing law of Scotland without waiting for a general revision.
I should like to plug my native town of Kirkcaldy, which two weeks ago celebrated the 250th anniversary of the birth of one of its most famous sons, Adam Smith. A dinner was held on one of the evenings during the celebrations which was attended by the Secretary of State in the modern Adam Smith Centre, an ideal centre for holding a conference. But the only way in which those who attended could enjoy the refreshments, of which even the Secretary of State partook, was for the local authority to get a special permission and to bring in an outside licence holder.
This is entirely wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have 455 second thoughts, particularly in view of the advantages and facilities which this centre will provide not only for the community in Kirkcaldy but for people in all parts of Scotland, when they come to use the centre for their conferences.
I hope that, in this speech I have set an example of brevity, clarity and expedition which other hon. Members will follow.
§ Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell)I, too, will be brief. I took part in the debate in Standing Committee on a similar amendment, when the Minister's answer was that he was awaiting the Clayson Report. With due deference to him, that report will not make any difference to the objects of the amendment.
At the moment, private golf, tennis and bowling clubs all have licensed premises. In my constituency, a private club operating within the bowling club owned by the district council has a licence so that people can have a drink. This ludicrous situation is permissible under the existing legislation.
The amendment was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) and it was well and truly covered in Committee, but we were not given a clear answer. It will be no reply tonight for the Minister to say that he is awaiting the Clayson Report.
Since the matter was defeated only by the Chairman's casting vote in Committee, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has given this matter careful thought. I have spoken to officials and members of many local authorities, all of whom have told me what a farcical situation they face, particularly in those authorities with their own halls. Therefore, I hope that the Minister has done the exploratory work and investigation that I and my hon. Friends have done and that he will give us an acceptable reply.
§ 7.30 p.m
§ Mr. MaclennanI support the case that my hon. Friends have made. I should like to cite one instance of the disadvantage of this clause from my own constituency experience, and to ask one question of the Under-Secretary.
Under subsection (6), could a local authority lease premises to another party for an approved purpose, including the 456 privilege of the sale of liquor? I understand that this provision would not permit that, because the embargo appears to be on the sale of liquor in any premises provided under the clause. That seems an absolute embargo on the sale of liquor in premises that a local authority owns, whoever may run and operate them. If that is so, it is an extremely restrictive condition and should be struck out on those grounds alone.
A second illustration of the unfortunate consequences of the subsection, drawn from my constituency experience, is the interest of the local authority of Caithness in developing tourism and providing facilities such as caravan sites, wet weather facilities and even a sand yachting clubhouse at Dunnet Bay. In at least one of these facilities, I understand, liquor is being sold. It would be a serious threat to the revenue of that place if this embargo were applied. I understand that it is being done through a licensee, but in premises built by the local authority.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up my uncertainty about this provision. In any case, it would eliminate all cause for uncertainty if he would simply accept the amendment.
§ Mr. MonroThe hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) moved his amendment fairly and reasonably. I entirely agree with what he said about his city.
The amendment would remove the prohibition on the grant of a liquor licensing certificate to local authority premises authorising the sale to the public of alcohol and would repeal Section 132 (11) of the Local Government Act 1948. Subsection (6), which is the key point of Clause 91 in relation to the amendment, solely re-enacts Section 132 (11) and therefore retains the status quo. One reason is that this is not a licensing Bill.
I believe that the Government have taken up a reasonable and correct position. While hon. Members opposite have anticipated what I might say by claiming that the Clayson Report is not an adequate reason for rejecting the amendment, I ask them carefully to consider just what an important report it is expected to be.
457 We think that it would be quite wrong to make a substantial change in licensing procedure before my right hon. Friend has had a chance to study the report, publish it and then, rightly, give a period during which interested parties can put forward their views. When he has received those views and has listened to all other advice which may be offered to him will be the moment to come to a conclusion.
§ Mr. John SmithThe hon. Gentleman says that one reason why we should be careful is the importance of the Clay-son report. What surprised many of us was an article by Jack Warden in the Glasgow Herald. Mr. Warden said that the Government were shying away from the conclusions of the Erroll report and that the Clayson Report would in effect be a damp squib, with no attention paid to it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that we are not to believe what Mr. Warden said?
§ Mr. MonroMr. Warden is an extremely competent Lobby correspondent, but that does not mean that one has always to agree with him. I expect to value the Clayson Report extremely highly. I am sure that that view will be shared by all hon. Members when it is published. We must not underestimate it and therefore it would be wrong to come to a major conclusion before the procedures which I have outlined have been carried out by my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. GourlaySurely the fact that this provision merely alters another local government Act in itself means that we are not in effect making any alteration to the licensing laws. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument has no relevance to ours.
§ Mr. MonroIt is a matter of opinion. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about Kirkcaldy and I am sorry that Adam Smith did not go down with as big a wallop as he hoped. But I suspect that it was a very good party for all that.
The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) raised again the matter of the club certificate and the registration of clubs. I can give him the assurance he wants. I carefully read the Stand 458 ing Committee report and I want to dispel the doubt raised whether subsection (2) is more narrowly drawn than Section 132(11) of the 1948 Act, and whether it might not prohibit activities now carried on, particularly in members' clubs, in supplying drink in premises owned by the local authority—for example, bowling clubs.
Subsection (2) does no more than re-enact Section 132(11), covering the provision of facilities for the sale of drinks to the general public, and activities which require a certificate for the supply of liquor in members' clubs do not require a licensing certificate. They register with the sheriff for the supply of liquor and are not affected by the prohibitions in this subsection. This covers to a large extent the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—that if the members are running the club then of course they are entitled within their membership to buy and drink alcohol. That is common to many hundreds of clubs of all types throughout Scotland.
§ Mr. MaclennanI am afraid that I have not made the point clearly because the hon. Gentleman has not answered it. If the local authority provides the clubhouse which is not a club in a sense but premises which are open to the public but which are leased by some other operator, does the fact that the lessor of the club is the local authority prevent the sale of liquor in the premises?
§ Mr. MonroI hesitate to give a definite answer, as the licensing laws of Scotland are particularly complicated. But I am of opinion that one must have club membership before the club licence can operate. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the building he describes is open to the general public, then I am afraid that members of the general public would not, in my view, be permitted to purchase alcohol.
§ Mr. MaclennanEven if the premises are leased to a third party and are being run by him on licence from the local authority? If that is so, it is an extraordinarily restrictive condition and should be struck out.
§ Mr. MonroIf the club is registered with the sheriff for membership, the members may use it, but the general public 459 may not come in and buy unless they are members of the club.
§ Mr. James HamiltonCan the hon. Gentleman not give me a more satisfactory explanation? I quoted the instance of a bowling club owned by the local authority. Within that club is a private club which has a licence from the sheriff for the sale of alcohol. In such circumstances, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a backdoor method and that he should be able to do something about it?
§ Mr. MonroThe members of the bowling club can drink and bowl to their hearts' content. There is no question of that. But if members of the general public came into the premises to bowl they could not use the facilities of the club if they were not members. That is the important point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that the amendment would be a minor change, but I disagree. I think that it would be substantial. Perhaps hon. Members opposite are in too much of a hurry. But I am sure they will accept also that they were a long time in office and did not make an effort to change the licensing laws.
The Government have given substantial consideration to the matter and are continuing to do so before introducing changes. The Clayson Report will be a tremendous help in the future consideration by the Government and it is only right to wait and see what it says before we proceed with any changes. It is far better to wait a little longer and to get the thing right than to rush in now and get it wrong. I appreciate the feelings of the Opposition but I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. Robert HughesThe ministerial responsibility for replying to the amendment changed between the Committee and Report stages but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman added nothing to the Government's case, which was put forward in the same bland manner in Committee. It is unsatisfactory to found the Government's case on the argument that this is not a licensing Bill. Of course it is not, but in it many substantial changes are being made in local government functions which are not 460 strictly speaking part of or consequential upon local government reform. This would be a minor change in statute, and for the hon. Gentleman also to rest his case on the ground of waiting for Clayson is a bit of a humbug.
The Clayson Committee urgently wrote to the Secretary of State saying that it disagreed with the provisions that he was proposing for changing the method of granting licences. The Committee's views were swept aside. No account was taken of them. We await the report of the Clayson Committee with great interest, but if this is how its views on the licensing law is to be dealt with, the future looks extremely bleak.
The Government are missing an opportunity to make a minor legal change but an important social change, the demand for which is widespread throughout Scotland. They are being far too timid and, as usual, they come down on the side of the licensed trade. It is about time that they were exposed for that.
The Opposition will support this amendment in the Division lobby.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. DempseyAfter listening to the Under-Secretary of State, I am more confused than ever.
I have the same problem in Coat-bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) spoke about a bowling green which, incidentally, I opened as I was a councillor for that ward at the time. The Under-Secretary will be interested to know that, having performed the opening ceremony and being a public representative, because I was not a member of the club I was not allowed into the pavilion until I found someone to nominate me—
§ Mr. LambieMy hon. Friend does not drink.
§ Mr. DempseyI drink orange juice and soda. But could anything be more ridiculous than to have a public asset provided for members of the public from rates and taxes where it is possible to have a game of bowls but where it is impossible to enter one part of the premises which is licensed as a club although it is also provided by public 461 money? This is a disgraceful inhibition.
In Coatbridge the position is even more ridiculous. The Drumpellier Golf Club has a licence. The Drumpellier Cricket Club, which is one of the most successful in Scotland, also has a licence. However the municipal golf course has no licence. To get a licence a manager has to be appointed to apply on behalf of his club. That is the way to get round what is a very antiquated local government regulation.
I should have thought in this day and age that the Under-Secretary would say that the situation was farcical and riddled with contradiction. It is quite indefensible and it is time we amended the Local Government Act. That is all the hon. Gentleman is being asked to do.
I have visited this municipal golf course. It is most regrettable that such a beautiful course and such excellent premises cannot have matters so arranged so that any ratepayer can enjoy a game of golf and have some type of refreshment afterwards.
As most of my hon. Friends know, alcohol does not appeal to me. But it does to many people. If people can play over one golf course and enjoy a little dram afterwards they should be able to do the same on the municipal golf course. Thousands of pounds have been spent on laying out a beautiful course and excellent premises, but whereas a neighbouring club has a licence, we our
§ selves cannot obtain one. The situation dates back to a very antiquated age in society.
§ It is suggested that we should wait for the Clayson Report. We do not know when it will be published and how long it will be before we have an opportunity to debate it, let alone when some legislation may arise out of it. During all that time this contradiction in terms, this unjustifiable piece of hypocrisy, must continue where countless thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money is spent but where the ratepayers cannot enjoy any alcoholic refreshment after they have played golf. The Under-Secretary must admit that it is completely indefensible and warrants urgent action. Surely here is our opportunity to amend an obsolete Act of Parliament.
§ I ask the Under-Secretary to remember that local authorities are no longer the old authorities which provided a few swings and roundabouts. Today they provide facilities for cricket, football, hockey and for a complete range of sports, and all those who participate in those sports enjoy a wee dram afterwards. I believe that we should support the amendment and thereby allow them to have it.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 182.
463| Division No. 165.] | AYES | [7.52 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Coleman, Donald | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. |
| Allen, Scholefield | Concannon, J. D. | Gourlay, Harry |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Grant, George (Morpeth) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Crawshaw, Richard | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) |
| Ashton, Joe | Cronin, John | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T | Dalyell, Tam | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Barnes, Michael | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hardy, Peter |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith |
| Bishop, E. S. | Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Hattersley, Roy |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Deakins, Eric | Horam, John |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Dempsey, James | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) |
| Booth, Albert | Doig, Peter | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.) | Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) | Eadie, Alex | Hunter, Adam |
| Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne. W.) | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Janner, Greville |
| Jeger, Mrs. Lena | ||
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Ellis, Tom | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) | English, Michael | John, Brynmor |
| Buchan, Norman | Ewing, Harry | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood) | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) |
| Cant, R. B. | Ford, Ben | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Forrester, John | Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Gilbert, Dr. John | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Golding, John | Kelley, Richard |
| Kerr, Russell | Moyle, Roland | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) |
| Lambie, David | Murray, Ronald King | Stallard, A. W. |
| Lamond, James | Oakes, Gordon | Steel, David |
| Lawson, George | O'Halloran, Michael | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Lestor, Miss Joan | O'Malley, Brian | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Orme, Stanley | Stott, Roger (Westhoughton) |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Oswald, Thomas | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Loughlin, Charles | Padley, Walter | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Paget, R. T. | Tope, Graham |
| McBride, Neil | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Torney, Tom |
| McElhone, Frank | Pardoe, John | Tuck, Raphael |
| Machin, George | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Mackenzie, Gregor | Pavitt, Laurie | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Mackie, John | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Probert, Arthur | Wallace, George |
| Maclennan, Robert | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) | Watkins, David |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Rhodes, Geoffrey | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Marquand, David | Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor) | Whitlock, William |
| Mayhew, Christopher | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Meacher, Michael | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Rowlands, Ted | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Millan, Bruce | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Milne, Edward | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Woof, Robert |
| Molloy, William | Sillars, James | |
| Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Silverman, Julius | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Skinner, Dennis | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) | Mr. Joseph Harper. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Gardner, Edward | Maddan, Martin |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Gibson-Watt, David | Madel, David |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Marten, Neil |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Goodhart, Philip | Mather, Carol |
| Astor, John | Gower, Raymond | Maude, Angus |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Mawby, Ray |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Gray, Hamish | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord | Green, Alan | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Grylls, Michael | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Benyon, W. | Hall, Sir John (Wycombe) | Moate, Roger |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Molyneaux, James |
| Blaker, Peter | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Monks, Mrs. Connie |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Hannam, John (Exeter) | Monro, Hector |
| Body, Richard | Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Boscawen, Hn. Robert | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Haselhurst, Alan | Mudd, David |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Havers, Sir Michael | Murton, Oscar |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hawkins, Paul | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Hicks, Robert | Neave, Alrey |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Higgins, Terence L. | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn) | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) | Normanton, Tom |
| Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Holland, Philip | Nott, John |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Holt, Miss Mary | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hornby, Richard | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Page, Rt. Hon. Graham (Crosby) |
| Clegg, Walter | Iremonger, T L. | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Cockeram, Eric | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Cooke, Robert | James, David | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Cooper, A. E. | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick | Jessel, Toby | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Costain, A. P. | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis |
| Crouch, David | Jopling, Michael | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Redmond, Robert |
| Dean, Paul | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Dixon, Piers | Kirk, Peter | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Knox, David | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Lamont, Norman | Rost, Peter |
| Eyre, Reginald | Lane, David | Scott, Nicholas |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Fidler, Michael | Le Marchant, Spencer | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shersby, Michael |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Longden, Sir Gilbert | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | MacArthur, Ian | Soref, Harold |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | McLaren, Martin | Speed, Keith |
| Fowler, Norman | McMaster, Stanley | Spence, John |
| Fox, Marcus | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Sproat, Iain |
| Stainton, Keith | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Trew, Feter | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) | Tugendhat, Christopher | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Stokes, John | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin | Worsley, Marcus |
| Sutcliffe, John | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Tapsell, Peter | Waddington, David | Younger, Hn. George |
| Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart) | Walder, David (Clitheroe) | |
| Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) | Weatherill, Bernard | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) | Wells, John (Maidstone) | Mr. Tim Fortesque and Mr. Kenneth Clarke. |
| Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) | Wiggin, Jerry | |
| Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) | Wilkinson, John |
§ Question accordingly negatived.