HC Deb 05 November 1975 vol 899 cc519-33

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 45, line 13, at end insert— (d) permits the Secretary of State to exercise or not to exercise any power or authority or to withhold any consent, approval or authorisation or to make provisions terms or conditions pursuant to this Act or a licence for the time being in force by virtue of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 with a view to securing participation by the Government of the United Kingdom, or by the Corporation or any other body on behalf of the Government, in activities connected with petroleum beneath controlled waters.

Mr. Benn

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This amendment relates to a substantial point. I shall keep my remarks brief, and I shall seek the leave of the House to respond at the conclusion of the debate.

If the amendment is accepted, the situation will be tantamount to the Government's being told that they can have their Bill but must not, when armed by Parliament with any powers, under any circumstances have in mind in the exercise of those powers the implementation of the policy that lies at the heart at the Government's objectives.

The amendment is not acceptable because it attacks the whole concept of participation, which we regard as absolutely essential. The provision will give us the title to oil, access to information, a complete capability in oil terms and will in future increase the return to the British people when the Corporation acquires licences as sole licensee.

Because we are seeking to deal in the first instance with licences negotiated in 1972, we are seeking to reach agreement and to have voluntary participation, but the House should be under no misapprehension about the matter. The Government are determined that their policy will be a success and we have engaged in voluntary discussions. Nobody should be misled by Press reports, rumours or speculation to the effect that the Government's intent is other than serious. Our intent is serious, and there will be a continued intent by the Government that such a move should take place with the companies with which we have agreement in principle—namely, BP, Burmah, Deminex, Tricentrol, Blackfriars, London and Scottish, Marine Oil, Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation. But the Government intend to press forward with participation to cover the majors, including the Shell and Exxon companies, which have important interests.

The amendment says that in the negotiation, which is voluntary, we shall not be in a position to use the cards that Parliament is putting in our hands by giving us this legislation, if Parliament chooses so to do. It is a genuine negotiation that we have in mind. We do not intend to use our powers improperly. That would be wrong. We do not intend to use them in a way that would be a breach of good faith or of good partnership relations with the companies. But we intend to have participation.

My understanding of the oil industry is that from its very early days right up to the present it has put up a sturdy and robust defence of its interests, and that by the Governments concerned there has also been a sturdy and robust defence of their interests. We intend to be no less sturdy and no less robust than anyone else in our pursuit of participation. The amendment would entirely disarm us.

It would be wrong for us to use any powers given by Parliament in such a way as to commit a breach of faith or a breach of proper relations. Perhaps I may give one example of how the powers might be improperly used. We are seeking in the Bill to take power to require that operators be approved. It might be argued that we might use that to drive back on to the principle of participation. We do not intend to do so, because it is technical competence that we seek there. But if there were a suggestion that the licence should be assigned to another company it would be right for the Government to say that, in the light of an assignation, the powers available to us in approval should have regard to the broad objective of participation.

Similarly, when we come to the fifth round, about which I am not in a position to make any further statement than was made in my speech and in the statement by my noble Friend, Lord Balogh, participation will be a major objective. I do not want there to be any doubt about our determination. In the course of the negotiations the Conservative Party will no doubt make a great deal of the time we are taking to build up a BNOC board, with proper membership. But nobody should mistake that for weakness of intent or second thoughts about the BNOC. We intend to have a BNOC, and we intend it to develop on the 51 per cent. participation basis. We intend quite properly and responsibly to use the powers that Parliament is now considering giving the Government to secure our policy objectives. Nothing less than that would be responsible.

I was not the architect of this legislation. I came in when it was already formulated. Therefore, I have no reason to say what I have said other than that I would not take part in any charade or appearance of being serious. We are in deadly earnest about it. I am not saying this in an aggressive or hostile way to the Opposition or any one else. But I regret that the Leader of the Opposition should have chosen to go abroad and make statements which she may have hoped would win her popularity but which were designed to undermine the credibility of our policy. The Leader of the Opposition made speeches in the United States which were designed to undermine the credibility of this policy. That is entirely a matter for her. No one should assume that an attempt to curry popularity in the United States by means of such speeches, or by giving ill-considered pledges which might be greatly regretted, will cause misunderstanding or confusion about the reality of the Government's determination.

The Bill will enable the Government to secure their objective declared and made clear before two General Elections that we would seek 51 per cent. participation in offshore oil. I say that seriously and quietly. I hope that those who listen to these debates and report on the flow of argument one way and the other, wherever they may be, will realise that the Government are in earnest in the implementation of this Bill. It therefore follows that this amendment is neither sensible nor correct and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

It is obvious from the way in which the Secretary of State commended his motion to the House that he has been deeply disturbed by Press speculation to the effect that the Government were wisely having second thoughts. We also gain the impression that he is anxious to stake out his claim against some of his colleagues who are beginning to have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of his policy.

The Minister may not know this. However, I am sure that some of his colleagues realise that no act of the Government does greater damage to our offshore prospects than the continuing demand for 51 per cent. participation. It has injected a major element of uncertainty at a time when the maximum of certainty is required. With the promise of 51 per cent. participation, but without any idea of what the terms will be, the Government have rendered the financing of new development impossible.

Mr. Benn

Rubbish.

Mr. Jenkin

The Minister continues to shout "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. Perhaps he will say why for over a year there has been no single deal to finance the development of platforms. Perhaps he will explain why in answer to a Question in the House today he says that he does not expect any platform orders for the rest of this year.

This is not the occasion to rehearse in detail all the arguments which the Opposition deployed throughout the discussions on the Bill against the policy of 51 per cent. participation. The Opposition see no point in spending the thousands of millions of pounds that will be needed to buy out the oil companies in the manner proposed by the Government. At this juncture of their economic management the Government cannot afford to buy out the oil companies. The finance required by the Exchequer can be raised by taxation. The controls sought by the Government may be secured by legislation, but the existence of the BNOC and participation add not one whit to what the Government seek.

The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us that the Government had a political commitment and that there must be participation.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

What are we here for?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman who interrupts is doubtless keeping an eye on his right hon. Friend to see that he does not waiver. As the Economist correctly pointed out on 1st November, one of the Government's difficulties is to avoid the backlash from the left wing of the Labour Party. That is why it is being done.

The amendment is concerned with the narrow but vital point whether the negotiations are to be voluntary. I will take the House quickly through what has been said by the Government on this issue. In his statement on 11th July 1974 the previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), said: Thirdly, we shall be inviting the companies to enter into discussions with us about majority State participation in existing licences for commercial fields. I asked: Will he give the House a categorial assurance that this will be a voluntary negotiation with the perfect right for members of these consortia to refuse? The right hon. Gentleman replied: My statement means that we are inviting the companies to discuss the question of participation in existing licences. We are inviting them to have meaningful discussions with us, and we hope that these talks will go ahead as quickly as possible."—[Official Report, 11th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1559–61.] On the same day the right hon. Gentleman gave a Press conference at which he said: We in Britain do not go in for coercion like some other oil producing countries. So notable was that statement that the Observer quoted it in its "Sayings of the Week" column. So negotiations were to be voluntary.

There was a hint of the mailed fist inside the velvet glove when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was questioned about this by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Cabinet— were unable to satisfy its objectives, which seem to us fair and reasonable and not incompatible with the interests of the oil companies, by voluntary agreement with them, to nationalise— Mr. SKEET: Blackmail. Mr. LEVER: The hon. Member should permit me to answer the question. So there was the threat to nationalise, but for the present—

Mr. Benn

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Chancellor of the Duchy represent the wild Left wing to which all have to bow?

Mr. Jenkin

No doubt the main point which the Chancellor of the Duchy was anxious to get on record was what he said a little later: I made it absolutely plain, however, that if the Government did so—and I could not say whether they would or would not—there would be full and fair compensation as we have always provided on such occasions."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1341.] That was the reassurance. The knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy is in the Cabinet is enough to frighten many oil companies. The statement about fair compensation might have reassured some of them. For the present it is to be voluntary negotiation.

It is clear that the Government are facing grave difficulties. The Chancellor of the Duchy is rarely here to submit himself to parliamentary Questions, so we have to rely on Written Answers. On Monday 3rd November he gave Written Answers to many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked for the names of the companies with which agreement in principle had been reached. The right hon. Gentleman gave the names of the seven companies which the Secretary of State has just recited to the House: BP, Burmah, Deminex, Tricentrol, Blackfriars Oil, London and Scottish Marine Oil and Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation. Those are the companies which have agreed in principle.

One finds that those companies have certain features in common. BP is a company of which the Government are currently a majority shareholder. Therefore, the Government can tell BP what to do and the company is obliged to do it. Burmah resorted to the Bank of England as part of the rescue operation and thereby put itself in the hands of the Government and was unable to resist the duress. Deminex bought in several interests. The first was from the Canadian company United Canso, a partner in the Thistle field. We find that company in the list because it would not have got the consent to the assignment if it had not agreed to the 51 per cent.

Tricentrol, a small company with a good record, sought guarantees for its investment because, in the prevailing uncertainty, it was unable to raise money without them. It, too, was forced to concede participation.

Blackfriars Oil, London and Scottish Marine Oil, and Scottish Canadian Oil and Transportation have in one way or another sought consents for assignments or other consents necessary from the Secretary of State, and each one of them has had to concede 51 per cent.

Every single one of those companies—with the exception of BP, in its special position—has had to go to the Department of Energy for the exercise of some power or consent in its favour. Therefore the suspicion has grown up that the Government are using these powers, given by the House for a wholly different purpose—these are powers under existing legislation, not under this Bill—to blackmail the companies into surrendering the 51 per cent. to the BNOC. It is an absolute nonsense to regard these as voluntary negotiations. They turn into a sick joke the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman the previous Secretary of State gave at his Press conference in July last year.

That was why a number of noble Lords tabled the amendment we are now discussing. What was interesting about the amendment was the Government's first reactions to it. In the words of the old song, they did not say "Yes" and they did not say "No".

There might have been two possible reactions. One might have been, "Yes, of course, we shall do anything we can to twist the companies' arms. We have it in our power to make their operations impossible and we intend to use that power in order to screw 51 per cent. out of them." They could have reacted in that way. Or they could have said, "These suspicions are quite unfounded. These are truly voluntary negotiations. There is no question of coercion." They might have quoted Lord Kearton's words in his only speech since being appointed: …the first aim of BNOC must be participation in field exploitation—not only voluntarily on the part of existing licensees, but I trust willingly and cheerfully. That is what he wants and that is the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, might have given, but it was not the answer that he gave. He used some fairly strong words: We are negotiating with the most powerful economic interests in the country. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Ministers—to be punished by being put in the Tower, and not in the Jewel Tower, either—if we did not use our strongest cards, if we went into negotiations without the strongest cards we have."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24th September, 1975; Vol. 364, c. 359.] Quite apart from whether the metaphor of gambling is an appropriate one or not in the circumstances, these were weasel words, because they did not answer the question whether the Government were using their powers in the way in which my right hon. and noble Friends had suggested.

In the debate on 15th October, the noble Lord said: None of this means the Government are putting undue or illegitimate pressure on the companies. We are now in negotiation with several companies. Some of them would surprise noble Lords opposite, but I am not going to make any further revelations. We expect to use to the full the arguments and bargaining power that we have; but we are not going beyond what is fair and supportable. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15th October, 1975; Vol. 364, c. 975.] The question is: what is illegitimate pressure? On that we have still to hear an answer from the Government.

Then on Third Reading—

Mr. Benn

The right hon. Gentleman is using very colourful language again, but may I remind him that in Committee he made a specific allegation that improper pressure had been brought to bear by a civil servant upon an oil company? Throughout the whole of the Committee stage we asked him to provide evidence. He did not provide evidence. If he is going to revert to charges of illegitimacy and improper pressures, will he kindly place before the House any evidence he has that this has occurred in the past? It was only by reason of the courtesy, good will and good manners of our side that he was not pressed to withdraw specifically what he said in Committee. He is very loose in the language he uses. This is damaging and has never been substantiated.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I wrote to him shortly afterwards telling him that unfortunately the evidence on which I was hoping to rely was not available, and, of course. I immediately withdraw any allegation. However, that intervention was a complete red herring, of course.

On 31st October the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, again defending what he had said commented, I can only say that our special agreement negotiations are normal commercial negotiations in which all sides obviously, use their full bargaining power. Nothing on earth would lead me to abjure that power because it has to be used in the national interest. Then my noble Friend. Lord Strathcona, asked: Is that what the noble Lord calls 'voluntary', though, my Lords?", to which the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, replied: Of course, my Lords. Voluntary agreements between big oil companies are also sometimes influenced by bargaining power. They are called voluntary, of course; but, as some people said, some are more voluntary than others."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31st October 1975; Vol. 365, c. 773.] Clearly what the noble Lord had in mind here was the words of George Orwell in "Animal Farm", to the effect that all animals are equal but that some are more equal than others.

The attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is cynical to the point of hypocrisy. While continuing to mouth soothing words about voluntary negotiations, he makes it plain that he is prepared to use whatever duress or blackmail comes to hand to achieve his object. In effect, he is saying, "You want to farm out? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent. You want to assign? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent. You need a guarantee? Yes, if you give up 51 per cent." That is not voluntary negotiation. More important, it is a cynical misuse of the powers granted to the Government by this House. The powers were given to regulate offshore operations and to regulate the oil-winning activities of the operators. The purpose was not to advance the cause of Socialism, which is how they are being used now.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of the rule of law. It is yet another sight of the unacceptable face of Socialism.

What is the consequence of adopting this style of so-called voluntary negotiation? It is that no company can ever again trust this Government not to use their new powers to secure even greater concessions outside the scope of the powers being given.

There are vast new powers in this Bill. I shall not go through them all but they include powers to give directions, to require this, to consent to that, to approve this, to specify that, to authorise the other, to issue an authorisation, to determine sums, to determine a dispute, to revoke licences, and so on. There is an enormous plethora of powers to ensure the proper operation by the licensees of their offshore interests. They are not given to advance the cause of Socialism.

By choosing to renege on their pledge of "no coercion", to quote the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the Government have dealt another hammer blow to confidence. It will inflict incalculable harm not merely on the good name of Governments but on prospects for the North Sea.

Lord Balogh took part in a Panorama programme on 27th October. He was asked by the interviewer:

"What is the Government doing positively to speed up the development of North Sea oil?"

The noble Lord replied: At the moment we cannot do anything.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an enormous amount that they could do. They could abandon the purposeless BNOC. They could abandon the damaging 51 per cent. participation. They could pay compensation. At the very least, they could forswear the blackmailing tactics that they are using to secure their nefarious purposes. They could keep faith with the pledges given.

That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting to keep this amendment in the Bill.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 228.

Division No. 387.] AYES [9.35 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Crawshaw, Richard Gould, Bryan
Anderson, Donald Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Gourlay, Harry
Archer, Peter Cryer, Bob Graham, Ted
Armstrong, Ernest Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ashley, Jack Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Grant, John (Islington C)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Davidson, Arthur Grocott, Bruce
Atkinson, Norman Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hardy, Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Deakins, Eric Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Bates, Alf Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Hatton, Frank
Bean, R. E. Delargy, Hugh Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Dempsey, James Heffer, Eric S.
Bidwell, Sydney Doig, Peter Henderson, Douglas
Bishop, E. S. Dormand, J. D. Hooley, Frank
Boardman, H. Douglas-Mann, Bruce Horam, John
Booth, Albert Dunn, James A. Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Dunnett, Jack Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Eadie, Alex Huckfield, Les
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Edge, Geoff Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Bradley, Tom Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) English, Michael Hunter, Adam
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Ennals, David Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Buchan, Norman Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Buchanan, Richard Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, John (Newton) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Janner, Greville
Campbell, Ian Faulds, Andrew Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Canavan, Dennis Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Jeger, Mrs Lena
Cant, R. B. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) John, Brynmor
Carmichael, Neil Flannery, Martin Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Carter, Ray Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Cartwright, John Foot, Rt Hon Michael Judd, Frank
Clemitson, Ivor Forrester, John Kaufman, Gerald
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Freeson, Reginald Kelley, Richard
Cohen, Stanley Garrett, John (Norwich S) Kerr, Russell
Conlan, Bernard Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) George, Bruce Kinnock, Neil
Corbett, Robin Gilbert, Dr John Lambie, David
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Ginsburg, David Lamborn, Harry
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Golding, John Lamond, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Leadbitter, Ted Orbach, Maurice Swain, Thomas
Lee, John Ovenden, John Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Padley, Walter Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Palmer, Arthur Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Lipton, Marcus Park, George Thompson, George
Litterick, Tom Parker, John Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Loyden, Eddie Parry, Robert Tierney, Sydney
Luard, Evan Peart, Rt Hon Fred Tinn, James
Lyon, Alexander (York) Pendry, Tom Tomlinson, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Tomney, Frank
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Price, C. (Lewisham W) Torney, Tom
McCartney, Hugh Price, William (Rugby) Tuck, Raphael
MacCormick, Iain Radice, Giles Urwin, T. W.
McElhone, Frank Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
MacFarquhar, Roderick Reid, George Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Richardson, Miss Jo Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mackenzie, Gregor Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Ward, Michael
Mackintosh, John P. Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Watkins, David
Maclennan, Robert Robertson, John (Paisley) Watkinson, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Roderick, Caerwyn Watt, Hamish
Madden, Max Rodgers, George (Chorley) Weetch, Ken
Magee, Bryan Rodgers, William (Stockton) Weitzman, David
Mahon, Simon Rooker, J. W. Wellbeloved, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Roper, John Welsh, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth Rose, Paul B. White, Frank R. (Bury)
Marquand, David Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) White, James (Pollok)
Marshall Dr Edmund (Goole) Rowlands, Ted Whitehead, Phillip
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Sandelson, Neville Whitlock, William
Maynard, Miss Joan Sedgemore, Brian Wigley, Dafydd
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mendelson, John Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mikardo, Ian Shore, Rt Hon Peter Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Millan, Bruce Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Sillars, James Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Moonman, Eric Skinner, Dennis Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Small, William Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Spearing, Nigel Woodall, Alec
Moyle, Roland Spriggs, Leslie Woof, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Stallard, A. W. Wrigglesworth, Ian
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) Young, David (Bolton E)
Newens, Stanley Stoddart, David
Noble, Mike Stott, Roger TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Oakes, Gordon Strang, Gavin Mr. Donald Coleman and
O'Halloran, Michael Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Adley, Robert Cordle, John H. Gorst, John
Aitken, Jonathan Cormack, Patrick Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Alison, Michael Corrie, John Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Arnold, Tom Costain, A. P. Gray, Hamish
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Crouch, David Griffiths, Eldon
Banks, Robert Crowder, F. P. Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Beith, A. J. Dodsworth, Geoffrey Grist, Ian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Grylls, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Drayson, Burnaby Hall, Sir John
Benyon, W. du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Berry, Hon Anthony Durant, Tony Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Biffen, John Dykes, Hugh Hampson, Dr Keith
Biggs-Davison, John Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Hannam, John
Blaker, Peter Elliott, Sir William Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Emory, Peter Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Bottomley, Peter Eyre, Reginald Havers, Sir Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Fairbairn, Nicholas Hawkins, Paul
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Fairgrieve, Russell Hayhoe, Barney
Braine, Sir Bernard Farr, John Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Brittan, Leon Fell, Anthony Heseltine, Michael
Brotherton, Michael Finsberg, Geoffrey Hicks, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fisher, Sir Nigel Higgins, Terence L.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Holland, Phillip
Budgen, Nick Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hooson, Emlyn
Bulmer, Esmond Fookes, Miss Janet Hordern, Peter
Burden, F. A. Fox, Marcus Howell, David (Guildford)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Freud, Clement Hunt, John
Carlisle, Mark Fry, Peter Hurd, Douglas
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Churchill, W. S. Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Glyn, Dr Alan Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Godber, Rt Hon Joseph James, David
Cockcroft, John Goodhart, Philip Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Goodhew, Victor Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Cope, John Goodlad, Alastair Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Kershaw, Anthony Mudd, David Sinclair, Sir George
Kimball, Marcus Neave, Airey Skeet, T. H. H.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Nelson, Anthony Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Neubert, Michael Speed, Keith
Kitson, Sir Timothy Newton, Tony Spence, John
Knight, Mrs Jill Normanton, Tom Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Knox, David Onslow, Cranley Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)
Lamont, Norman Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Sproat, Iain
Langford-Holt, Sir John Osborn, John Stainton, Keith
Latham, Michael (Melton) Page, John (Harrow West) Stanbrook, Ivor
Lawrence, Ivan Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Stanley, John
Lawson, Nigel Pardoe, John Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Le Marchant, Spencer Parkinson, Cecil Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Pattie, Geoffrey Stokes, John
Lloyd, Ian Penhaligon, David Stradling Thomas, J.
Loveridge, John Percival, Ian Tapsell, Peter
Luce, Richard Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
McAdden, Sir Stephen Price, David (Eastleigh) Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Macfarlane, Neil Prior, Rt Hon James Tebbit, Norman
MacGregor, John Pym, Rt Hon Francis Temple-Morris, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Raison, Timothy Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Rathbone, Tim Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter Townsend, Cyril D.
Madel, David Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Trotter, Neville
Mates, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R. Tugendhat, Christopher
Mather, Carol Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mawby, Ray Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Viggers, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Rifkind, Malcolm Wakeham, John
Mayhew, Patrick Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Warren, Kenneth
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Weatherill, Bernard
Mills, Peter Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Wells, John
Miscampbell, Norman Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wiggin, Jerry
Moate, Roger Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) Winterton, Nicholas
Monro, Hector Sainsbury, Tim Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Montgomery, Fergus Scott, Nicholas Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Moore, John (Croydon C) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Younger, Hon George
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Morgan, Geraint Shelton, William (Streatham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Shepherd, Colin Mr. Michael Roberts and
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Sims, Roger Mr. Fred Silvester.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Forward to