Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only:
§ Mr. Foot
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In some respects this is the most important amendment to be discussed today. As in the previous debates, I do not propose to retrace all the arguments which have been advanced. That would serve no purpose. I wish to underline why we believe that the amendment as it has come back from the House of Lords should be rejected and why we put forward a different way of dealing with the matter in our original proposals.
The suggestion was made quite frequently by Lord Hailsham in another place that we were misleading the House, or the country, about what we sought to incorporate in the Bill. He said that we had sought to give the impression that we were dealing solely with the 1971 Act and restoring the 1971 position, and that we were misleading people by not saying that our proposals contained some extension of immunities. I wish to repudiate any such suggestion. It should not be necessary for me to do so but, as the argument was used frequently in the House of Lords, perhaps I should repudiate it.
Paragraph 11(c) of the Consultative Document issued on 22nd March stated clearly that:The immunity which existed before 1971 for persons inducing breaches of contracts of employment in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute would be restored and extended to interference with all types of contract (including commercial contracts)".We have made that clear from the beginning, and we hold to that view now. It 536 would be a retrogressive step for the House to go back on that proposal which was originally in the Bill and which we should like to restore.
The first main ground on which I say that it is essential that the original Government proposals should be accepted rather than the amendment rests on the argument that I have used on previous clauses, but it is of even greater importance here. It is that Parliament in dealing with this question at least should make up its mind and be clear. As I have already said, three of the amendments which have been pushed through, two by the Opposition in the House of Commons and two in another place, are obscure and will lead to great difficulties in the courts. The arbitrary exclusion clause that we have passed is riddled with a jumble of legal confusions. The same applies to the union arrangements clause passed by the House in the extraordinary circumstances which we recall and con, firmed by the House of Lords in a way which prevents us from scrutinising it again.
There are two major clauses in the Bill of such obscurity that no one will know what they mean. If the House of Lords advice on this matter is taken, we shall again commit the same error. Any claim that the House of Lords ever had to be a revising Chamber of any distinction or even adequacy is completely destroyed by these events. The House of Lords refused even to examine the so-called Lever amendments that came from the House. They were not discussed in the House of Lords for more than a couple of minutes.
The acceptance of the clause, as I am seeking to prove not from evidence of my citing but from others, which it is proposed to place on the statute book if the House of Commons does not come to a wiser conclusion than did the House of Lords, will mean that Parliament is deliberately restoring a major obscurity in the law touching on a most important aspect. Anyone who disputes what I say—I do not suppose that anyone does—might examine the section of the Donovan Report which refers precisely to the question dealt with in the amendment, which turns partly on whether the words "contract of employment" are to be used or the word "contract" which would cover commercial contracts.
537 Several pages of the Donovan Report were devoted to this subject. The commission made a recommendation about the way in which the obscurity should be removed, which is precisely the way the Government chose. If the House is to proceed deliberately to restore this obscurity, it is necessary to read paragraph 884 of the Donovan Report, which indicates that many others besides the Donovan Commission came to this conclusion. Paragraph 884 reads as follows:It will be seen that it refers only to a contract of employment. Trade union officials and others who induce a breach of any other kind of contract, whether in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute or not, still commit an actionable tort. We have received a number of representations to the effect that this situation should be altered and that section 3 should be amended so as to extend to all contracts and not merely to contracts of employment. These representations come from the TUC,"—I know that Opposition Members do not care very much about the representations from the TUC—a number of trade unions, some legal authors having a close knowledge of trade union law, and the Bar Council.The Bar Council, therefore, recommended that this obscurity should be removed from the law.
It is true that our proposals go further than dealing only with that subject, but the Government clause in the original Bill dealt with the obscurity, whereas the Opposition and the House of Lords are deliberately proposing to reinstate the obscurity. That is what would happen if the House disagreed with our proposal to disagree with the House of Lords.
I turn to the other aspect of the matter which we believe to be so serious from the point of view of the trade union movement. It might be argued by the Conservatives that their clause reinstates the provision of 1906. Some of the wording indicates that that is the situation, but as we have argued before—this is why Donovan said that such confusion had arisen—for a period after 1906 it seemed to operate satisfactorily and in a way in which commercial contracts were included. I shall not go through the cases again since they were covered in Committee and were all cited in the House of Lords, although they were disregarded by the Opposition there. But what happened 538 for a period was that the protections which trade unions exercised from about 1906 to the early 60s—protections which they had exercised reasonably in that period without fatal consequences for the nation at large—were whittled away by judicial decisions of one kind and another, including the invention of a new tort by Lord Denning. I know that I have to be careful on this matter, but as it was dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in another place I am sure that it is correct for me to do so. Those decisions were not contested in any formidable way at all.
Because of the obscurity of the 1906 position, even though the intention in 1906 for two or three decades appeared to be translated into effect, and because of the growing effect of the judicial decisions, Lord Donovan recommended that a change should be made. The wording of our provision is that which was recommended by Lord Donovan—but that has now been knocked out by the House of Lords. The House of Lords is recommending to Parliament that we should return to all the obscurities which Donovan condemned. That could mean that the rights of trade unions in sympathy strikes could be considerably impaired. It could mean a legal battle over some of these matters. It would mean that some questions involving the rights of unions to exercise their right of sympathetic strikes would have to go back to the courts to be settled—and settled in circumstances of complete obscurity. That is what is being recommended and what is so dangerous. It is the whole attempt by the House of Lords and by the official Opposition to try to injure and impair this part of our Bill. There is a hankering after the 1971 situation.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) got up and made a few pious remarks about how he wanted the Bill to be the basis of trade union law for the future. He talked as though the Bill was satisfactory to the Opposition in many respects. If we have converted them, we welcome that, but what they propose here is a reversion. They wish to revert to methods which will mean that, instead of industrial relations being dealt with sensibly, they will revert to the system under the 1971 Act. They will in one or two provisions seek to restore the kind of methods they adopted in the 1971 Act. 539 I am not saying that the clause will mean a complete reversion to 1971 or anything like that. Many of the protections which trade unions require—and many of the protections they require in respect of the abolition of the 1971 Act—are fully protected in our repeal Bill. But the amendment impairs the immunities for trade unions which they have exercised under the 1906 situation quite properly for decades and which in any clear statement of the law they should be entitled to exercise now.
The Opposition should be under no misapprehension about the position. We do not want any tears from them in the way of sympathy for the trade union movement. There was an extraordinary statement by the Leader of the Opposition just after the General Election. He said that if they had won the election they would have kept the 1971 Act. He does not say that now. He reminds me of the line:The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be".That was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now pretending that he has abandoned the methods of antagonism which led us to such disasters last winter when attempting to force through the clause. This has happened in an unelected place like the House of Lords, particularly when the only claim to survival of that place is as a revising body. But, far from revising the Bill, it has chosen to make more obscure every amendment that it has touched.
§ Mr. Prior
Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that he filibustered on the last Lords reform Bill. The Government then had to withdraw it, but introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, which subsequently they had to withdraw, too.
§ Mr. Foot
I do not know what relevance that has to this debate. It was partly because of my hostility to the House of Lords that I opposed that Bill. But its conduct on the present legislation justifies everything I said on the previous occasion. I hope it is understood that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords has been manoeuvred and mobilised on this occasion, first to make our repeal Bill obscure and secondly to try to resuscitate parts of the 1971 Act.
§ Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)
Will the Secretary of State, if his anger allows him to contain himself for a moment, explain what the provision in the 1971 Act had to do with the matter?
§ Mr. Foot
If one operated the clause under the obscure provisions which Donovan described, when one faced a decision on the question whether a union was acting within the law in trying to deal with commercial contracts and sought to bring pressure to bear, one could deal with the situation in a particular way. That is the analogy of the 1971 Act.
Perhaps the Conservatives have already had support for their views in another place, flowing from their tame majority there. They may have thought that having used their privileged position in the House of Lords they could force through their amendments here. It is conceivable that they could do so, but I tell them that the judgment on these matters will not be made by the House of Lords. The judgment on these matters will not even be made by a minority House of Commons of this character. It will be made by the country.
The Opposition wish to press the amendment. They should be more careful. They should remember that it was partly their enthusiasm for the 1971 Act which brought them to their knees. They should remember now that it is their spleen and hatred against the trade union movement which makes them and, in particular, their leader, unfit to govern the country. It was the aftermath of the malice and bitterness of the 1971 Act which led to the situation last winter. It is very unwise for the Conservative Party to invoke its majority in the Lords to assist it, and even more discreditable for the Liberal Party to support it.
§ Mr. Percival
It is very odd to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about the bitterness of the Opposition when every word that he uttered was spitting with bitterness.
I spoke after the right hon. Gentleman when we debated this amendment in Committee. I began my speech by saying that some of what he said had been entertaining but the rest was bunkum. On this occasion I omit the first few words. All that he said today was bunkum.
541 The right hon. Gentleman made one remark with which I agreed. He said that the House should be clear about what it was doing. However, he gave the House a fat lot of help to understand what it was doing. We have heard a load of bunkum about the so-called Lever amendments. I want to spend a few moments looking at the way in which the confusion crept in there.
There were two amendments which were linked. The Government secured a dead heat on the first one through an error about which we now know, and they got their majority on it through the vote of the Chair. Then they proceeded to outvote the Opposition on the second amendment, which would have brought the two clauses, amended by the two amendments, into line with each other. But then, having discovered that they were wrong on the first one, they had not the grace to say that they would carry amendments into the second clause.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about using the Upper House as a reviewing authority. Why did the Government not do that? They could easily have moved amendments in the other place which would have eradicated all the difficulties.
§ Mr. Foot
The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in the discussions about this matter we were asked to move amendments in the House of Lords, but only on the condition that we accepted those amendments when they came back to this House. That was the proposal. The condition was that we deprived this House of the right to decide the matter.
§ Mr. Percival
The right hon. Gentleman will twist everything to suit himself. What was offered was an agreed solution to the difficulties of which he speaks. What kind of agreed solution is it if it is on the basis that one party can seek to change it later? The right hon. Gentleman does not attract much credit to his argument by putting forward that point.
Two other ways of putting it right were offered to the right hon. Gentleman. He rejected both. He was entitled to do so, of course. But what the Government are not entitled to do is then to blame the Opposition for any difficulties that there might be in interpreting the words.
542 It is also quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we have made a nonsense of the closed shop. That is what has happened, according to Mr. Murray. That is rubbish. If anyone chooses to make an agreement coming within the terms of a union membership agreement, as now defined, he can pray in aid the advantages of Schedule 1. There is nothing to stop unions continuing to make the agreements that they make now.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is confusion in new Clause 1. I wish he had reminded the House that none of these points was taken in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows that parliamentary counsel had a good look at the clause and suggested some corrections necessary to make it free of defects, and that at all stages thereafter it was so regarded.
§ Mr. Foot
The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought parliamentary counsel into the argument. I am not sure that that is proper. It is not correct to say that parliamentary counsel has agreed with new Clause 1 as it stands. Most of the defects which I cited are those which parliamentary counsel pointed out.
§ Mr. Percival
The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about. We all know that parliamentary counsel vet every amendment and that technical defects discovered by them are in the forefront of the Government's answers. How often have we heard the argument, "It is a good idea, but it is unacceptable, because there are technical difficulties"? There was none in this case, but certain amendments to new Clause 1 were suggested and accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman then says that all that the Opposition are doing in supporting this amendment from the Lords is supporting a return to a major obscurity. That is very different from his criticism of it over the weekend.
Once again the Secretary of State relied on Donovan. He cannot appreciate how tempting it is for me to quote the passages from Donovan which lead to the opposite conclusion. I ask any hon. Member who might otherwise be led astray by the right hon. Gentleman's references to Donovan to look at the context in which Donovan said that what the right hon. Gentleman quoted.
543 The right hon. Gentleman conceded that his own Bill was extending the immunities, but, towards the end of his speech, he seemed to argue that it was not extending them but merely restoring to trade unionists the rights that they had taken away from them by the judges. The right hon. Gentleman knows that judges do not invent new laws. They apply the law to the circumstances of the cases which they have to decide. It is the long-standing law of the country, and it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to wag his head—
§ Mr. Foot
It is not a question of my wagging my head; it is a question of the view of the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will advise his hon. Friends to read what the Lord Chancellor said in another place. It will be seen that my right hon. and noble Friend confirmed what I say.
§ Mr. Percival
The Lord Chancellor used those words. However, I invite hon. Members to turn their attention to the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, which coincides closely with what I say and which I think is the better view, with great respect to all the others concerned.
I turn to the suggestion that their Lordships are robbing someone of something. In the first place, no one is robbed of anything. This amendment puts the position back to where it was before 1971, allowing for the Trade Disputes Act 1965.
It is this House which will decide, and I invite this House to decide now in favour of this very sensible amendment made by their Lordships.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 282.547
|Division No. 106.]||AYES||[6.21 p.m.|
|Archer, Peter||Davidson, Arthur||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)||Grant, John (Islington, C.)|
|Ashley, Jack||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hamilton, William (Fife. C.)|
|Atkins, Ronald||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Hamling, William|
|Atkinson, Norman||Deakins, Eric||Hardy, Peter|
|Bagier, Gordon, A. T.||Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)||Delargy, Hugh||Hattersley, Roy|
|Baxter, William||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Hatton, Frank|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Dempsey, James||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)||Doig, Peter||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dormand, J. D.||Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hooley, Frank|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Duffy, A. E. P.||Horam, John|
|Boardman, H.||Dunn, James A.||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)|
|Booth, Albert||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Edelman, Maurice||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Edge, Geoff||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)|
|Bradley, Tom||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Hunter, Adam|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||English, Michael||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl).|
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'dltch)||Ennals, David||Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Jackson, Colin|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Janner, Greville|
|Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)||Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Campbell, Ian||Faulds, Andrew||Jeger, Mrs. Lena|
|Cant, R. B.||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)|
|Carter, Ray||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||John, Brynmor|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Flannery, Martin||Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Cocks, Michael||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Coleman, Donald||Ford, Ben||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)|
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.||Forrester, John||Judd, Frank|
|Conlan, Bernard||Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||Kelley, Richard|
|Cox, Thomas||Freeson, Reginald||Kerr, Russell|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Cronin, John||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Lamborn, Harry|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||George, Bruce||Lamond, James|
|Cryer, G. R.||Gilbert, Dr. John||Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)|
|Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)||Golding, John||Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Gourlay, Harry||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Lee, John||Ovenden, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Owen, Dr. David||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)||Padley, Walter||Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Palmer, Arthur||Swain, Thomas|
|Lipton, Marcus||Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)||Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Loyden, Eddie||Parry, Robert||Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Perry, Ernest G.||Tierney, Sydney|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford. W.)||Phipps, Dr. Colin||Tinn, James|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg||Tomlinson, John|
|McCartney, Hugh||Prescott, John||Tomney, Frank|
|MacCormack, Iain||Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)||Torney, Tom|
|McElhone, Frank||Price, William (Rugby)||Tuck, Raphael|
|MacFarquhar, Roderick||Radice, Giles||Urwin, T. W.|
|McGuire, Michael||Reid, George||Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.|
|Maclennan, Robert||Richardson, Miss Jo||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Madden, M. O. F.||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Magee, Bryan||Roderick, Caerwyn E.||Watkins, David|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Watt, Hamish|
|Marks, Kenneth||Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)||Weitzman, David|
|Marquand, David||Rooker, J. W.||Wellbeloved, James|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)||Rose, Paul B.||White, James|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Meacher, Michael||Rowlands, Edward||Whitlock, William|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Sandelson, Neville||Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)|
|Mendelson, John||Selby, Harry||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Mikardo, Ian||Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Millan, Bruce||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)|
|Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)||Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton. Itchen)||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Molloy, William||Slikin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Moonman, Eric||Silverman, Julius||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Small, William||Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)|
|Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Snape, Peter||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Spearing, Nigel||Woodall, Alec|
|Murray, Ronald King||Spriggs, Leslie||Woof, Robert|
|Newens, Stanley (Harlow)||Stallard, A. W.||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Oakes, Gordon||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)||Young, David (Bolton, E.)|
|Ogden, Eric||Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|O'Malley. Brian||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Mt. James Hamilton and|
|Orbach, Maurice||Stott, Roger||Mr. Joseph Harper.|
|Adley, Robert||Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Channon, Paul||Farr, John|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Fell, Anthony|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Churchill, W. S.||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Fidler, Michael|
|Archer, Jeffrey||Clark, William (Croydon, S.)||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Speithorne)||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Awdry, Daniel||Clegg, Walter||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Cockcroft, John||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)|
|Beith, A. J.||Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)||Fox, Marcus|
|Bell, Ronald||Cope, John||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)||Cormack, Patrick||Freud, Clement|
|Benyon, W.||Corrle, John||Fry, Peter|
|Berry, Hon. Anthony||Costain, A. P.||Galbraith, Fin. T. G. D.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, E.)||Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)|
|Blaker, Peter||Critchley, Julian||Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)||Crouch, David||Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David|
|Body, Richard||Crowder, F. P.||Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)|
|Boscawen, Hon. Robert||Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. James||Glyn, Dr. Alan|
|Bradford, Rev. R.||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Goodhart, Philip|
|Bray, Ronald||Dixon, Piers||Goodhew, Victor|
|Brewis, John||Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas||Goodlad, A.|
|Brittan, Leon||Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Gorst, John|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Drayson, Burnaby||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Dunlop, John||Gray, Hamish|
|Buck, Antony||Durant, Tony||Grieve, Percy|
|Budgen, Nick||Dykes, Hugh||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Balmer, Esmond||Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Grist, Ian|
|Carlisle, Mark||Elliott, Sir William||Grylls, Michael|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Emery, Peter||Gurden, Harold|
|Carson, John||Eyre, Reginald||Hall, Sir John|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Hannam, John||Marten, Neil||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mather, Carol||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Hastings, Stephen||Maude, Angus||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Mawby, Ray||Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Shersby, Michael|
|Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh. W'wch, E)||Silvester, Fred|
|Heseltine, Michael||Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)||Sims, Roger|
|Higgins, Terence||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hill, James A.||Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Holland, Philip||Miscampbell, Norman||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Hordern, Peter||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Smith, John (W'wick & L'm'ngton)|
|Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.)||Moate, Roger||Spence, John|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Molyneaux, James||Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)||Money, Ernle||Sproat, Iain|
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)||Stainton, Keith|
|Hunt, John||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hurd, Douglas||Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)||Stanley, John|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Steel, David|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Mudd, David||Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|James, David||Neave, Alrey||Stokes, John|
|Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)||Neubert, Michael||Stradling Thomas, John|
|Jessel, Toby||Newton, Tony (Braintree)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Normanton, Tom||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Nott, John||Tebbit, Norman|
|Jopling, Michael||Onslow, Cranley||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Townsend, C. D.|
|Kilfedder, James A.||Osborn, John||Trotter, Neville|
|Kimball, Marcus||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Tyler, Paul|
|King Tom (Bridgwater)||Paisley, Rev. Ian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Kirk, Peter||Pardoe, John||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)||Viggers, Peter|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Pattie, Geoffrey||Waddington, David|
|Knox, David||Percival, Ian||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Lamont, Norman||Peyton, Rt. He. John||Wakeham, John|
|Lane, David||Pink, R. Bonner||Welder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Latham, Michael (Melton)||Prior, Rt. He. James||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Raison, Timothy||Wall, Patrick|
|Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)||Rathbone, Tim||Warren, Kenneth|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Redmond, Robert||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Winstanley, Dr. Michael|
|Loveridge, John||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Luce, Richard||Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|MacArthur, Ian||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Ridsdale, Julian||Worsley, Sir Marcus|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)|
|MacGregor, John||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)|
|McLaren, Martin||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davies and|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Mr. Paul Hawkins.|
|McNair-Wilson Patrick (New Forest)||Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Madel, David||Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.