§ Lords amendment: No. 2, after Clause 1, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
§ "A. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
§ 1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists (or employers' associations representing such employers), editors (or editors' organisations), and trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions and editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter.
§ (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the press must include guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the rights of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.
§ (3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned above, or if a draft charter laid before Parliament (under subsection (1) above or this subsection) is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament as mentioned in subsection (6) below, the Secretary of State shall after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter, as follows:—
- (a) where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement;
- (b) where, so far as there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters referred to in subsection (2) above, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit,
§ and the Secretary of State shall lay the draft charter before both Houses of Parliament.
§ (4) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation.1602
§ (5) A charter agreed as mentioned in sub section (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—
- (a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;
- (b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded; and
- (c) securing the publication of its decision.
§ (6) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
§ (7) A charter for the time being in force under this section may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.
§ (8) If a draft laid under subsection (7) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
§ (9) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (6) or (8) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
§ (10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings—
- (a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and
- (b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question." "
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that it will be convenient to take also the other amendments to Lords Amendment No. 2, namely, in subsection (4), leave out' or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above'.In subsection (5), leave out' or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above'.In subsection (6), leave out' or (3)'.
§ Mr. Prior
The purpose of the amendments is absolutely clear. They seek to remove from the Secretary of State—I assure him that there is nothing personal in this—the duty of acting in the event of the Press charter not being agreed by the parties concerned. We have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the Press charter not being agreed between the two sides, it would be wise not to press the matter further in the way suggested in the original amendments.
We have had a number of interesting and long debates on this subject. I do not wish to delay the House in coming to a quick decision this evening, but I wish to make a number of points in seeking to explain the reason for our amendments.
We have always believed that there was a need for a Press charter to be put into the Bill and to be made enforceable so that if the charter was not adhered to an aggrieved person would have some remedy. This view has always been rejected on the ground that it would deny to a journalist the right to form a closed shop. I believe that the whole issue of the Press is of such importance that it is right to deny to journalists a closed shop if that closed shop would lead to the suppression of news from any source whatever.
We now come to deal with a situation under which the charter is not enforceable. Therefore, we have to consider the charter in the voluntary form in which it was laid down in an earlier amendment.
When the Goodman amendments, if I may so call them, came forward on a previous occasion, we felt it right to keep the charter in the Bill and to make it enforceable. The Secretary of State for Employment argued that it was wrong for Parliament to lay down the contents and that there must be an agreement between the parties concerned. Since the charter is unenforceable, it can be effective only by agreement of those directly involved. Therefore, the Secretary of State should not be required to act if there is a failure to agree. We do not see this in any sense as derogatory to the Secretary of State, but we believe that this is not a suitable matter in which Parliament should become involved. Parliament should not have control over the freedom of the Press, and there is a fear that 1604 under the charter a degree of control would be exercised by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Employment has made his views so abundantly clear on these matters in the past that there are some doubts about his impartiality in such a situation. In view of what he has said on other occasions, both in the House and elsewhere, agreement between the National Union of Journalists and other parties involved in any charter would be unlikely to be reached, and the Secretary of State would be called in to produce a charter which would have to be laid before the House. We believe that such a situation is not tenable and that it would be far better if the charter were to exclude the Secretary of State.
The House of Commons has never discussed in detail the implications of the Secretary of State being given this power, and the power would be given to him in a vague and ill-defined fashion. We have spent a great deal of time discussing enforceability without also discussing the powers to be given to a Secretary of State in this respect.
For these reasons, our amendment should meet the wishes on every side of the Press. The amendments would give the right to a charter, but they would not give the right to a Minister of any Government to interfere in drawing up a charter. If the charter could be agreed between the two parties, it would be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and would form the basis on which these matters could proceed. If, however, the two sides cannot agree, we believe that it is better that there should be no charter at all and that we should leave the matter to the two sides to sort out for themselves.
A good deal of further anxiety has arisen in the last few weeks over the question of Press freedom and the ability of journalists to obtain information and to see that that information is conveyed to the public. The Secretary of State does not do himself justice if he ignores this problem. It is a matter which involves a definite threat to the freedom of the Press. Most journalists and members of the NUJ are as determined to maintain a free Press as is every hon. Member, but there are a number of 1605 journalists who seek to use their powers to control that freedom. I believe that the Barnsley case falls into that category. The NUJ intended to use its muscle to try to persuade bodies and organisations not to provide information to journalists who were not members of that union. That is certainly not a justifiable practice when applied to the freedom of the Press. There is a sharp distinction to be drawn. I am certain that the Secretary of State does not approve of those tactics, and, indeed, he said as much in a recent letter to me.
Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should take the Bill away again and bring in a Press charter that is enforceable. He has always refused to do this. He has refused consistently to allow the matter to be looked at by the Royal Commission on the Press as a matter of urgency. I find it rather distressing that, on what is by far the most important issue, the Royal Commission is only now taking evidence, whereas it has reported already on certain other issues affecting the Press and could easily by now have reported on this issue if it had discussed it at the right time, when we suggested it.
The Opposition believe that the freedom of the Press is in some danger. We would have much preferred an enforceable charter to be put into the Bill. We think that the present charter with the Secretary of State mentioned in it is a wrong step for Parliament to take, and we hope very much that the Secretary of State will agree that all references to his important and honourable office should be withdrawn.
§ Mr. John Page
I have been wondering what the position of the conscience of the Secretary of State would be if trade unions representing journalists did not agree in any discussions which took place as arranged under subsection (1), because, if they did not agree and if they took a very decisive line, the Secretary of State might incorporate the views which they had expressed in the charter under subsection (3)(b). In that second option, it is said that he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit. As I see it, subsection (3)(b) does not require him to produce any kind of compromise solution.
I mentioned the matter of conscience because I wanted for a moment to ques- 1606 tion the position of conscience in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I have not had the opportunity of advice which I am sure the Secretary of State has taken, but I have obtained from the Library a copy of the Convention and I have read through Article 9. Nowhere in that Article do I find words which circumscribe the effectiveness of Article 9 only to matters of conscientious objection in a military sense.
The article says:Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.I am not arguing whether the previous clause was in line with Article 9. I ask merely for clarification of the fact that Article 9 and the conscience clause relate only to conscientious objection to military service. I appreciate that it is a difficult matter. But I felt that, while it was fresh in my mind and I had the opportunity to mention it, I ought to take up the matter with the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Foot
Perhaps I might reply first to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page). I know that this refers to the exchange which took place in our prevous debate.
I was not saying that there was a specific reference in the Convention to the closed shop and such matters. What I said was that this whole matter of the closed shop was considered when the Convention was drawn up. As I understand the situation, when the debates occurred in preparation for the Convention, which was drawn up in 1951, and Article 11 was originally discussed in draft, the authors of the Convention decided specifically not to include a right not to associate because they were afraid that it might be held to preclude the lawful closed shop which at the time was, and still is, permitted by a number of member States. They did not want to outlaw the closed shop, and that is why they did not specifically put in the right not to associate.
That fact illustrates what I said about the European Convention on Human Rights not being cited as evidence that 1607 it was intended to outlaw the closed shop in any way.
I come, then, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I do not complain about his raising this matter, and I shall seek to deal with it on its merits or demerits. But I hope he will not mind my saying that this debate is something of a parliamentary curiosity. As far as I can recall, this is the first occasion on which the Opposition have sought to remove this part from our proposed Press charter. Heaven knows, they have had opportunities beyond all calculation when this might have been done. On each previous occasion, however, they have refrained from seeing the disastrous consequences which might follow from leaving this part of the Bill untouched.
I must say that I think it is a little late in the day for the Opposition to come up with a proposition of this nature when they have had every chance to put the argument before. Admittedly they are following in the tracks of Lord Goodman in this respect, because he originally did not describe this as being such an outrageous part of the Bill, although eventually it emerged to be the spectre which kept him awake at nights and which he was not prepared to tolerate in any circumstances. If the spectre was so horrific, one would have thought that this House, which has had perhaps a hundred opportunities to examine this Press charter, would have noticed it before. But all I say is that it is a parliamentary curiosity and that it takes the House of Lords to invoke its—I do not say "illicit" powers—
§ Mr. Foot
I do not think that "arcane"is the appropriate word either, because it is done in public, and "arcane" means something secret. Perhaps "archaic" is the word. In any event, the House of Lords has exerted its powers and now, at last, the matter has come back here for the right hon. Member for Lowestoft to raise. As I say, it is a parliamentary curiosity. I cannot think of any other such major matter, if it is a major matter, that has been brought up at such a late point in our proceedings.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we should delete the part which says that, if there is a breakdown in nego- 1608 tiations between the parties, the Secretary of State shall be able to intervene or shall be required to intervene after a period of 12 months to see what can be done to further the creation of such a charter.
Let me make it evident—I hope that it has been made evident before—that I want nothing to do with drawing up any such charter. I hope very much that the journalists, editors and proprietors will be able to achieve this by themselves. I am sure that this is much the best way to do it. Whatever other labours I have to undertake in the future, I hope that drawing up a charter for the Press will not figure amongst them.
But I do not accept the doctrine that, because this clause is in the Bill, it will be more difficult for the parties to reach agreement. Indeed, the reason why it was inserted at all was to encourage them to make the agreement. That was why Lord Houghton originally proposed it in the House of Lords, why some of my hon. Friends urged the same and why the House of Commons agreed to the proposition on the previous occasion. Far from the retention of the clause making the achievement of a charter more difficult, I believe that it will at least assist. If the parties concerned do not reach an agreement, they will be faced with the absolute horror of the Secretary of State becoming involved. I think that that prospect would assist.
I believe that the chances of getting a charter are improving. Some people have said they will not participate in any circumstances. For example, the editor of The Times has said that he will not participate. But two distinguished editors, the editors of the Evening Standard and The Guardian—the two best newspapers in the country—have said that they will certainly participate. I trust that most other editors will also participate. The NUJ has indicated its willingness to participate on the basis of its views on the rights of editors not to belong to unions and the form of union membership agreement that should apply to the Press. I do not say that the NUJ is committed by every statement that it has made, but it has certainly indicated the subjects which should be included in the charter and in 1609 the Bill itself. There are very good prospects of such a charter being accepted. I believe that it will be drawn up by people who have nothing to do with the Government, by those within the industry. That is the best way to deal with the dangers that have been described.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft asked whether I realised that people have genuine fears about what is happening. Of course I realise that anxieties have been expressed in the newspapers. I am not saying that they are not genuine, but I do say that they are often based on a completely false estimate of what has happened. Often they are based on a ludicrous idea of how remedies can be found. I have always said that one cannot deal with these questions by legislation. If one is forced in the last extremity to use legislation to deal with the freedom of the Press, one is in real difficulty. I want to avoid that. I have been the principal person against such legislation, and that is why we became involved in discussions on the charter.
I hope that there will not be a repetition of the sort of language used on the subject by Lord Goodman. I strongly resented his use of the word "dictation" in relation to the powers given in the Bill to the Secretary of State. There are no powers of dictation in any sense whatever. To use that word in this context is to wrench words from their meaning. There is no attempt by the Government to dictate to the newspapers, and I hope that that charge will never be made again. Of course, when someone as eminent as Lord Goodman makes such a statement many people will believe him. But the Bill contains not one comma, phrase or sentence which justifies the suggestion that we are seeking to dictate a charter to the Press. Any such charter would have to be submitted to the Commons and the House of Lords, so I do not think that it would be a revolutionary document. It will not be something which might have been produced in times of the French Revolution. Moreover, even if the charter was drawn up and approved by both Houses it would have no sanctions. There would be no penalties in it. If someone decides that he will not obey a particular part of the charter, he will not 1610 be sent to the Tower of London or have the thumb-screws applied. There are no sanctions. Therefore, to talk as if we were starting a dictatorial or totalitarian process is absurd and such absurdities should not be uttered, even in the House of Lords.
There are particular cases which are supposed to have given rise to the fears—for example, the Barnsley case. I have said that I think there were implications in that case for the freedom of the Press. I hope and trust that the journalists in Barnsley, and in the executive of the NUJ, will take into account what these implications might be. I emphasise that one cannot help that situation by legislation. I hope that hon. Members who think that it can be helped by legislation will take account of what was said to the Royal Commission on the Press by Charles Wintour, the editor of the Evening Standard. He illustrates his view with what happened in Barnsley. He uses stronger language than I, but his criticisms are the same. He said that it was impossible to think that one could resolve that situation by legislation. One cannot have a law which prevents some trade unionists from telling others that someone is not a member of their union or has joined another union. One cannot have a law to settle that, and one would get into difficulties if it was attempted.
It is necessary to understand the real situation that existed in Barnsley. I am sure that the journalists concerned were not trying to undermine the freedom of the Press. They were setting out to improve their industrial situation, but they should take into account what could be the implications of what they were proposing. I am sure they will do that.
There is another case which has not been mentioned in this part of our discussion but which was referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, West during earlier proceedings. It is of interest because all our previous debates on Press matters have seemed to centre on the question of access to the Press and how free access is to be secured against improper industrial pressure from trade unions. That has been the argument of the Opposition, and I have always retorted that I want to protect people from improper pressures. If they are improper, they should be stopped.
1611 I have always said that free access to the Press is not merely a question of what trade unions do but is more a question of what editors and proprietors do. If one has a law to deal with free access to the Press, one is on shaky ground. A law of that kind starts to interfere with the rights of editors and proprietors. It would interfere with their rights more than those of journalists and trade unionists. I think that in saying that I have been a better defender of the freedom of the Press than have those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, have clamoured for an enforceable charter. That was what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. He wants a charter with legislative backing. That is what he says. I am against it because that is the real way to interfere with the freedom of the members. I am against it on those grounds.
Let me take the example of what has happened at the Financial Times in the last day or two, to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West referred. It is an extremely interesting case. Although I deplore the action taken there, I agree with the general secretary of the National Graphical Association, who expressed his criticism of the action taken by the members of the National Graphical Association. I agree with his criticisms. The question of access here is interesting. The people who have been denied access to the Press by the action of the editor of the Financial Times are the members of the Royal Commission on the Press. The Royal Commission produced a report with some figures in it about the salaries paid to journalists as well as the wages paid to members of the National Graphical Association. The editor of the Financial Times, as I understand it, tried to cut out the reference to the salaries paid to journalists but left in the part which referred to the National Graphical Association members.
I understand that for the union to say "We are going to apply industrial action to prevent that happening" is an interference with the editor putting in what he wants to put in. In connection with any law on access, however, one has to take into account the action of the editor of the Financial Times in suppressing what I would have thought was a very peculiar thing for him to suppress—that is, the Report of the Royal Commission 1612 on the Press itself. I hope that this case illustrates some of the problems.
That does not alter the fact that it would have been better if the members of the National Graphical Association understood the implications of the action they would have taken. I think that the general secretary of the National Graphical Association has already indicated that it would have been better. His members have not taken unofficial action. I think they were provoked. We are very often provoked, and we must not retaliate when we are provoked. I hope that the members of the National Graphical Association on the Financial Times will not be provoked by the actions of the editor and will do everything in their power to ensure that the editor will be able to get his paper printed, even if he suppresses the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press, even if he is completely undiscriminating in the suppression which he wishes to carry out in that respect.
I hope that the NGA members will continue to allow the editor to have the choice to decide on these matters until we have some different arrangement. I am not in favour of a different arrangement, because I think that it has implications for the freedom of the Press. But the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself. I know it is very late in the day, but I presume that it is an official stance. He says that he wants an enforceable charter. We are not in favour of an enforceable charter. We are in favour of an agreement between the parties. We think that that is a better way.
§ Mr. Foot
Because he has been ill advised on previous occasions does not justify the right hon. Gentleman's persisting in the wrong advice he is giving to the House. It is not a different argument. He is arguing for an enforceable charter. The Opposition have never fully appreciated—and the more we have argued it, the better they should have understood—what are the dangers of an enforceable charter.
We would not have an enforceable charter, for very good reasons. They are partly industrial relations issues. What Conservative Members here and the other House wanted was to have the Industrial 1613 Relations Act of 1971 retained in an enforceable charter and applied to one section of the community—the journalists. That would be discriminatory, provocative, counter-productive, injurious to the freedom of the Press and injurious not only to journalists but to the right of running newspapers freely in this country.
The other reason has been illustrated dramatically by the Financial Times case. To say that one is to have a charter about access which is to be enforceable means that one is to have the law seeking to intervene in the most sensitive place of all—that is, on how something is to be put into the newspaper, and who decides whether it gets there. That is not a question, as the newspaper pretends, about journalists using their power or members of the National Graphical Association using their power. It is much more a question of how editors or proprietors use their power.
I repeat what I said in the previous debate. I say it partly because of the misrepresentations of what we have been seeking to do which have been spread in so many quarters. We are not seeking to suppress freedom in any way. When people look at these debates, they will say that we have sought to sustain genuine freedom by what we have done.
What we are seeking to do is to sustain the rights not only of people in the National Union of Journalists but of people in the industry as a whole. I believe that the result of what we have done—and we have indications from many quarters that they are prepared to do it—is to have a workable charter agreed by the people who work in the industry, not with any sanctions of the law or Parliament, not with any interference from any Secretary of State, present or future, but with something the parties have worked out freely for themselves. It is we on this side of the House who are the real defenders of the freedom of the Press, just as we are the real defenders of free trade unions.
§ Mr. Brittan
We on this side of the House oppose the Secretary of State's involvement in the production of a Press charter because we think that it would be at best pointless and at worst highly 1614 dangerous and potentially a real, if indirect, threat to Press freedom.
The Secretary of State has castigated the Opposition because he says that this is the first time we have sought to remove the provision in relation to a Press charter from the Bill. He is quite right that it is the first time that we seek to remove those provisions. The reason is that it is the first time that the provisions come to this House in a form in which they should be removed, if they do not have removed from them first the involvement of the Secretary of State.
It is necessary briefly to rehearse the history of this matter, not in order to show that we have been consistent, because that would be a worthwhile but trivial objective, but rather to show that the charter which the Secretary of State is now putting forward, with his involvement or potential involvement in it, is a very different animal from the one that this House and this Opposition wanted at an earlier stage and wanted to give teeth to.
The two important differences in the charter are, first, the question of enforceability and, secondly, the question of content. What we were saying at an earlier stage in the debate was that, if the charter contained provisions which we thought were the appropriate ones to support the freedom of the Press, we were in favour of such a charter coming into existence and we were in favour of its being enforceable. It would have been preferable if those provisions could have been agreed between the parties. If, however, Parliament laid down in advance what those provisions were, it would not matter if in the last analysis it were left to the Secretary of State, because in those circumstances the Secretary of State would not be exercising an unfettered judgment of his own as to what the contents of the charter would be, but rather he would be carrying out the wishes of Parliament in providing certain limited protections to the Press in specified situations envisaged by the legislation that Parliament will have provided.
In these circumstances, although it would have been far better if the parties concerned could agree a charter, it would at least be tolerable to have had the hand of the Secretary of State in the matter if they failed to agree. If the Secretary of 1615 State operated under this parliamentary direction, he would be providing a real protection to the Press because Parliament had provided a means for him to do so.
However, at the Government's behest, the precise provisions by which the Secretary of State would have to be guided on the charter that he would seek to impose, if it came to that, have been replaced. Instead of the precise provisions, we now have waffle, but potentially dangerous waffle. That is why we oppose the Secretary of State's involvement. If the worst comes to the worst and our amendment does not succeed, we oppose having a charter at all rather than having a charter whose contents are not laid down by Parliament and which would leave the Secretary of State the widest discretion if the parties failed to agree.
This point can be illustrated by contrasting the provisions which we wish to have imposed in a charter with teeth and those which remain in the wishy-washy charter which the Secretary of State wishes to have the power in the last analysis to put before Parliament. As originally envisaged, the charter would have had to include, first the rights of editors and others exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a union. In other words, we were specifically providing that, even if the parties did not agree, the Secretary of State was obliged willy-nilly, to include in the charter the rights of editors and comparable people not to join a union.
The original draft also included the rights of journalists to join a union of their choice. Therefore, if they did not want to join the NCJJ, they could join the Institute. If the Secretary of State cannot see the relevance of that to the Barnsley dispute, we can. Whether the charter is binding or not, the inclusion in it of such a provision would have tremendous moral influence in a dispute—influence which would be all the greater if, as the Secretary of State contends, the parties are reasonable people prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. It is, therefore, of interest to the Institute of Journalists, and of some concern in relation to Barnsley, that that provision was to have been included, whether the Secretary of State wanted it or not, in the charter that we favoured.
1616 The third provision which was to have been included was that the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article should be free from pressure by industrial action. The right of editorial freedom, which has been regarded as very much under threat, had to be included even if the Secretary of State were involved in producing the charter which we envisaged. But that has also gone.
The fourth matter was the right of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from a union. In other words, the Secretary of State would have had to include in the charter a provision to protect journalists against unfair exclusion or expulsion. The charter which we envisaged included nothing about access, not because we thought it unimportant—I do not wish to go into the Financial Times matter, on which the Secretary of State may or may not be right—but because we thought that it should not be dealt with by legal enforcement of this kind.
What the Secretary of State forgets is that this is a Bill about industrial relations, not about the Press, and that therefore, in seeking to protect certain sorts of Press freedom against certain threats, one is dealing not specifically with journalism but with a particular safeguard against a particular threat. With those specific rights protected, it was reasonable to ask the House to vote for a charter which the Secretary of State would have had to impose ultimately and which would have been legally binding if defied.
But we now have a very different situation. Instead of the specific matters contained in the charter, all that is now proposed is practical guidance relating to the freedom of the Press, including the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news. The sources of the pressure and the nature of the guidance are not set out.
The new provisions go on to say that the charter must deal with the application of union membership agreements to journalists. Under this formula the Secretary of State would be perfectly at liberty to put forward a charter requiring all journalists to belong to one union. He would not be obliged to do so, but he could do so under the Bill. It would provide also for the right of editors to 1617 discharge their duties and to commission and publish any article. To that we have no objection. The final reference is to access by contributors. It is in the Secretary of State's charter, not ours, that access creeps in, with all the consequent dangers.
This is a different and much more dangerous charter, with the Secretary of State's involvement, than the one we favoured. It is hardly surprising that Lord Goodman and others have grave suspicions about the Secretary of State's involvement when it is at his behest that the particular protections and the specific rights conferred in the original charter have been eliminated in favour of a lot of potentially dangerous waffle. Lord Goodman is not crying "Wolf" but is
§ raising a legitimate objection to a dangerous procedure.
§ The Secretary of State says that he has no power of dictation and he pooh-poohs the very idea. He says that if the parties do not agree, he will have to come to Parliament. But if he is at the helm, Parliament will be no protection of the rights of the individual and the rights of journalists. A charter in that form, with that Secretary of State, presents real potential dangers to Press freedom. If the right hon. Gentleman will not have his involvement removed, we are much better having no charter at all.
§ Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes, 253, Noes 292.1621
|Division No. 93.||AYES||7.2 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hurd, Douglas|
|Alison, Michael||Elliott, Sir William||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Emery, Peter||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Arnold, Tom||Fairbairn, Nicholas||James, David|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Fairgrieve, Russell||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Farr, John||Jessel, Toby|
|Baker, Kenneth||Fell, Anthony||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)|
|Banks, Robert||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Bell, Ronald||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Jopling, Michael|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Fookes, Miss Janet||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Forman, Nigel||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Bitten, John||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Kilfedder, James|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fox, Marcus||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)|
|Blaker, Peter||Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Body, Richard||Freud, Clement||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||Knox, David|
|Bottomley, Peter||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Lamont, Norman|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Lane, David|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Brittan, Leon||Glyn, Dr Alan||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Lawson, Nigel|
|Brotherton, Michael||Goodhart, Philip||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Goodhew, Victor||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Goodlad, Alastair||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Gorst, John||Lloyd, Ian|
|Buck, Antony||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Loveridge, John|
|Budgen, Nick||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Luce, Richard|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Gray, Hamish||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Burden, F. A.||Griffiths, Eldon||McCrindle, Robert|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Grist, Ian||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Grylls, Michael||MacGregor, John|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hall, Sir John||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hampson, Dr Keith||Madel, David|
|Clegg, Walter||Hannam, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Cockeroft John||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Marten, Neil|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Harrie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Mates, Michael|
|Cope, John||Hastings, Stephen||Mather, Carol|
|Cordle, John H.||Havers, Sir Michael||Maude, Angus|
|Corrie, John||Hawkins, Paul||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Costain, A. P.||Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Mawby, Ray|
|Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)||Heseltine, Michael||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Crowder, F. P.||Hicks, Robert||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Higgins, Terence L.||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Holland, Philip||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Hordern, Peter||Mills, Peter|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Miscampbell, Norman|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Howell, David (Guildford)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Durant, Tony||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Moate, Roger|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, John||Monro, Hector|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Stokes, John|
|Moore, John (Croydon O)||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Tapsell, Peter|
|Morgan, Geraint||Ridsdale, Julian||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Rifkind, Malcolm||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mudd, David||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Neave, Airey||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Nelson, Anthony||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Trotter, Neville|
|Neubert, Michael||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Newton, Tony||Royle, Sir Anthony||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Nott, John||Sainsbury, Tim||Viggers, Peter|
|Onslow, Cranley||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Scott, Nicholas||Wakeham, John|
|Osborn, John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Page, John (Harrow West)||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Shepherd, Colin||Wall, Patrick|
|Pardoe, John||Shersby, Michael||Walters, Dennis|
|Parkinson, Cecil||Sims, Roger||Warren, Kenneth|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Sinclair, Sir George||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Penhaligon, David||Skeet, T. H. H.||Wells, John|
|Percival, Ian||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Peyton, Rt Hon John||Speed, Keith||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Spence, John||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Sproat, lain||Younger, Hon George|
|Raison, Timothy||Stainton, Keith|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stanbrook, Ivor||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Stanley, John||Mr. W. Benyon and|
|Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Mr. Fred Silvester.|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Abse, Leo||Conlan, Bernard||Freeson, Reginald|
|Allaun, Frank||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Anderson, Donald||Corbett, Robin||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Archer, Peler||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||George, Bruce|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Gilbert, Dr John|
|Ashley, Jack||Cronin, John||Ginsburg, David|
|Ashton, Joe||Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Golding, John|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Cryer, Bob||Gould, Bryan|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Graham, Ted|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Davidson, Arthur||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Bates, Alt||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Bean, R. E.||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Deakins, Eric||Hardy, Peter|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Harper, Joseph|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Delargy, Hugh||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Hart, Rt Hon Judith|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dempsey, James||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Boardman, H.||Dormand, J. D.||Hayman, Mrs Helene|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Duffy, A. E. P.||Heffer, Erie S.|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Dunlop, John||Horam, John|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Dunnett, Jack||Howell, Rt Hon Denis|
|Bradley, Tom||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Eadie, Alex||Huckfield, Les|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Edge, Geoff||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Buchan, Norman||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Buchanan, Richard||English, Michael||Hunter, Adam|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Ennals, David||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)|
|Campbell, Ian||Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Janner, Greville|
|Canavan, Dennis||Evans, John (Newton)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Cant, R. B.||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Jeger, Mrs Lena|
|Carmichael, Neil||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Carson, John||Fitch, Alan (Wigan,||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)|
|Carter, Ray||Fill, Gerard (Belfast W)||John, Brynmor|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Flannery, Martin||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Cartwright, John||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Ford, Ben||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Coleman, Donald||Forrester, John||Judd, Frank|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Concannon, J. D.||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Kelley, Richard|
|Kerr, Russell||Ogden, Eric||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||O'Halloran, Michael||Stallard, A. W.|
|Kinnock, Nell||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Stoddart, David|
|Lambie, David||Ovenden, John||Stott, Roger|
|Lamborn, Harry||Owen, Dr David||Strang, Gavin|
|Lamond, James||Padley, Walter||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Paisley, Rev Ian||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Palmer, Arthur||Swain, Thomas|
|Lee, John||Park, George||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Parker, John||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Parry, Robert||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pavitt, Laurie||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Peart, Rt Hon Fred||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Litterick, Tom||Pendry, Tom||Tierney, Sydney|
|Loyden, Eddie||Perry, Ernest||Tinn, James|
|Luard, Evan||Phipps, Dr Colin||Tomlinson, John|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||Torney, Tom|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Tuck, Raphael|
|Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Urwin, T. W.|
|McCartney, Hugh||Price, William (Rugby)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|McElhone, Frank||Radice, Giles||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Rees Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Richardson Miss Jo||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Ward, Michael|
|McNamara, Kevin||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Watkins, David|
|Madden, Max||Robinson, Geoffrey||Watkinson, John|
|Magee, Bryan||Roderick, Caerwyn||Weetch, Ken|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Weitzman, David|
|Marks, Kenneth||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Marquand, David||Rooker, J. W.||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Roper, John||White, James (Pollok)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Rose, Paul B.||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)||Whitlock, William|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Rowlands, Ted||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Meacher, Michael||Sandelson, Neville||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Melllsh, Rt Hon Robert||Sedgemore, Brian||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Mendelson, John||Selby, Harry||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Millan, Bruce||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)||Williams, Sir Thomas|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Molloy, William||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Moonman, Eric||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)||Woodall, Alec|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Woof, Robert|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Sillars, James||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Moyle, Roland||Silverman, Julius|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Skinner, Dennis||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Small, William||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Newens, Stanley||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Mr. Peter Snape.|
|Oakes, Gordon||Spearing, Nigel|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment [Mr. Foot]:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 253.1625
|Division No. 94.]||AYES||[7.12 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Cohen, Stanley|
|Allaun, Frank||Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Coleman, Donald|
|Anderson, Donald||Bradley, Tom||Colquhoun, Ms Maureen|
|Archer, Peter||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Concannon, J. D.|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Conlan, Bernard|
|Ashley, Jack||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)|
|Ashton, Joe||Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Corbett, Robin|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Buchan, Norman||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Buchanan, Richard||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Cronin, John|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Cryer, Bob|
|Bates, Alf||Campbell, Ian||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)|
|Bean, R. E.||Canavan, Dennis||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Cant, R. B.||Davidson, Arthur|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Carmichael, Neil||Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Carson, John||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Carter, Ray||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Deakins, Eric|
|Boardman, H.||Cartwright, John||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Clemitson, Ivor||Delargy, Hugh|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Dell, Rt Hon Edmund|
|Dempsey, James||Kerr, Russell||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Kinnock, Neil||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lambie, David||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Lamborn, Harry||Rooker, J. W.|
|Eadie, Alex||Lamond, James||Roper, John|
|Edge, Geoff||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Leadbitter, Ted||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Lee, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|English, Michael||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Ennals, David||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Selby, Harry|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Lipton, Marcus||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Litterick, Tom||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Loyden, Eddie||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Luard, Evan||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Flannery, Martin||McCartney, Hugh||Sillars, James|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||McElhone, Frank||Silverman, Julius|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Skinner, Dennis|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Mackintosh, John p.||Small, William|
|Ford, Ben||Maclennan, Robert||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Forrester, John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Snape, Peter|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||McNamara, Kevin||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Madden, Max||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Freeson, Reginald||Magee, Bryan||Stallard, A. W.|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Stoddart, David|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Marks, Kenneth||Stott, Roger|
|George, Bruce||Marquand, David||Strang, Gavin|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Ginsburg, David||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Golding, John||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Swain Thomas|
|Gould, Bryan||Maynard, Miss Joan||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Meacher, Michael||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Graham, Ted||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mendelson, John||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Millan, Bruce||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Tierney Sydney|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Tinn James|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Molloy, William||Tomlinson John|
|Hardy, Peter||Moonman, Eric||Torney, Tom|
|Harper, Joseph||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Urwin T. W.|
|Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)||Morris, Charles R. (Opertshaw)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Moyle, Roland||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Hayman, Mrs Helene||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Newens, Stanley||Ward, Michael|
|Horam, John||Oakes, Gordon||Watkins, David|
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis||Ogden, Eric||Watkinson, John|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||O'Halloran, Michael||Weetch, Ken|
|Huckfield, Les||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Weitzman, David|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Ovenden, John||Wellbeloved, James|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Owen, Dr David||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Padley, Walter||White, James (Pollok)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Paisley, Rev Ian||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Hunter, Adam||Palmer, Arthur||Whitlock, William|
|Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Park, George||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Parker, John||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Parry, Robert||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Janner, Greville||Pavitt, Laurie||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Peart, Rt Hon Fred||Williams, Sir Thomas|
|Jeger, Mrs Lena||Pendry, Tom||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Perry, Ernest||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Phipps, Dr Colin||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|John, Brynmor||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||Woodall, Alec|
|Johnson, James (Hull Weal)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Woof, Robert|
|Johnson, Waller (Derby S)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Price, William (Rugby)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Redice, Giles|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Judd, Frank||Richardson, Miss Jo||Mr. J, D. Dormand and|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Mr. John Ellis.|
|Kelley, Richard||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Adley, Robert||Awdry, Daniel||Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)|
|Alison, Michael||Baker, Kenneth||Benyon, W.|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Banks, Robert||Berry, Hon Anthony|
|Arnold, Tom||Bell, Ronald||Biffen, John|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Sperthorne)||Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Biggs-Davison, John|
|Blakef, Peter||Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Pardoe, John|
|Body, Richard||Heseltine, Michael||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hicks, Robert||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Bottomley, Peter||Higgins, Terence L.||Penhaligon, David|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Holland, Philip||Percival, Ian|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Hordern, Peter||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Brittan, Leon||Howell, David (Guildford)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hunt, John||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hurd, Douglas||Raison, Timothy|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rathbone, Tim|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Buck, Antony||James, David||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Budgen, Nick||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Jessel, Toby||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Burden, F. A.||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Jopling, Michael||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Churchill, W. S.||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Kershaw, Anthony||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Clegg, Walter||Kilfedder, James||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Cockcroft, John||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Cope, John||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Cordle, John H.||Knox, David||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Costain, A. P.||Lamont, Norman||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)||Lane, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Crowder, F. P.||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Lawrence, Ivan||Shepherd, Colin|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Lawson, Nigel||Shersby, Michael|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Le Marchant, Spencer||Silvester, Fred|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Sims, Roger|
|Durant, Tony||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Lloyd, Ian||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Loveridge, John||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Elliott, Sir William||Luce, Richard||Speed, Keith|
|Emery, Peter||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Spence, John|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||McCrindle, Robert||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Maclarlane, Neil||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Farr, John||MacGregor, John||Sproat, lain|
|Fell, Anthony||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Stainton, Keith|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Stanley, John|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Madel, David||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Forman, Nigel||Marten, Neil||Stokes, John|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Mates, Michael||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Fox, Marcus||Maude, Angus||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Freud, Clement||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Tebbit, Norman|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Mayhew, Patrick||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Mills, Peter||Trotter, Neville|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Miscampbell, Norman||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Goodhart, Philip||Moate, Roger||Viggers, Peter|
|Goodhew, Victor||Monro, Hector||Wakeham, John|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Montgomery, Fergus||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Gorst, John||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Wall, Patrick|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Morgan, Geraint||Walters, Dennis|
|Gray, Hamish||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Grist, Ian||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Wells, John|
|Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Hall, Sir John||Neave, Airey||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Nelson, Anthony||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Neubert, Michael||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Newton, Tony||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Hannam, John||Nott, John||Younger, Hon George|
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hastings, Stephen||Osborn, John||Mr. Carol Mather and|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Page, John (Harrow West)||Mr. John Corrie.|
|Hawkins, Paul||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.1627
§ Remaining Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Booth, Mr. Brittan, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Secretary Foot and Mr. Prior; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Foot.]
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.