HEALTH SERVICES BILL AND DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 08 November 1976 vol 919 cc63-93

4.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals)

I beg to move, That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
   1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
   2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,
   3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
   4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (a) put forthwith the Question on any motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
2. (b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
3. (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forth with a separate Question on any other motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this Paragraph "the Proceedings" means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by the Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matters that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

After the resounding success of the victory on the last motion, it is essential that this one should be carried if the declared will of the House is to be fulfilled, Their Lordships—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is unfair to anyone trying to address the House that there should be this noise. Perhaps the Minister could wait one second for hon. Members who appear to need refreshment to leave.

Mr. Ennals

No doubt they will be drowning their sorrows.

Their Lordships have their rights and duties, but it is no part of their rôle to seek to block action already clearly determined by this elected Chamber.

My right hon, Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will deal later with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I would simply say on that that the Government are firmly of the view that the Bill is essential to the secure stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate to the efficient operation of the industry and that it should become law this Session.

The Health Services Bill is an important measure which the Government believe should be enacted this Session. The deep wounds that dissension over the issue of pay beds has inflicted on the NHS must be healed. This dispute has gone on too long and the sooner it is healed the better. Indeed, there is positive evidence, supported in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that more and more people who understand the NHS are coming to realise that the only remedy for those wounds is the passing of the Bill. The Government are therefore determined that it shall not fail for lack of time.

There can be no question that the Bill has had adequate, thorough and careful scrutiny in Committee. In Standing Committee D, 29 sittings and 74 hours were devoted to its line-by-line scrutiny. We dealt with every clause and every amendment and we had time over at the end. Another two days were then set aside for consideration on Report. Originally, a motion of the House provided for one day but it was decided to respond to requests by hon. Members opposite and add the second day. On Third Reading the Bill got a majority larger than it had on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the will of the House has already been expressed.

I suspect that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) will say that it was not possible for the House to consider all the Opposition amendments on Report and that Part III was not debated at all. I accept that—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

It is true.

Mr. Ennals

Of course it is so: I do not deny it. Two days were available—14 hours—for Report and Third Reading. If the Opposition decided to use the time as they did, they cannot protest to us. We gave them the time and it was their decision how it should be employed.

Few measures of the length of this Bill have received such close and meticulous scrutiny. After all, it is a Bill which seeks to give effect, by and large, to a set of proposals which emerged after protracted discusson between my Department—also under my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—and representatives of the medical and dental professions, and which a majority of consultants who took part in the ballot accepted as the basis for legislation. Therefore, we have a commitment to put this legislation through Parliament in this Session.

The Government's case is clear. Both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House. On the Dock Work Regulation Bill there was an even longer Committee stage, running to 100 hours. The Opposition have the effrontery to suggest that we are trying to curtail serious debate on these issues, but both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House.

Amendments have been proposed in another place most of which are identical with those which have already been fully considered and decided upon in Committee and the House. If their Lordships should pass any amendments it will be easy to determine which of them upset the carefully balanced compromise on which the Bill has been based. There is no reason to go into detail over ground which has already been comprehensively covered.

Temporary setbacks in Walsall, North and Workington in no way upset the Government's determination to govern and to fulfil their commitment both to Parliament and the people.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

Not for the first time has the Secretary of State mistaken government for the churning out of this mad sausage-machine of ill-digested legislation which the House and the country do not want. The debate is concerned with dockers and doctors, and their euphony is not the only thing they have in common. Both Bills are wholly irrelevant to the nation's dreadful economic plight. Both Bills are widely detested, and their detestation goes far beyond the ranks of the official Opposition. Both Bills have opponents on the Labour Benches in both Houses. Both Bills will damage the interests of ordinary working people. Both Bills are nothing more than sops to a few politically-motivated trade union bosses.

The Dock Work Regulation Bill had but one day on Report in the House of Commons. Because of that the debate was restricted to two new clauses, with the second of which were taken several amendments on small ports. The whole of the rest of the Bill was entirely undiscussed on the Floor of the House. The other place made a great many amendments, 17 of which were reached after Divisions. Those amendments included the reintroduction of the former practice of the holding of a public inquiry for the extension of the dock registration scheme, the reduction of the dockers' corridor from five miles to half a mile and the exclusion from the Bill of a large number of the small ports, many of which, if the Bill goes through in the form in which it left the House, would he due for extinction.

These are all absolutely key issues, they are all the concern of every establishment threatened by the Bill and they involve, I suspect, the constituencies of well over 150 hon. Members, including myself, because I have constituents who work at the Frigoscandia cold store in Stratford. It is hardly surprising to read that on Report Mr. Deputy Speaker said: I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate."—[Official Report, 26th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 121.] How few did!

Each of these three major issues would justify a six-hour debate on its own, yet we have only six hours for all three and for all the other amendments which will come back from another place. We do not know how many amendments there will be, because another place is sitting on Third Reading today and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said, there are many amendments down for debate during Third Reading.

Government supporters cannot claim that this is all the work of Tory peers. The Dock Work Regulation Bill was attacked by three former Labour Cabinet Ministers. All the votes bar one—which was on a minor issue—were supported by Cross-Bench peers and, whereas the Labour peers on other issues were able to muster 65, 70 or more votes, only 27 Labour peers voted against excluding small ports and only 34 Labour peers voted against the half-mile corridor. As The Guardian rightly said on Friday: the maximum number of Socialists is wanted to give extra moral weight to Labour Bills. Votes like that, mean not only that the Dork Work Regulation Bill has no moral weight but that Socialist indignation against another place is nothing more than empty rhetoric. The Socialists cannot even get their own Members into the Lobby to support their Bills.

I am indebted to Terence Lancaster's column in the Daily Mirror for the information that in one month this autumn the Government in another place lost 46 Divisions, half of which would have been won if 48 per cent. of the Labour peers had been there. The Government cannot conceivably argue that the Tory peers are frustrating the will of the Commons.

No, the House of Lords is performing its rightful task under legislation passed when Clem Attlee was Prime Minister and when the Labour majority in this place was 200 over all other parties. The function of the upper House will be rendered entirely purposeless unless this House has a proper opportunity to debate Lords amendments. If we are not given time to debate Lords amendments, the answer is given by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) in The Times this morning: Choosing to bundle these Bills through in a week is inviting the Lords to reinstate its amendments. That is the view of a Labour Member and I leave it to him to express it.

The Dock Work Regulation Bill is wholly unnecessary. It is not even a manifesto commitment, so that arguments about the manifesto are irrelevant. Its only virtue is that it displays for all to see the craven subservience of a Government prepared to flout the electorate and damage the economy in order to gratify the ambitions of one of its power-hungry trade union masters.

On the Health Services Bill our case is even stronger. The Committee stage in another place started only on Thursday. Even as we discuss this motion the other place is discussing the Health Services Bill in Committee. How can the Government claim that six hours will be enough to discuss the amendments that will come back from another place? According to the Order Paper, so far 142 amendments have been tabled in another place, 30 of which are amendments on which we tied in Committee—a point to which the Secretary of State made no reference. The amendments were lost or the clauses stand in the Bill solely by the Chairman's casting vote. Those 30 amendments received not one word of debate when the Bill came back here on Report. There has been no opportunity for the House to make up its mind upon those amendments. They stand solely by the Chairman's casting vote.

It must, of course, be for another place to decide what to do, but I am advised that it would be perfectly proper for all 30 of those tied amendments which were never discussed here on Report to be returned to us to enable us to reach a decision as we have not yet done upon those amendments and clauses.

It addition, the Government introduced amendments here on Report which were not discussed and on which, therefore, no view was expressed. There are at least six substantial new points on the Lords Order Paper which have not been considered in the House of Commons. The Government in another place undertook to look again at one point which was considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House and rejected each time, namely, compensation for consultants who lose their private practice and cannot be given full-time consultancies in the National Health Service.

The Government argue that we have had enough time. The Secretary of State said that there was one sitting left over in Committee, but the House should know that the right hon. Gentleman specifically requested us to finish the new clauses by lunch-time on 3rd August because several of his hon. Friends wished to get away to their constituencies. To throw that back at us and to say that it shows that we had more than enough time in Committee to discuss these matters is not only absurd but is a breach of the conventions of the House.

To suggest that it was up to us to decide how to spend the time on Report and that we wasted such time as we had is rubbish. By far the longest debate we had on Report related to New Clause 2, which was a Left-wing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and which also took in another clause. That debate lasted 4 hours 48 minutes, of which Labour speeches occupied 2 hours 21 minutes. There were two minority spokesmen, whose contributions took 17 minutes, and other Opposition speakers made contributions lasting only 2 hours 10 minutes, including three of my hon. Friends who did not serve on the Committee. As a result, 47 amendments on Report were left entirely undebated. The majority of those were amendments on which we had tied in Standing Committee. Yet if the other place decides to return the other amendments to this House it will be impossible for them all to be debated here, even if confined to the 30 tied amendments that were guillotined on Report. If we were to discuss 30 amendments in a period of six hours, that would allow a 12-minute debate on each, during which time would have to be found for Divisions.

This is a gagging of parliamentary debate and it is an outrage. It is all very well for Labour Members, including Government spokesmen, to giggle, but they know that after the events of last week none of their seats is safe.

My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and Workington (Mr. Page) have taken their seats today, and that represents a visible demand by the people that the Government should drop all this offensive legislation. It shows the Government's arrogant determination to force through this legislation despite last week's results in the by-elections and it demonstrates the hollow pretensions of the Labour Party to be a democratic party. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in dividing against this motion.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate.

I wish to deal specifically with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Some of the arguments advanced from the Labour Benches are bound to be repetitious since many of them apply to the provisions of the Education Bill and the National Health Services Bill.

Hon. Members spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the docks industry and the Opposition both in Committee and on Report displayed a great deal of ignorance about the industry. However, it has been surpassed only by the obvious ignorance of the other place in its comments on the industry.

Those who work in the industry and understand it recognise that there is bound to be a major change in the structure of the industry to enable the opportunities for employment to be preserved. They appreciate that there must be some regulation of the situation from the centre.

Although the Bill does not deal with the reorganisation of the National Dock Labour Board, new powers will be given to the board and that will be the beginning of a changing process. Those who know the docks industry appreciate that, because of technological and other changes, there has been a tremendous amount of disorder in the past. Those changes have reduced the labour force and at the same time have converted dock labour into a new form.

These problems have not been fully dealt with by the National Dock Labour Board in its existing framework, although in postwar years that board has played a tremendous part in organising the docks industry and securing better conditions of work for its employees. There is now a need to review the situation since the board has been in existence for 30 years. The new task must be seen against the changes in the industry, bear- ing in mind security of employment for dock workers.

If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackmail."] I believe that those people in the industry will be as entitled to take such action as are the members of the House of Lords who have taken decisions to wreck this Bill. I represent people in the industry whose future will depend on some changes taking place, but members of the other place will not be affected if the Bill falls. Therefore, it may in the end be the responsibility of the people in the industry outside to determine the future of their industry as affected by this Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I am tempted to take up the first point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) who at the conclusion of his remarks made an unconstitutional threat, but I shall refrain from so doing. I do not wish to discuss the merits of either of these Bills, I wish only to deal with the more specific point involving the manner in which this House has been treated in this motion.

The kindest thing I can say about it is that it is on the lines of a blind date. In my younger days I might have been attracted to the idea of a blind date in a hospital or on the docks, but certainly the idea of a blind date in terms of legislation is not at all acceptable.

I raised this point with Mr. Speaker when these debates began. I pointed out that of the five Bills before the House on only one, the Education Bill, were there Government proposals to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments. Without the Lords amendments and Government proposals before us as to the way in which we should handle them, I do not believe that we are in a position to determine whether the amount of time proposed to be allocated by the Government is correct. That is a simple parliamentary point and it contains no party political element.

I should have thought that Labour Members, particularly those who sit below the Gangway and who may soon suffer a transfer of geography in the House, might think about preserving their own future position. I would hope that some Labour Members still care about preserving the rules of this House, both explicitly and implicitly.

I do not deny the Government's right to deal with Lords amendments by bringing forward timetable motions for the consideration of the House. In regard to the Education Bill, we have the necessary information in order to debate the timetable. But in regard to the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the National Health Services Bill the situation is different. We are concerned with whether we can give proper consideration to these proposals within a debating time of only six hours. In the case of the Dock Work Regulation Bill the other place has not yet even concluded its consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If such cries are to be heard from the Government Front Bench, I must remind the House of what was said in the Cousins Report in respect of the situation in London which affects particularly Clause 6. I shall not go into that matter now, but it reflects a changing situation in the docks. Therefore, the situation is different from the one that faced the House on Second Reading. There is a new situation.

I believe that we should not pass this motion because we have not the necessary information before us. The job of the Leader of the House is not only to be a fixer of Government business but to lead all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has failed in that duty. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the Opposition Benches I regarded him as a great parliamentary figure and a person who cared for parliamentary procedure and the rights of Parliament. But that is not how I regard the Leader of the House today. I only hope that he finds his jackboots comfortable.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

Time is of the essence of this debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) did, I shall keep my comments brief.

I deeply resent the idea that we shall not have proper debate after all the time spent in the House of Commons, both in Committee and on the Floor, on the two Bills which we are now considering and on which we have still to spend more time. I give an immediate answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he asks whether we shall have enough time. I reply unequivocally with regard to the Health Services Bill, the pay beds Bill, that we shall have more than adequate time. It is one of the thinnest Bills with which I have ever had to deal in the House. About four points of fundamental difference between the parties arose, and those four points have been rehearsed and examined time and again both here and in the other place. We are thus landed at a stage when we can no longer have the same questions raised again and again.

What is happening in the other place is a rehearsal of the same arguments. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made some play of the fact that in Standing Committee we often had a tied vote. If there are eight Opposition Members on one side and eight Government Members on the other, I cannot see how one can avoid having a tied vote time after time, and that was our situation.

In my view, comparing the present Health Services Bill with the massive reorganisation Bill of 1973, with its 54 clauses, the time we have had and shall have is more than adequate for us and for the other place.

Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, anyone who has concern and care for the National Health Service—in which I include hon. Members on both sides, since that concern and care is shared in all quarters of the House—is aware that the longer things remain in limbo, the more difficult it is to resolve difficult situations and relationships. That applies, in particular to the pay beds issue. Argument has gone on between the ancillary workers, on the one hand, and medical staff, on the other, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that matters be resolved at an early date, since there are so many other questions of far greater importance.

We are talking here about 4,500 beds out of a total of 500,000. We are talking about tens of thousands of private patients compared with 5½ million ordinary patients. It is, therefore, for the resolution of this problem that the guillotine motion comes before the House again.

To my right hon. Friend I say that of course we shall get the Bill, and six hours will be adequate. If, by some strange chance, we do not get it through this Session, naturally, the Parliament Act will give it to us before August next year. But I urge that we do not have to use the Parliament Act for the reason put by my right hon. Friend—that the sooner the matter is resolved, the sooner we can get on with more important questions, and the sooner we shall see the end of the symptoms of dissatisfaction and conflict in the service and start to build up morale—not only the morale of doctors, but the morale of all those who work in and who use the service.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone)

I shall refer in a moment to the constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I wish to deal first with the question of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I was very surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), because in his last few sentences he said, in effect, that, irrespective of what the House of Lords said, irrespective of what the House of Commons said and irrespective of what Parliament said, the dockers would have their way. I believe that that is what he intended to convey, and we shall have to look in Hansard tomorrow for it. I am sure that that was the gist of what he meant. I can only say that, if any confrontation does take place, not only we but the country will know where the blame lies.

It has been said that the Bill has been debated at length in Committee, but it has not been debated at length on Report in the House. The unique feature of the present docks Bill is that, whereas other such Bills in the past have concerned only one industry, the docks industry, and usually only a handful of major port areas, this Bill affects the whole coastal area of Scotland, Wales and England and, in addition, it affects many industries not remotely concerned with the docks industry.

That is why the Dock Work Regulation Bill requires the fullest debate on the Floor of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said, not only are coastal constituencies affected by the Bill but, much further than that, many inland constituencies are affected, too, since the dockers' corridor extends along the tidal rivers. Therefore, every possible opportunity should be given to those who did not serve on the Standing Committee to represent their constituency interests on the Floor of the House.

The Report stage was restricted to one day, which did not allow many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to speak for their constituency interests, although they had received many representations from companies in their constituencies simply asking how the Bill would affect them. It certainly will affect them, and it is pointless for hon. Members on the Government side to say that the anxiety about the Bill has been worked up by the Press and it is all a great Tory ruse to excite and inflame people who work in warehouses or cold stores with the fear that their jobs are in danger.

We all know from the volume of correspondence received from our constituencies that many companies are seriously worried. It is absurd to argue that it is all the doing of a Tory Press. Are we asked to imagine that workers in warehouses and cold stores read partisan articles in the Daily Telegraph, nudging their workmates and asking them to pass them the latest inflammatory article in the Investors Chronicle and Stock Exchange Gazette? The truth is nothing of the sort. Everybody knows that many people in the cargo-handling industry will be affected by the Bill. Therefore, the fullest possible time should be given for hon. Members to represent their constituents' interests on the Floor.

In introducing the motion, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was essential—essential for the cargo-handling industry and essential for our import and export trade. Let him try to persuade the people from the IMF that the Bill is essential for the regeneration of British industry. They will not believe him, and he cannot expect us to believe him. The Bill is in no way essential to the regeneration of British industry or the stimulation of our exports.

I come now to a point of even deeper significance. I do not object to the use of the guillotine. Governments of all complexions have the power to use the guillotine. But when a Government use the guillotine constantly on a whole series of measures, as the present Government have been doing, they undoubtedly strain the ancient links which bind our constitution. Debates in Standing Committee and on the Floor are essential to the life of Parliament, and the House must be exceedingly jealous about surrendering any time for such debate.

When the wheel of fortune turns, as inevitably it will, and hon. Members opposite find themselves on these Benches, they will agree with every word that I am saying. Indeed, the great argument against the Government's present policy and conduct is the attitude of the Leader of the House himself, who, when he sat on these Benches, and even when he had another position on the Government side, constantly opposed the use of the guillotine to curtail debate. Until he assumed his present office, he was the embodiment of debate in the House. He was one of the greatest parliamentarians. [An HON. MEMBER: "He still is."] Then why is he pressing through this guillotine motion to curtail debate? The answer is that he has joined the Executive, and he realises, as all who join the Executive do, that the Government must have their way.

One of the most worrying features of our constitutional history over the past few years is that there has been a significant shift in favour of the power of the Executive. The time has come for the House of Commons to assert its position as a legislature. We must examine legislation properly. The House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, has become a sort of midwife who produces more bad legislation more quickly than does any other legislature. That is one of the reasons why this House as a body is held in contempt in the country.

Second, we must reassert our power to call the Executive to account. Part of that power lies in the preservation of a second Chamber—certainly, a reformed second Chamber—a second Chamber which is elected and which can review and improve Bills which we send to it.

If we are not prepared to accept this measure of constitutional change and reform, the trend that I have been talking about will continue, and the Executive will become more and more powerful until we become part of a single-party, single-chamber constitution. That is the road that we are sliding down.

I believe that all those checks and balances which have been built into our constitutional practice over the years and, indeed, centuries no longer operate. The most worrying thing about our constitutional practice today is that those checks and balances which are supposed to operate within the House no longer check and no longer balance.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

One of the funniest remarks so far today was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). He invited the Government to create 200 new Labour peers. I do not know whether he was thinking of the ennoblement of some of his hon. Friends. If that were to happen, it might leave the Labour Party somewhat vulnerable in the by-elections which would follow. But perhaps he was thinking that the Government might ennoble people who are not Members of this House. Yet, methinks, are there 200 Socialists left? Are there 200 people left in the country who would support the Government's line?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that Labour peers already in another place cannot bring themselves to support these measures, not even to draw the £13.50 per day which is the reward for going along there and voting. What is it that makes the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government could find 200 or 2,000, or 200,000 Labour peers to support this legislation? The doctrine of the mandate is suspect because the only scrap of justification which the Government have for these motions today and for clinging to these Bills at all is that some time, a long time ago, they had a mandate for them. Let us examine this doctrine. The mandate, such as it was, was a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate two years ago. Do the Government now have a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate? I see that the Secretary of State for Employment is grimacing. Barrow-in-Furness, which he represents, is very near Workington. He, too, might be in the unemployed queue if he had to go for re-election.

I do not believe that the people of the country have the slightest confidence in the policies represented by these five Bills. They do not believe that they are the right things to do. Let us look at the effect upon the economy which the Government have had. They have brought the country to a really low pass. So I believe that the vote which will take place in about 20 minutes' time is of monumental importance. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is going to grace us with her presence, or whether she believes that her baby is more important. Indeed, I think that the child unborn may rule the voting on this issue.

I am glad that the Leader of the House is here because I want to say a few words about him. He and the Prime Minister remind me of King Lear and Gloucester. I do not know quite which is which, although I imagine that the Prime Minister is Gloucester, because the Leader of the House looks, in my imagination, so like King Lear himself. They are wandering about, lost and depressed; their army is routed; both of them are blind—over one eye is written "Workington" and over the other is written "Walsall, North". They are wandering midst mist and fog after defeat in battle. I remind the Leader of the House of King Lear's words to Gloucester: Get thee glass eyes; And, like a scurvy politician, seem To see the things thous dost not. to which Gloucester replied, The king is mad; At that stage, Edgar said, … methinks, I hear the beaten drum. It is the beaten drum that we hear. Why do the Government persist with this legislation? Do they not realise that they are lost, defeated and beaten? Will they not at least accept the common will, the democratic desire for them to leave office, take away their legislation and withdraw this motion?

5.37 p.m.

Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)

I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said about the guillotining of the Health Services Bill. It is different from the others we are discussing today. First, it is at the back of the queue. It is the last of the five Bills to go to the Lords. It would help if we could have some idea of its future timetable, when it will come back to this House, and what scope there will be for reversing Lords amendments and perhaps giving the Lords another opportunity to look at the Bill. Will there be time for this process of consultation and consideration to take place?

Secondly, the Bill is different because a large number of points in Committee were resolved only by the casting vote of the Chair, and this House has not had an opportunity itself to resolve those points. The time scale envisaged for the Bill now will not give the House an opportunity to come to a final view on those matters.

Thirdly, it is a discourtesy that the motion should have been announced even before the other place had started its discussion of the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee at 3.56 p.m. last Thursday, after the guillotine had been announced here. It seems rather precipitous to announce a guillotine here before the Lords have even begun their deliberations in Committee.

Then there is the matter of the tied votes. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) implied that it was perfectly natural that there should have been tied votes because there were equal numbers of both sides on the Bill. There were nine Government members of the Committee, eight from the official Opposition and one Ulster Unionist, whose voting behaviour was unpredictable, which is the best way to describe it. One reason for so many tied votes was that the Secretary of State had to absent himself on a large number of occasions in order to attend the Cabinet.

The Secretary of State said something which I believe to have been a breach of a convention. He implied that the Opposition were unable to fill the allotted time in Committee. I think that he said that we ran out of debate and the Committee rose early. I believe that the arrangement was arrived at through the usual channels that it would be for the convenience of his hon. Friends as well as ourselves that debate should end at a certain time. I believe, therefore, that what the right hon. Gentleman said today was a breach of a convention of arrangements reached through the usual channels.

The Health Services Bill was introduced far too late in the Session, went into Committee far too late, and has gone to the other place far too late. It is intolerable that this congested timetable should have been presented to us, because the Government's own mismanagement is entirely responsible for the congestion.

Mr. Speaker

Would hon. Gentlemen be kind enough to confine themselves to speaking as briefly as possible?

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

In the short time available I should like to answer a number of the comments about the guillotine which have come from Conservatives. Every one of us has had to take a different position on the guillotine, depending on whether we were in opposition. When we were in opposition, naturally we voted against any guillotine imposed by the previous Conservative Government. We all understand the arguments involved.

However, it is a bit much to hear Conservatives complaining about the guillotine on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which affects only a small number of people, when they were quite prepared to impose a guillotine on the Industrial Relations Act, which affected considerably more people. Of even greater consequence was the guillotine which they imposed on the Common Market legislation which, above all other pieces of legislation, affected everybody and which was only a 12-clause measure. To that extent the Opposition are the last people to complain about this.

A number of hon. Members opposite have complained that we should be convincing the IMF, the House of Lords, in fact everybody but the House of Commons. Yet it is here the decision is made.

Another reason why I consider that we should support the Government is that I come from Humberside, where the Dock Work Regulation Bill is a very important issue. The previous Conservative Government should be aware of the riots and problems at a Hull Wharf, the reasons for which are shown in the report of the Jones-Aldington Committee, which was set up by the then Tory Government. That report showed that many dock workers were being exploited as far as hours, wages and periods of time involved were concerned. This legislation is required to rectify that position and to give these workers advantages and rates of pay equal to those enjoyed by the dockers in the registered schemes.

I have gone into this subject in greater detail in previous speeches in this House, so I shall not continue this argument. Suffice to say, that there are solid arguments why this Bill should go through, and I hope that the House will pass this motion tonight.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire South)

I wish to put one brief point to the Employment Secretary. He will recall that in Committee on the Dock Work Regulation Bill he said he would do his level best to avoid a guillotine. Therefore, it must come as rather a shock to him to find this Bill being guillotined, first in July and again now. If the Secretary of State reflects on what he said in Committee, the situation in the docks, in employment generally and in investment must cause him to pause for thought. Since July unemployment has gone up and uncertainty about investment in the industries affected by this Bill has increased.

The legislative record of the Department of Employment is pretty good. By that I do not mean that it is necessarily good in content, but the measures themselves—the Health and Safety at Work Bill, the Employment Protection Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill—have been pushed through very quickly. No one can say that the Department has lagged behind in putting Bills on the statute book.

But in taking this course of action on this measure the Department is getting into bad habits. If it does this now, what will it do with the industrial democracy legislation next Session? Will the Government push that ahead without adequate discussion? If the Secretary of State goes on the way he has started there is a horrible risk that there will be inadequate discussion on industrial democracy, in the same way that there has been inadequate discussion of this Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has been more candid and honest on this matter than anyone on the Government Front Bench. He has said that it is improper for the House of Lords to carry out the function allotted to it by a Labour piece of legislation, and that it is proper therefore for the Government to take the action which they are taking today. That amounts to treating the House of Lords and the process of legislation in that House with contempt. What is more, if the House of Lords refuses to take that contempt lying down, the hon. Member says it is right and proper to resolve the matter by industrial action. That shows a disregard for the proper constitutional practices of this country which is extremely worrying, but it is no more than a reflection of the attitude of the Government.

The Government must know that in asking the House to decide how long we should take on debating matters which the House of Lords has not yet debated they are making a travesty of two-chamber legislation. The Government cannot be serious in expecting the Houses of Commits to begin to decide how long to take on discussing matters which have not yet reached the House of Lords, as is the case in two of the Bills under consideration. It is absurd to suggest that this is the right way to go about things.

If the Government want to operate the constitution as it stands, they must organise their legislation to give the House of Lords sufficient time to consider it, so that this House can then decide how long it needs to consider what the Lords have done. If the Government find this objectionable, the procedure they should then adopt is to introduce legislation to reform the House of Lords, which we would be perfectly prepared to consider on its merits.

To go around by the back door and pretend, as the hon. Member does, that the House of Lords does not have a function allotted to it by a piece of Labour legislation, that this function should be bypassed, and that it would be proper to resort to industrial action if need be, seems to us an extremely dangerous procedure which we rightly regard as savouring of the Reichstag.

5.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)

When the House last debated the timetable for proceedings on the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill, I said that there was an urgent need to reach a conclusion on the dock work legislation. Now, nearly four months later, the urgency is even greater.

In the Standing Committee, which ran for 36 sittings, we debated carefully and at length every aspect of this Bill. Subsequent consideration brought no new aspects to light and no further or new principles were proposed. When the Bill was sent to another place, it gave it another 41 hours debate, so in all since it was introduced the Bill has been discussed for 140 hours. Its principles have been considered its details thrashed out and its desirability has in my view had more than sufficient discussion to enable this House to reach a conclusion.

In another place the inbuilt non-elected majority made a mockery of the democratic process by trying to frustrate the underlying principles of the Bill. All the amendments passed in that place against the advice of the Government have been on matters which were fully covered and approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

Since the Secretary of State considers that the House of Lords has been making a mockery of the democratic process would he take time to explain to us the actual motion on the Order Paper and what it does?

Mr. Booth

What the motion does is quite clear. It allocates six hours to the Lords amendments and three hours on any subsequent stage and it makes provision for voting so that voting can take place after the six hours have expired on the proposition "That this House doth disagree with the Lords" and on a separate proposition for amendments which involve matters of privilege, or matters in which this House might seek to agree with the Lords. There is no question of voting cutting into the time proposed in the motion.

Had the House of Lords raised some great new issue, we would have had to give the time, but the other place made amendments which were designed to change the composition of the National Dock Board. In Standing Committee the Opposition withdrew exactly the same amendment as the Lords have now passed. Furthermore, they did so without even forcing a Division.

The other place has inserted a new clause providing for appeals against classification. We discussed that proposition for one and a quarter hours in Standing Committee and it was defeated. On Report we discussed it again for three and a quarter hours and again it was defeated.

Mr. David Price

There might be force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if we had before us the Lords amendments and, even more important, what the Government propose in respect of them. Maybe if the Government supported all the amendments we could dispose of the Bill in an hour, but we do not know. We have no way of determining whether the Secretary of State's argument is correct.

Mr. Booth

I have studied all the amendments passed by the House of Lords, but I do not have the time to deploy the arguments upon them now. On the two that I have mentioned, the Government propose that the decision of the Commons should be upheld.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of the tied votes on the Health Services Bill. Would it not be utterly deplorable if amendments were sent back to the Lords without any discussion here on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Booth

No, the Bills are coming back with Lords amendments and the question is how we should deal with them. I am suggesting that on the Dock Work Regulation Bill no new issue of principle has been raised by the other place. Not only do the Lords amendments repeat word for word amendments which have been considered in this House, but they fail to take account of the arguments which this House accepted.

When we debate these Lords amendments we shall find, for example, that the Bill, as it has been amended, excludes all scheme ports from the scope of Clause 4(3). Clearly the other place does not understand matters which are regarded by this House and the Standing Committee as issues of major importance.

This House has had unique opportunities to consider the principles involved in the Bill. On 14th April 1975 we debated the consultative document, and we approved that document. In the debate on the Queen's Speech we debated an amendment, and on Second Reading we approved the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) now says that the Bill is unnecessary. If it had been unnecessary it would not have been passed in principle three times by the House. It seems strange to me that a man who was a Minister in a Conservative Government which presided over two national dock strikes should set himself up as a judge of what legislation is necessary to deal with industrial relations in that industry.

The problems with which the Bill seeks to deal have grown steadily since the late 1960s. The Government believe that it is essential to deal with the underlying industrial relations problems of the industry. If the record of this Government is compared with the record of the last Conservative Administration, our success and our judgment in these matters speak for themselves. We judge the Bill to be essential for industrial peace on the docks, and on that basis I call upon my Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I call upon my hon. Friends and all other Members of the House of Commons who seek resolution of the problems confronting the docks industry to pass the motion in order that we can make a proper determination of the issue.

It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 307.

Division No. 374.]	AYES	[4.39 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Cronin, John	Gould, Bryan
Allaun, Frank	Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Gourlay, Harry
Anderson, Donald	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Graham, Ted
Archer, Peter	Cryer, Bob	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Armstrong, Ernest	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Ashley, Jack	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Grocott, Bruce
Ashton, Joe	Dalyell, Tam	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Davidson, Arthur	Hardy, Peter
Atkinson, Norman	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)	Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Barnell, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Hatton, Frank
Bates, Alf	Deakins, Eric	Hayman, Mrs Helene
Bean, R. E.	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Heffer, Eric S.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Hooley, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Horam, John
Bidwell, Sydney	Dempsey, James	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Bishop, E. S.	Doig, Peter	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Dormand, J. D.	Huckfield, Les
Boardman, H.	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Duffy, A. E. P.	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Dunn, James A.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Dunnett, Jack	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, Tom	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Hunter, Adam
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Eadie, Alex	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Edge, Geoff	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Janner, Greville
Buchan, Norman	English, Michael	Jay, Rt Kon Douglas
Buchanan, Richard	Ennals, David	Jeger, Mrs Lena
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	John, Brynmor
Campbell, Ian	Evans, John (Newton)	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Canavan, Dennis	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cant, R. B.	Faulds, Andrew	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Carmichael, Nell	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Carter, Ray	Filch, Alan (Wigan)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Judd, Frank
Cartwright, John	Flannery, Martin	Kaufman, Gerald
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	Kelley, Richard
Clemitson, Ivor	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Kerr, Russell
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Kllroy-Sllk, Robert
Cohen, Stanley	Ford, Ben	Kinnock, Neil
Coleman, Donald	Forrester, John	Lambie, David
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Lamborn, Harry
Concannon, J. 0.	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Lamond, James
Conlan, Bernard	Freeson, Reginald	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Leadbitter, Ted
Corbett, Robin	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Lee, John
Cowans, Harry	George, Bruce	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Gilbert, Dr John	Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Ginsburg, David	Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Crawshaw, Richard	Golding, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Lipton, Marcus	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Stoddart, David
Litterick, Tom	Ovenden, John	Stott, Roger
Lomas, Kenneth	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Strang, Gavin
Loyden, Eddie	Padley, Walter	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Luard, Evan	Palmer, Arthur	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Park, George	Swain, Thomas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Parker, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Parry, Robert	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
McCartney, Hugh	Pavitt, Laurie	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Pendry, Tom	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
McElhone, Frank	Perry, Ernest	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Phipps, Dr Colin	Tierney, Sydney
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Tinn, James
MacKenzie, Gregor	Prescott, John	Tomlinson, John
Mackintosh, John P.	Price, C. (Lewisham W.)	Tomney, Frank
Maclennan, Robert	Price, William (Rugby)	Torney, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Radice, Giles	Urwin, T. W.
McNamara, Kevin	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Madden, Max	Richardson, Miss Jo	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Magee, Bryan	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Walker Harold (Doncaster)
Mahon, Simon	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Robinson, Geoffrey	Ward, Michael
Marks, Kenneth	Roderick, Caerwyn	Watkins, David
Marquand, David	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Watkinson, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Weetch, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Rooker J. W.	weitzman, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Roper John	Wellbeloved, James
Maynard, Miss Joan	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Killmarnock)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Meacher, Michael	Rowlands, Ted	White, James (Pollock)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Ryman John	Whitehead, Philip
Mendelson, John	Sandelson, Neville	Whitlock, William
Mikardo, Ian	Sedgemore, Brian	Wigley, Dafydd
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Selby Harry	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Shaw Arnold (Ilford South)	Williams, Alan (Swansea w)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Molloy, William	Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Moonman, Eric	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Sillars, James	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Silverman, Jullus	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Moyle, Roland	Skinner, Dennis	Woodall, Alec
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Small, William	Woof, Robert
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Newens, Stanley	Snape, Peter	Young, David (Bolton E)
Noble, Mike	Spearing, Nigel
Oakes, Gordon	Spearing, Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ogden, Eric	Stallard, A. W.	Mr. Joseph Harper and
O'Halloran, Michael	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)	Mr. James Hamilton
Orbach, Maurice
NOES
Adley, Robert	Budgen, Nick	Dykes, Hugh
Aitken, Jonathan	Bulmer, Esmond	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Alison, Michael	Burden, F. A.	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Elliott, Sir William
Arnold, Tom	Carlisle, Mark	Emery, Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Carson, John	Eyre, Reginald
Awdry, Daniel	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Baker, Kenneth	Channon, Paul	Fairgrieve, Russell
Banks, Robert	Churchill, W. S.	Farr, John
Beith, A. J.	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fell, Anthony
Bell, Ronald	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Clegg, Waller	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Benyon, W.	Cockcroft, John	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Berry, Hon Anthony	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Fookes, Miss Janet
Biffen, John	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Forman, Nigel
Biggs-Davison, John	Cope, John	Fowler, Norman (Sutton c' f' d)
Blaker, Peter	Cordle, John H.	Fox, Marcus
Body, Richard	Cormack, Patrick	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Corrie, John	Freud, Clement
Bottomley, Peter	Costain, A. p.	Fry, Peter
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Boy son, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Critchley, Julian	Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.
Bradford, Rev Robert	Crouch, David	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Crowder, F. P.	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Brittan, Leon	Dean, Paul (N Somerest)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Brotherton, Michael	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Glyn, Dr Alan
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Drayson, Burnaby	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Bryan, Sir Paul	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Goodhart, Philip
Buchanan-Smith, Allck	Dunlop, John	Goodhew, Victor
Buck, Antony	Durant, Tony	Goodlad, Alastair
		Gorst, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	McCusker, H.	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Macfarlane, Neil	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	MacGregor, John	Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)
Gray, Hamish	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Grieve, Percy	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Griffiths, Eldon	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Madel, David	Royle, Sir Anthony
Grist, Ian	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Sainsbury, Tim
Grylls, Michael	Marten, Nell	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Hall, Sir John	Mates, Michael	Scott, Nicholas
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mather, Carol	Scott-Hopkins, James
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Maude, Angus	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Hannam, John	Mawby, Ray	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shepherd, Colin
Hastings, Stephen	Mayhew, Patrick	Shersby, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Silvester, Fred
Hawkins, Paul	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Sims, Roger
Hayhoe, Barney	Mills, Peter	Sinclair, Sir George
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Miscampbell, Norman	Skeet, T. H. H.
Heseltine, Michael	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Hicks, Robert	Moate, Roger	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Higgins, Terence L.	Molyneaux, James	Speed, Keith
Holland, Philip	Monro, Hector	Spence, John
Hooson, Emlyn	Montgomery, Fergus	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Hordern, Peter	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Sproat, Iain
Howell, David (Guildford)	Morgan, Geraint	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hodgson, Robin	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Stanley, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Mudd, David	Stokes, John
Hurd, Douglas	Neave, Airey	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Nelson, Anthony	Tapsell, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Neubert, Michael	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
James, David	Newton, Tony	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Normanton, Tom	Tebbit, Norman
Jessel, Toby	Nott, John	Temple-Morris, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Onslow, cranley	Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Osborn, John	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Jopling, Michael	Page, John (Harrow West)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Page, Richard (Workington)	Trotter, Neville
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Paisley, Rev Ian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kershaw, Anthony	Pardoe, John	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Kilfedder James	Pattie, Geoffrey	Viggers, Peter
Kimball, Marcus	Penhaligon, David	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Percival. Ian	Wakeham, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Kirk Sir Peter	Pink, R. Bonner	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Knight, Mrs Jill	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wall, Patrick
Knox, David	Prior, Rt Hon James	Walters, Dennis
Lamont, Norman	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Warren, Kenneth
Lane, David	Raison, Timothy	Weatherill, Bernard
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rathbone, Tim	Wells, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Lawrence, Ivan	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wiggin, Jerry
Lawson, Nigel	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Winterton, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rhys williams, Sir Brandon	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Lloyd, Ian	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Younger, Hon George
Loveridge, John	Ridsdale, Julian
Luce, Richard	Rifkind, Malcolm	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
McCrindle, Robert	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Division No.375.]	AYES	[5.55 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Allaun, Frank	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Lipton, Marcus
Anderson, Donald	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Litterick, Tom
Archer, Peter	English, Michael	Lomas, Kenneth
Armstrong, Ernest	Ennalas, David	Loyden, Eddle
Ashley, Jack	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Luard, Evan
Ashton, Joe	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Lyon, Alexander (York)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Evans, John (Newton)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Atkinson, Norman	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Faulds, Andrew	McCartney, Hugh
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Fitch. Alan (Wigan)	McElhone, Frank
Bates, Alt	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Bean, R. E.	Flannery, Martin	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	MacKenzie, Gregor
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackintosh, John P.
Bidwell, Sydney	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Maclennan, Robert
Bishop, E. S.	Ford, Ben	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Forrester, John	McNamara, Kevin
Boardman, H.	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Madden, Max
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Magee, Bryan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Freeson, Reginald	Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Mahon, Simon
Bradley, Tom	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Bray, Dr Jeremy	George, Bruce	Marks, Kenneth
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Gilbert, Dr John	Marquand, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Ginsburg, David	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Golding, John	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Gould, Bryan	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Buchan, Norman	Gourlay, Harry	Maynard. Miss Joan
Buchanan, Richard	Graham, Ted	Meacher, Michael
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Mendelson, John
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Grocott, Bruce	Mikardo, Ian
Campbell, Ian	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Canavan, Dennis	Hardy, Peter	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Cant, R. B.	Harper, Joseph	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Carmichael, Neil	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Carter, Ray	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Molloy, William
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Moonman, Eric
Cartwright, John	Hatton, Frank	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Hayman, Mrs Helene	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Clemitson, Ivor	Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael	Hooley, Frank	Moyle, Roland
Cohen, Stanley	Horam, John	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Coleman, Donald	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Newens, Stanley
Concannon, J. D.	Huckfield, Les	Noble, Mike
Conlan, Bernard	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Oakes, Gordon
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Ogden, Eric
Corbett, Robin	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	O'Halloran, Michael
Cowans, Harry	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Orbach, Maurice
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hunter, Adam	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Ovenden, John
Crawshaw, Richard	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Cronin, John	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Padley, Walter
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Palmer, Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Janner, Greville	Park, George
Cryer, Bob	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Parker, John
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Parry, Robert
Cunningham, Or J. (Whiteh)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pavitt, Laurie
Dalyell, Tarn	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Pendry, Tom
Davidson, Arthur	John, Brynmor	Perry, Ernest
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Phipps, Dr Colin
Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Prescott, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Deakins, Eric	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Price, William (Rugby)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Judd, Frank	Radice, Giles
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Kaufman, Gerald	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Kelley, Richard	Richardson, Miss Jo
Dempsey, James	Kerr, Russell	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Doig, Feter	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dormand, J. D.	Kinnock, Neil	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lambie, David	Robinson, Geoffrey
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lamborn, Harry	Roderick, Caerwyn
Dunn, James A.	Lamond, James	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Dunnett, Jack	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynett)	Leadbitter, Ted	Rooker, J. W.
Eadie, Alex	Lee, John	Roper, John
Edge, Geoff	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Rose, Paul B.
	Lever. Rt Hon Harold	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Rowlands, Ted	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Weitzman, David
Ryman, John	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Wellbeloved, James
Sandelson, Neville	Swain, Thomas	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Sedgemore, Brian	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	White, James (Pollock)
Selby, Harry	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Whitehead, Phillip
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)	Whitlock, William
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Thome, Stan (Preston South)	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)	Tierney, Sydney	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Tinn, James	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Tomlinson, John	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Sillars, James	Tomney, Frank	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silverman, Julius	Torney, Tom	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Skinner, Dennis	Urwin, T. W.	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Small, William	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Woodall, Alec
Snape, Peter	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)	Woof, Robert
Spearing, Nigel	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Stallard, A. W.	Ward, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)	Watkins, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stott, Roger	Watkinson, John	Mr. James Hamilton and
Strang, Gavin	Weetch, Ken	Mr. David Stoddart.

NOES
Adley, Robert	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Aitken, Jonathan	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Henderson, Douglas
Alison, Michael	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Heseltine, Michael
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Drayson, Burnaby	Hicks, Robert
Arnold, Tom	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Higgins, Terence L.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Dunlop, John	Hodgson, Robin
Awdry, Daniel	Durant, Tony	Holland, Philip
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Dykes, Hugh	Hooson, Emlyn
Baker, Kenneth	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Hordern, Peter
Banks, Robert	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Beith, A. J.	Elliott, Sir William	Howell, David (Guildford)
Bell, Ronald	Emery, Peter	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Eyre, Reginald	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Benyon, W.	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Hunt, John (Bromley)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Fairgrieve, Russell	Hurd, Douglas
Biffen, John	Farr, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Biggs-Davison, John	Fell, Anthony	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Blaker, Peter	Finsberg, Geoffrey	James, David
Body, Richard	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Jessel, Toby
Bottomley, Peter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Fookes, Miss Janet	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Forman, Nigel	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Jopling, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard	Fox, Marcus	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Brittan, Leon	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Freud, Clement	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Brotherton, Michael	Fry, Peter	Kershaw, Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Kilfedder, James
Bryan, Sir Paul	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Kimball, Marcus
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Buck, Antony	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Budgen, Nick	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Kirk, Sir Peter
Bulmer, Esmond	Glyn, Dr Alan	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Burden, F. A.	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Knight, Mrs Jill
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Goodhart, Philip	Knox, David
Carlisle, Mark	Goodhew, Victor	Lamont, Norman
Carson, John	Goodlad, Alastair	Lane, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Gorst, John	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Channon, Paul	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Latham, Michael (Melton)
Churchill, W. S.	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Lawrence, Ivan
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Lawson, Nigel
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Gray, Hamish	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Grieve, Percy	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Clegg, Walter	Griffiths, Eldon	Lloyd, Ian
Cockcroft, John	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Loveridge, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Grist, Ian	Luce, Richard
Cope, John	Grylls, Michael	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Cordle, John H.	Hall, Sir John	MacCormick, Iain
Cormack, Patrick	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	McCrindle, Robert
Corrie, John	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	McCusker, H.
Costain, A. P.	Hampson, Dr Keith	Macfarlane, Neil
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Hannam, John	MacGregor, John
Crawford, Douglas	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Critchley, Julian	Hastings, Stephen	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Crouch, David	Havers, Sir Michael	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Crowder, F. P.	Hawkins, Paul	Madel, David
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Hayhoe, Barney	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Marten, Neil	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stanley, John
Males, Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mather, Carol	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Maude, Angus	Raison, Timothy	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Rathbone, Tim	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mawby, Ray	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Stokes, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mayhew, Patrick	Reid, George	Tapsell, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mills, Peter	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Tebbit, Norman
Miscampbell, Norman	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Ridsdale, Julian	Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret
Moate, Roger	Rifkind, Malcolm	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Molyneaux, James	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Thompson, George
Monro, Hector	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Thorne, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Montgomery, Fergus	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Town send, Cyril D.
Moore, John (Croydon C)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)	Trotter, Neville
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Morgan, Geraint	Ross, William (Londonderry)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	Viggers, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Royle Sir Anthony	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)		Wakeham, John
Mudd, David	Sainsbury, Tim	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Neave, Airey	St. John-Stevas Norman	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Nelson, Anthony	Scott, Nicholas	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Neubert, Michael	Shaw Giles (Pudsey)	Wall, Patrick
Newton, Tony	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Walters, Dennis
Normanton, Tom	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Warren, Kenneth
Nott, John	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Watt, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley	Shepherd, Colin	Weaiherill, Bernard
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Shersby, Michael	Wells, John
Osborn, John	Silvester, Fred	welsh, Andrew
Page, John (Harrow West)	Sims, Roger	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Page, Richard (Workington)	Sinclair, Sir George	Wiggin, Jerry
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Skeet, T. H. H.	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Paisley, Rev Ian	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)	Winterton, Nicholas
Pardoe, John	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Pattie, Geoffrey	Speed, Keith	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Penhaligon, David	Spence, John	Younger, Hon George
Percival, Ian	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pink, R. Bonner	Sproat, Iain	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Stanbrook, Ivor	Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
   1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That 92 this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
   2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,
   3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
   4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forward the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
2. (b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House both agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
3. (c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.