§ Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 18, leave out ' Secretary of State ' and insert 'Prime Minister'.
No. 44, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—
'(b) he has been convicted of a criminal offence; or'.—[Mr Thomas Cox.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
§ 10.36 p.m.
§ Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border)
It is important to start with some points of clear agreement about the Bill. The first is that everyone accepts that the police in this country today justifiably enjoy considerable public confidence. It is extremely important to state this over and over again.
I believe that there is also a demand, in order to strengthen that public confidence, for an independent element of inquiry into complaints against the police. That was accepted by my right hon. Friend Lord Carr when he was Home Secretary, it has been accepted since by all Governments, and there is no dispute in any part of the House that such an independent inquiry into complaints against the police is right and should be pursued.
The trouble is that so far no one has been able to find a means which does this acceptably, at reasonable cost, and without destroying public confidence in the police—or, indeed, without considerable dislike in various elements of the police service. That is the problem we have at the present time.
We are committed to an independent element of inquiry into the police. I make that perfectly clear to the Home Secretary and would not go back on it for a moment. The trouble he has had with the Bill is that in putting forward his particular solution he has found that very few people are enthusiastic about it and many people strongly oppose it.
I do not suggest necessarily that that is an impossible answer or solution—that 1064 some people do not like it much and others very much oppose it—because there are many solutions in government which have to be accepted on that basis. But in looking at what has happened to the Bill we have to accept that as it stands it is widely disliked.
We know the views of Sir Robert Mark, and I accept at once what the Home Secretary has said about his position. I am sure it is the correct one. The Association of County Councils and the police authorities have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. The Police Federation has said that it would prefer this Bill to any other but it has equally said that it dislikes the Bill. This again is something with which we all have to reckon. The Bill, indeed, has very few friends.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I did not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We have made many attempts in different fundamental ways to alter and improve it. The arguments which have gained most support have been these in favour of complainant-activated complaints. A very strong case has also been made for the idea of an ombudsman, but this again has been rejected by the Government.
We have also put forward the idea that the Bill should be delayed for 12 months, and the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State has just turned down that proposal. We have at many stages of the Bill sought to change it and to find something which would be more acceptable in broad terms.
I accept at once—and the Home Secretary would remind me of it if I did not—that it is very difficult indeed to find a broad measure of agreement on how one could have a sensible and wise independent element in inquiries into complaints against the police. I accept that, but I do not believe that the Bill as it stands provides that answer. We also have to accept that, as it stands, it will do quite a lot to undermine, in many areas, confidence as far as the police are concerned. I fear it will also produce extra cost, and I do not believe that the extra cost can be justified at the present time.
I would therefore say to the Home Secretary that, while we support the 1065 principle, I fear that after all the argument we cannot accept this solution. We believe it will not provide the necessary procedure. The people associated with the police service dislike it and we fear it will certainly mean extra bureaucratic cost at a time when I do not think anyone can wish for that. For all these reasons I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we wish to press our opposition to the Bill at this stage by voting against the Third Reading.
§ 10.41 p.m.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) expressed his party's continued support for the principle of an independent element in the police complaints procedure. It has sometimes been difficult to discern that support in some of the statements made in this House and outside. It has sometimes been difficult to distinguish between the suggestion that the time is not right for this measure and outright opposition to it.
Of course, there are widely differing views as to how that principle can best be given effect both by this House and, indeed, by the police service itself. That would not be surprising. I think Conservative Members put forward those different alternatives in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that his hon. Friends attempted to make substantial changes to the Bill. They have gone in quite different directions in pursuit of this from, at one stage, a scheme for a local authority-based complaints procedure to the alternative suggestions that they have been putting forward tonight. I do not believe they are unreasonable in doing this, but they must recognise that we cannot exonerate ourselves from the responsibility of giving effect to the generally accepted objective simply because there are differences of view as to how it should be brought about.
After a lengthy and detailed Committee stage we have a Bill in a form which I believe can work. It can benefit the police service as well as the community. The Bill has been widened to include police forces other than those maintained by local authorities, and I am glad of this. Some of its more awkward features have been satisfactorily ironed out. I am confident that the police will operate the Bill to the best of their ability even 1066 though there are reservations about some parts of it.
I have no doubt at all about the way the police will regard the Bill when they come to operate it in practice. I believe they will benefit from it because it will be clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of complaints made against the police are satisfactorily dealt with and that a large majority of complaints which are made are without foundation. This will be to the benefit of the police, and the existence of an independent means of proving this will be to the benefit of the community. I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ 10.43 p.m.
§ Mr. Whitehead
I have been associated with the Bill from an early stage and, indeed, introduced a Private Members' Bill on the subject two years ago. I intervene merely to say to the Home Secretary that we on this side of the House, and, perhaps, hon. Members opposite, are grateful to him for persevering with this measure and carrying it through to its Third Reading. It would be idle to pretend that the Bill has had an easy passage through Committee. There was a great deal of opposition then and a curious alliance between those who wished to see the Bill strengthened and those who wished to see it watered down. I am glad to see that we sustained all that opposition and that we are able, after some discussion, to come through with the Bill as it has been presented during the two days of Report and now Third Reading.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) for missing the first two minutes of his speech. I had expected that the war of attrition in which we are now involved would have been taken more seriously by the Opposition.
I think the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman quoted would almost certainly have been brought to bear during the final stages of the Bill whatever form it had taken and however long consultations had gone on. The fact is that there are many elements associated with the police who have misgivings about the Bill. They would have had misgivings about anything. They expressed themselves forcibly in the consultations with 1067 two Governments and three Home Secretaries.
I think that the police will now see that the Bill is going into law in a form which will actually engender confidence and make their job easier. This was never intended to be a measure "knocking" the police or to diminish confidence in them. In its final form it will give us not merely the police service we deserve and have a right to expect but also a measure of public confidence in that service. That is crucially important, and for that reason alone my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on seeing the Bill through in the difficult times that the Government are facing.
§ 10.46 p.m.
§ Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)
I have to declare an indirect interest as an adviser to the Association of Chief Police Officers; but the area on which I occasionally advise it does not include disciplinary matters. In any case, the Association has made its views public and I am speaking purely for myself.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has confirmed again that we accept the principle of an independent element in the complaints procedure. But I am disappointed that, after all the debate on an admittedly difficult problem, the Government have not found it possible to produce a more satisfactory package. I fear that if the Bill goes through in this form, quite apart from the risk of undermining police morale, it is bound to involve considerable extra burdens of both time and expense.
It comes back in the end to a question of priorities. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State spent a considerable time at the conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers at Bournemouth, including a speech, for which everyone was grateful. She spoke frankly—and her remarks were well publicised—about the time of austerity ahead for the police service, along with other activities of government, local and national, and of the community. We have had unhappy reminders in the last few days, particularly in the London area, of the continuing extra responsibilities which the police have to undertake in addition to their normal main job of detecting and preventing crime.
1068 Over the very difficult period ahead, money and effort, which are bound to be limited, would be better reserved for even more urgent purposes, like increasing police strength and improving police equipment. I am sure that the Under-Secretary heard that message loud and clear from the chief officers last week. They will also have made it clear to her—as we would take for granted—that when the Bill reaches the statute book they will do their best to make a success of it.
For all these reasons, the Government would be wiser to withdraw the measure for further reflection and further efforts to produce a simpler and more widely acceptable package, although I do not under-estimate the difficulty of that. My judgment, like that of other hon. Members on this side, is that we should vote against Third Reading.
§ 10.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)
The Opposition have wavered and wobbled incredibly through Committee and Report on this Bill, making an extraordinary range of criticisms, varying from rejecting the whole principle to all kinds of fiddling changes which would not have improved it in any way.
My own objection has been clearly and logically stated throughout—that nothing short of a powerful independent body with power to investigate is satisfactory. This House wisely established some years ago, through the Parliamentary Commissioner, the principle of independent investigation of the machinery and organs of government. One can hardly conceive of a more important area into which that principle could have been extended than investigations into the police.
Policemen themselves will regret in years to come that they forced upon the Home Office the compromise with which the House is now faced. They have exposed the individual policeman not merely to long-range investigation of individual complaints within the existing system—which, of course, continues—but also to the possibility of an extended period of risk while the Police Complaints Board gets out the papers and decides whether the matter can be raised again. I suspect that, after some experience of this system, the police will come back to 1069 us asking for a proper independent system.
I believe that an immense amount of the success or failure of the Bill will rest on the personality and calibre of the chairman of the board. If he is a powerful personality determined to make the system work, I think that perhaps something can be made of it. But he will have to be a man of considerable public standing who can give the board and its work prestige and authority in the eyes of the public. I support the Bill because I believe that it is a stage in our progress towards the proper independent system which is necessary, and because it is perhaps all we can get at this stage.
Although I have been in conflict a great deal in Committee with my hon. Friends who have been in charge of the Bill, I congratulate them on the way they stood up to the battering from both sides and worked extremely hard and answered very fairly the wide range of criticisms hurled at them.
§ 10.51 p.m.
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
It is extraordinary that, at a time when law and order are being increasingly undermined, we should be considering a Bill to assist complaints against the police, and that, at a time when crime rates are rising violently and the police are 5.000 men short in London alone, and when tremendous good could have been done to restrain crime by having those extra men, all we are concerned about is to assist people to make complaints against the police.
If we had a Bill to strengthen the police and increase their powers and root out the faults in our criminal law procedures, which would enable the police to do their job properly, we could honestly have approved of it, but we are doing no such thing. Instead, we are undermining the police and law and order. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.
§ 10.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department on their persistence in bringing the Bill through. Like some of my hon. Friends, I fear that we have lost an opportunity to produce a rather better 1070 Bill, but I find it odd that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), having, through his hon. Friends, prevented changes which might have been made in the Bill, now proposes to vote against the very Bill he was sustaining in the advice he gave them.
I believe that we shall eventually look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity. But it is a necessary Bill. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) spoke of strengthening the police, but I do not think that anyone can deny that when, in the London area alone, 400 policemen have been required to retire within the last four years when the figures for the previous period were 16 a year, it is clear that the system in the past was not satisfactory and that some independent system was essential. I am sorry that the Opposition are opposing the Bill, but I again congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on it.
§ 10.54 p.m.
§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
I think that this brief debate has encapsulated some of the difficulties through which we have had to steer in getting the Bill through to this stage. Those I would thank and congratulate most are my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department, who have borne the weight and burden of extremely difficult and protracted Committee and Report stages.
That has been so because this is an inherently intractable subject. Practically no country in the world has succeeded in introducing a satisfactory system of an independent element for complaints against the police, but I believe that it is necessary in the interests of the police themselves as much as of anyone else.
Some of the conclusions in the speeches from hon. Members opposite in the debate have not entirely followed from the premises on which they were argued, but the only speech I did not agree with at all was that of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). It is a gross travesty to suggest that the only thing we are doing for the police is introducing this Bill. This year has been the strongest in history for police recruitment and strength—and a good thing that is. To say one helps the police by legislative provisions is ludicrous. One helps the police by increasing their strength, which we 1071 have done on an unexampled scale in the last year.
§ Mr. Jenkins
We have rightly given the police full support during this period. The Bill in no way contradicts that. It is natural that all ranks in the police service should approach the departure with a degree of caution. I do not object to that.
There is a clear recognition by the House that we require an independent element, and I welcome the indication of that recognition by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), although I do not welcome his decision to vote against Third Reading. No doubt he will be able to reconcile those two attitudes.
It is not easy to produce a Bill on this subject but I have approached it throughout with an open mind. I have been willing at all stages to see whether a better scheme could be found. I have never claimed that the present scheme is perfect but I do claim that it is the best available. I have been willing to consider alternative schemes.
At times it looked as if there was an alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), but that alliance, as is sometimes the case with alliances of opposites, fell when put to the test.
The Police Federation, like other bodies, approached the Bill with caution but it is significant that it thought that on the whole the Bill was better than any known alternative.
I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who has played a notable paving part in achieving the passage of the Bill.
The Bill arises out of no distrust of the police by the House, by myself or my predecessors. We believe that the police do an enormously important and difficult job and that they do it well. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border underlined, their position will be im- 1072 proved and strengthened by an independent element. With all its difficulties, the Bill is the best way of introducing that element.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who, as usual, couched his remarks in a moderate form. I did not know that he had become adviser to the Association of Chief Police Officers. He was somewhat less articulate than advisers to other ranks within the police service but no doubt on future occasions when we hear his voice it will be sensible. It was not sensible to say that the Bill involves vast additional cost. I am determined that the scheme will be run not in a bureaucratic way but economically. The costs involved will be minute in proportion to the cost of the police service as a whole. Nor can I accept the argument that three years and more after the then right lion. Member for Carshalton, now Lord Carr, announced in principle that such a scheme should be brought into being it is sensible to say "Yes, but not now." If something is right, it should be done, and not postponed indefinitely.
§ Mr. Alison
Will the right hon. Gentleman not do a disservice to Lord Carr and his memory as Home Secretary by advancing the argument that he was in favour of this kind of scheme? He was not. It was the idea of an ex post facto review.
§ Mr. Jenkins
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. I was not praying in aid Lord Carr's support for the Bill. I was saying that three years and more after he said that we needed such a Bill it is not reasonable to say that we need it but not now, that we should have it at some time in the distant future. I believe that this is an improvement on the scheme Lord Carr put forward, although I pay tribute to him for having seized this nettle, something which I did not do when I was previously Home Secretary and which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not do when he was Home Secretary. Lord Carr seized the nettle in 1973 and put forward a scheme on which we have built.
I believe that we now have the best scheme we could get. In my view, it is in the best interests of the police service. 1073 It marks no possible lack of confidence in the police service on the part of the House, but rather our considered view that the Bill, although perhaps not perfect, but by far the best we could get, will in due course work effectively and strengthen still further public confidence in the police.
I would hazard the guess that in a few years' time the Bill will be accepted as a
|Division No. 162.]||AYES||[11.05 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Dormand, J. D.||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)|
|Allaun, Frank||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||John, Brynmor|
|Anderson, Donald||Duffy, A. E. P.||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Archer, Peter||Dunn, James A.||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Dunnett, Jack||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Ashley, Jack||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Ashton, Joe||Eadie, Alex||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Edge, Geoff||Judd, Frank|
|Atkinson, Norman||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Kelley, Richard|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Kerr, Russell|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Ennals, David||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Bates, Alf||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Bean, R. E.||Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Lambie, David|
|Beith, A. J.||Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Lamborn, Harry|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Evans John (Newton)||Lamond, James|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Faulds, Andrew||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Blenkinsop. Arthur||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lever, Rt Hon Harold|
|Boltomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Flannery, Martin||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Bradley, Tom||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lipton, Marcus|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Litterick, Tom|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Loyden, Eddie|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Ford, Ben||Luard, Evan|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Forrester, John||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)|
|Buchan, Norman||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Buchanan, Richard||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Freeson, Reginald||McElhone. Frank|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Freud, Clement||MacFarquhar, Roderick|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)|
|Campbell, Ian||George, Bruce||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gilbert, Dr John||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Cant, R. B.||Golding, John||Maclennan, Robert|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gould, Bryan||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)|
|Carter, Ray||Gourlay, Harry||McNamara, Kevin|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Madden, Max|
|Cartwright, John||Grant, John (Islington C)||Magee, Bryan|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Mahon, Simon|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Grocott, Bruce||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Hardy, Peter||Marks, Kenneth|
|Cohen, Stanley||Harper, Joseph||Marquand, David|
|Coleman, Donald||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hatton, Frank||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Corbett, Robin||Heffer, Eric S.||Meacher, Michael|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Hooley, Frank||Mendelson, John|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Hooson, Emlyn||Mikardo, Ian|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Horam, John||Millan, Bruce|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Howell, Rt Hon Denis||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Cryer, Bob||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Boyle, Doug (Nelson)||Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Huckfleld, Les||Molloy, William|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Moonman, Eric|
|Davidson, Arthur||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hunter, Adam||Moyle, Roland|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Deakins, Eric||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Newens, Stanley|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Janner, Greville||Noble, Mike|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Oakes, Gordon|
|Dempsey, James||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Ogden, Eric|
|Doig. Peter||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Orbach, Maurice|
§ natural part of our arrangements for relationships between the police and the public. Therefore, I ask the House to give its support to the Bill on Third Reading.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 222.
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Sandelson, Neville||Tuck, Raphael|
|Ovenden, John||Sedgemore, Brian||Urwin, T. W.|
|Padley, Walter||Selby, Harry||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Palmer, Arthur||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Pardoe, John||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Park, George||Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Parker, John||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)||Ward, Michael|
|Parry, Robert||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)||Watkins, David|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Watkinson, John|
|Peart, Rt Hon Fred||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Weetch, Ken|
|Pendry, Tom||Sillars, James||Weitzman, David|
|Penhaligon, David||Silverman, Julius||Wellbeloved, James|
|Perry, Ernest||Skinner, Dennis||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Phipps, Dr Colin||Small, William||White, James (Pollok)|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Prescott, John||Snape, Peter||Whitlock, William|
|Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Spearing, Nigel||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Price, William (Rugby)||Stallard, A. W.||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Radice, Giles||Steel, David (Roxburgh)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Richardson, Miss Jo||Stoddart, David||Williams, Sir Thomas|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Stott, Roger||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Strang, Gavin||Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)|
|Robinson, Geoffrey||Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Roderick, Caerwyn||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Swain, Thomas||Woodall, Alec|
|Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Woof, Robert|
|Rooker, J. W.||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Roper, John||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Rose, Paul B.||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Tierney, Sydney||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)||Tinn, James||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Rowlands, Ted||Tomlinson, John||Mr. Ted Graham|
|Adley, Robert||Durant, Tony||Jopling, Michael|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Dykes, Hugh||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Alison, Michael||Emery, Peter||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Arnold, Tom||Eyre, Reginald||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Fairgrieve, Russell||Kimball, Marcus|
|Awdry, Daniel||Farr, John||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)|
|Banks, Robert||Finsberg, Geoffrey||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Bell, Ronald||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Knox, David|
|Benyon, W.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lane, David|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fookes, Miss Janet||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Biffen, John||Forman, Nigel||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Blaker, Peter||Fox, Marcus||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Body, Richard||Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Lloyd, Ian|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fry, Peter||Loveridge, John|
|Bottomley, Peter||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Luce, Richard|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Brittan, Leon||Glyn, Dr. Alan||MacGregor, John|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Goodhart, Philip||Madel, David|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Goodhew, Victor||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Goodlad, Alastair||Marten, Neil|
|Buck, Antony||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Mates, Michael|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Maude, Angus|
|Burden, F. A.||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Mawby, Ray|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Gray, Hamish||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Carlisle, Mark||Grist, Ian||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Grylls, Michael||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hall, Sir John||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Mills, Peter|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Clegg, Walter||Hampson, Dr Keith||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Cockcroft, John||Hannam, John||Moate, Roger|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Hastings, Stephen||Monro, Hector|
|Cope, John||Hayhoe, Barney||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hicks, Robert||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Corrie, John||Higgins, Terence L.||Morgan, Geraint|
|Costain, A. P.||Hordern, Peter||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Critchley, Julian||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Crouch, David||Hunt, John||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Crowder, F. P.||Hurd, Douglas||Mudd, David|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Neave, Airey|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||James, David||Nelson, Anthony|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Neubert, Michael|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Jessel, Toby||Normanton, Tom|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Nott, John|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Scott, Nicholas||Tebbit, Norman|
|Osborn, John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Page, John (Harrow West)||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Shepherd, Colin||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Percival, Ian||Shersby, Michael||Trotter, Neville|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Silvester, Fred||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Sims, Roger||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Sinclair, Sir George||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Rathbone, Tim||Skeet, T. H. H.||Viggers, Peter|
|Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Speed, Keith||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||Spence, John||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Walters, Dennis|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Ridsdale, Julian||Sproat, Iain||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Stainton, Keith||Wells, John|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Stanbrook, Ivor||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Stanley, John||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Stokes, John||Younger, Hon George|
|Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Stradling, Thomas J.|
|Royle, Sir Anthony||Tapsell, Peter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Sainsbury, Tim||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)||Mr. Carol Mather and|
|St. John-Stevas, Norman||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time and passed.