HC Deb 27 October 1976 vol 918 cc553-67

Lords amendment: No. 17 in page 16, line 20, at end insert: (3) Section 20(1) does not apply to the provision of facilities or services by a person in his home, not being a place open (for payment or not) to members of the public generally.

Mr. John

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

This amendment, moved by Lord Monson in another place, would insert a provision that Clause 20(1) does not apply to the provision of facilities or services by a person in his home, it not being a place open for payment or to members of the public generally. Subsection (1) as it currently appears would protect persons from discrimination if services were provided and were available to members of the public or sections of the public. We believe that the noble Lord drew a geographical distinction where the services were issued or provided and that it is quite wrong to do that. The test is what facilities are provided and whether they are provided for the general public or a section of the public. If they are so provided, it seems to me that discrimination ought to be avoided by the provision of the law in this regard.

I can give a number of examples. First, there is the piano teacher who gives lessons in his or her home and who may advertise for pupils. With such an advertisement, it would be wrong for the teacher to discriminate on racial grounds against the pupils. The home is used for many activities other than those of a purely domestic nature. I think of osteopaths, dentists and even solicitors who use a room in their own home for the provision of services to the public or to a section of the public.

We therefore see no reason to amend the law, which, after all, has been the law since the enactment of Section 2 of the 1968 Act, and we believe that the limitation we have introduced in Clause 20 preserves reasonable domestic arrangements whilst preventing discrimination where a person provides services for the public or a section of it.

Mr. Dudley Smith

What about the position of doctors who, as I understand it, are allowed to cross a patient off a list without giving an explanation?

Mr. John

The provision of services cannot be discriminatory on racial grounds. The General Medical Council or general practitioners have the right to remove people from lists without giving reasons for so doing. I would have to look at the example quoted by the hon. Member, but in general I think that the matter as I stated it is a correct statement of the law and a proper statement of principle.

Mr. Ronald Bell

It was with great regret that I heard that the Government would not accept the amendment. I cannot understand the mental processes—if that is the correct expression to use—which led Ministers to that conclusion. I use the term "mental processes" as the correct expression because I feel that this is a matter of bias and prejudice, and not much else. Here we are dealing primarily with people who give classes, teach music, or do something like that in their own homes and who ought to be able to discriminate as they wish in relation to that home when they entertain or teach. The Minister gave no reason why they should not be entitled so to discriminate. He relied on the fact that this provision was within the law and had been since Section 2 of the 1968 Act. The implication was that it should therefore go on being the law.

As one who fought every provision of the 1968 Act, I feel in no way estopped by that argument. Undoubtedly the 1968 Act was a bad Act, which did many things that it ought not to have done. With this Bill, which, after all, is not merely an innovating but also a consolidating Bill, it was right that the upper House should take the opportunity to improve the law as it is, pending the passage of this Bill. The Government ought to look at this matter on its merits. If they think that people should not have the right to discriminate in their own homes they should tell us why they believe that. But it is not a question of whether people should or should not discriminate in their own homes. That is a matter of opinion. The question is whether they ought to have the right to discriminate if they want to.

Even this Government have not dared to propose that people in their domestic and social lives should not have the right to discriminate—

Mr. Stokes

Not yet.

Mr. Bell

No, not yet. Most of us here probably read the Government's White Paper, and noted the concluding paragraphs. From those we know the lengths to which they considered going in their obsession with the wrongness of discrimination. At every stage of this controversy from the beginning I have maintained not only that people should have the right to discriminate but that they ought to discriminate. I say that I discriminate between all the people that I meet, upon every ground that I can detect. I say that everybody does that, and that everybody ought to. A terribly heavy burden lies upon those who say that the faculty of discrimination should be blind to particular observed facts.

I have never been able to follow the argument that the law should say that the whole of human life is based on discrimination, that that is what life is about, but that one must be blind to certain things. It is not that one must not ill-treat people, but that one should pretend that certain things do not exist as a matter of principle. So I have objected to it on the widest ground and have never sought to shuffle away from it. But in this amendment we are on to a refinement of the prohibition of discrimination. We are saying that this is such hostis humanae generis that it has got to be shot wherever it is seen. One day they will shoot us for discriminating between marmalade and jam, because discrimination is wicked. It is a sort of furor, but not Teutonicus.

The point about this amendment is that it made by a tiny rational exception for what one does in one's home when one is not actually providing entertainment. When it comes to asking people to dinner, one can as yet do as one likes. But, of course, pens are being sharpened for the attack on the anti-social practice of choosing one's guests. However, if one gives music classes in one's own home or gives any other form of instruction, in the view of their Lordships one should be free to do that without risking the dire penalties provided in the Bill. The Government say that this can never be except in one's purely social life. If one is giving coaching one is providing ser vices and facilities and these should be made available to everybody. I cannot see that.

Let us put out of our mind all questions of race, colour, nationality and citizenship. Beyond that one can discriminate as much as one likes. I could say that I will not have people with red hair in my house, or that I absolutely refuse to teach music to people with green eyes. Among the native British I can discriminate as much as I like, in or out of my house, but when it comes to Commonwealth immigrants I must do what the Government tell me or I shall go to prison or be ruined.

They are mad, absolutely crazy, about coloured immigrants. That is their only concern. They do not give a damn about the British, not even those in Great Britain—and as for any British people in Africa, the sooner they are shot the better. They have an obsessional hostility to the native inhabitants of this country and want to destroy, punish and oppress them in every way they can.

The only good thing about the Government's attitude on this amendment is that it shows them in their most extreme, intolerable and unreasonable guise. I hope that my hon. Friends will right this tooth and nail and support their Lordships in their extremely sensible, tolerant and wise amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

It is a long time since an Englishman's home was his castle. It is now at the mercy of all sorts of people, such as taxmen, VAT men and gas and electricity inspectors. Here we have another crumbling of the castle battlements.

There is a difference between an activity, which need not be for gain, in one's own home and an activity in a place of business or some other place to which the public are normally entitled to go.

It may be old-fashioned to say that the home is different from anywhere else and that one should be able to control what goes on there at the risk of discrimination. I believe that in the Bill the definition of discrimination has been drawn too widely. People should be entitled to do in their own homes some things that they would not be allowed to do in other places in the community. Their Lordships have been very wise, and I fully support them.

Mr. Stokes

I did not intend to speak even briefly, on this clause, but I was so moved by the strength of feeling and common sense displayed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beacons-field (Mr. Bell) that I felt I must support and endorse his every word.

To most civilised people, the family and the home are the most important things in our lives—often more important even than this country, which we all love so dearly. Our home is the place where we say our prayers in the morning and where we return at night to our wives and children. It is the most precious thing we have. Many of us fought for our homes and our wives and children in the war.

Few of us ever dreamt that the day would come when a British Government would say, like Big Brother in 1984, to fathers and mothers, aunts and uncles and sons and daughters, that if they carried out certain activities in their own homes, the iron hand of the State would be upon them, and that their homes were no longer private. It is absolutely shocking.

With so few hon. Members in the House and the hour getting late, not much of this debate will appear in tomorrow's papers, especially the popular papers, but many of our constituents, now sitting in their homes believing them to be private, would be horrified to learn that if the view of another place—-which I believe truly reflects the view of ordinary people—is overturned, their homes will no longer be private.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

May I ask the Minister a few fairly precise questions on this matter? Another place has done us a service in inserting this amendment, and I am astonished that the Government do not agree with it. The amendment provides that a man should be permitted to discriminate in his home in the provision of facilities and services. I wish to ask questions under each of these headings.

If I invited a person into my house to use my typewriter, duplicating machine, library or gramophone, I should be providing him with facilities that he does not have, although I should not be seeking any payment.

If the Government disagree with the Lords amendment, will it be unlawful for me to say that I would not allow to use those facilities certain persons who I did not wish to use them? Could it be held that I was breaking the law on racial grounds if I said, for example, that I would not allow someone from Pakistan or Africa to use the facilities?

The provision of services has already been mentioned, and hon. Members have quoted music teachers and others as examples. I wish to ask about home helps.

Many elderly people are provided with home helps or meals on wheels by their local authorities or other organisations. When an elderly person, possibly a little crotchety, refuses to accept home helps or people from the meals on wheels' service into her home because she does not like their colour, can she be brought before the courts for refusing to allow a service into her home?

I shall not repeat the point about an Englishman's home being his castle, but such sayings are not cliches; they really matter for many people. I end by recalling the saying that there is no place like home. That still means a great deal to our people, but it will not mean the same in future unless the amendment is accepted.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

It is nearly a truism, and would certainly be regarded as a truism in any context except that of the subject of this Bill, that to enact legislation which is not approved as just and reasonable by the general sense of the people is to court not merely the breaking of that law but consequences much more serious than those which the law itself is intended to forfend.

In our existing legislation on this subject and in this Bill, quite apart from the Lords amendments, there is a great deal of matter which every hon. Member knows does not commend itself as fair, just and reasonable to the general sense of the great body of people in this country.

What we are deciding is something very narrow: whether to that content which, for the moment, it is not possible for us to influence or alter we are to add one more aggravation. I use that word against the background which I have just outlined. It would quite certainly be repudiated by far more than 99 people out of 100 as totally unreasonable and unjust to invoke the general provisions and machinery of this Bill in the circumstances which are covered by the Lords amendment and some of which were illustrated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).

By rejecting the Lords amendment, the Government are not helping their Bill; they are working against it. They are not supporting the intentions which, misguidedly or not, they mean to achieve in this legislation. I shall tell them and the House what is going to happen. I do not know for sure that it will happen in connection with this or some other part of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but, as sure as night follows day, there will be a breach, of this or that provision and a follow-up of that breach in circumstances and with attendant particulars which will cause widespread indignation, not amongst people whose views and opinions we would be ashamed to share but amongst the great bulk of those whom on both sides we are here to represent. When that happens—it is already starting to happen—this legislation will cease to be an instrument for whatever good it could have achieved. It will turn into the opposite. It will be seen as a sign of the division and divorce between the wishes, opinions and outlook of those who legislate and govern and the great bulk of the people.

There may be a certain lack of proportion in unrolling this prospect when we are concerned only with a minor detail. But it always is a minor detail, an extreme case, almost a freak case, in the administration of unjust legislation which brings about the collapse of what the legislation intended.

All hon. Members can go back over the last 20 to 25 years and recall instances which have suddenly presented themselves to the public as unjust and intolerable and which have been the means of altering the whole structure of legislation. I remember one which was more instrumental than anything else in causing the repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. It was a case marginal to the possibilities of what might happen under that Act. Yet that event, more than anything else, forced this House to repeal a whole system of law which it had placed on the statute book.

It is exactly such material that we are laying up for the future if we insist on throwing out this Lords amendment. In making this amendment their Lordships—I would not say often, but sometimes, as in this instance—show themselves as being far more in touch than this House with the common sense, in the natural meaning of those words, of the people for whom we are legislating. We shall ill serve the objects of either side of the House and we shall ill serve future respect for the law if we do not accept the amendment.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew

I am going to appeal to the Minister of State to do something to help the rather fast-waning reputation of Parliament. It seems that people are increasingly saying "It does not matter what happens in your debates, because it is all decided by the Whips. The Government make up their mind. You might as well not have a debate or talk about anything else, because the result is unaffected."

The Minister of State has an opportunity here, on a topic quite small in its significance but full of potential importance, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, to show that the Government are alive to the points made in argument. I hope that with the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends I shall be able to persuade him that it would be right to give way on this amendment.

8.15 p.m.

I think that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, knows that the Government have failed to give proper significance to the influence of the home. If example were needed, it could not be more eloquently or succinctly found than in the speech of the Minister of State the noble Lord Wells-Pestell on 12th October when, referring to the speech of Lord Avebury, he said: The noble Lord has sought to persuade your Lordships that there is something special about a person's home. So far as the Bill is concerned, the answer is that there may or may not be. It is not good enough just to look at where facilities or services are provided. The question is whether they are provided to the general public or to a section of the general public."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12th October 1976; Vol. 375, c. 217.] That point was echoed by the Minister of State.

If we are to be realistic, there is no "It may or may not be" about the question whether there is something special about a person's home. If we in this House should ever say that there may or may not be something special about the homes of our constituents, we should be even further removed from the lives that they lead and the standards that they hold than is supposed by the least flattering of observers of Parliament.

We think that this is a worthwhile and sensible amendment. What is more, it is consistent with the scheme of the Bill, as drafted, and with the pattern of exemptions from liability which it already contains. We are happy to support it, and, if truth be told, we rather wish that we had drafted it ourselves. But if the Bill is to have a chance of achieving the high purposes of those who support it and, in particular, of reducing racial tension, it must be realistic. It must be so drafted that the ordinary reasonable man and woman will comply with it, not necessarily with enthusiasm or approval but because it is not a self-evidently unreasonable piece of legislation.

The great pitfall into which so many exalted moral reformers often tumble is that of getting too far ahead of the game. They seem to legislate for people who are not made of flesh and blood. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and the right hon. Member for Down, South said, the consequence is that people who cannot help being flesh and blood—Indeed, on balance they are glad that they are made of flesh and blood—say "We hear what you say. We have seen what you enact. We admire your lofty ideals. But we are afraid that this law is not for us." Then everybody is worse off, because the law as a whole is brought into contempt.

This is a sensible and realistic doctrine, which the Opposition have urged upon the Government throughout the different stages of the Bill's progress. To do them credit, they have made concessions in the exemptions written into the Bill as drafted. The Government recognise that what they call intimate relationships—I suppose that is as good a term as any—ought not to be subject to the consequences of racial discrimination They said that in their White Paper. So it is that, with rare realism, they appreciate that, for example, small partnerships with fewer than six partners should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. That appears in Clause 10.

The Government accept that the choice of lodgers in a person's home—here we come to the home—ought to be exempt. That appears in Clause 23.

The Government accept that small clubs, when the clubs provision was in the Bill before their Lordships by happy chance excluded it, should be exempt. That appears in Clause 25.

The Government accept that the choice of domestic servants in the home—not a consideration that one might expect to be at the forefront of a Labour Government's polices—should be exempt. That is in Clause 4(3).

One thing is common to all the exemptions that the Government have seen fit to put into the Bill—the closeness of the relevant relationship. It is the essentially domestic nature of what would have to be controlled. In fact, it is a recognition that where one has a relationship so close to people's sentiments and hearts as that of a home, one cannot control what goes on there by legislation.

The Minister said that the great mistake about the amendment was that the Lords had made a geographical distinction whereas the true test ought to be whether facilities are provided to the general public or to a section of the public. But even that is not capable of being sustained when one considers the exemptions that have been written into the Bill. I take as an example the exemption for choosing a lodger to live hi one's own home. That, if one calls it the provision of a facility or accommodation, is a provision that one offers to the public as a whole, because it is from the public as a whole that one seeks to recruit one's lodgers.

I think that it is this mistake, in the context of the subsection that the Lords have amended, that the Government have made. They have lost sight of what has informed their policy in granting the exceptions already written into the Bill. That concept has made even the Government feel that it would really be penetrating privacy too far to seek to impose on these intimate relationships the sanctions of the Bill.

The amendment deals with a relationship that is no less domestic and no more public than those which the Bill already exempts—the provision in the home of facilities or services; though not goods. We are talking of someone who uses his home not to sell fruit or anything else, but as a place to live. It is facilities and services in the home, and not to the public at large, and to no more than six people.

Why must the elderly lady living alone who offers piano lessons in her home be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Race Relations Commission when a club with, say, 24 members may with impunity discriminate between candidates for admission on racial grounds? Why must that be so? What is the great moral touchstone that leads the Government to exempt the one and to include the other?

It is an exceptionally difficult question to answer. I do not believe that it can be answered, save by the Minister saying, quite honestly, "We have made a mistake and have been taught a lesson in the Lords, for which we are not ashamed to say we are grateful." I am afraid that the only other possible answer is that the 1968 Act made no exemption for someone such as the old lady in my example, and that someone, somewhere in the machine has dug his toes in and said "That is that". However, that is no argument, because if, in the Government's opinion, the 1968 Act said all that needs to be said about race relations and the control of racial matters in Britain, we should all have been saved a great deal of time and trouble in 1976.

As it is, the promotion of this Bill provides an opportunity to remedy what has long been wrong, a lacuna, in the 1968 Act in a manner that is wholly consistent with the scheme and the pattern of this Bill. It is an opportunity that the other place has taken, and we think that it ought to be supported.

Mr. John

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. A number of points have arisen, and I shall try to deal with them all as swiftly as I can.

First, the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) says that it is the closeness of the relationship that really distinguishes the home from every other part. It is precisely because a person offers goods or facilities to the public or to a section of the public that the closeness of that relationship does not exist. He is offering to a wide section of the public and, therefore, we believe it to be wrong that he should discriminate on racial grounds in so doing.

One can accept—I accept wholly—that where their Lordships have proposed amendments with which, on reflection, we have agreed, we have so moved. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have moved to accept many of them. However, on this issue, and without automatically, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) seemed to suggest, barring the Lords from having an accidental flash of vision, we believe that the matter is important. Because it is important, I think that people are glossing over it too quickly.

If a piano teacher or anyone else advertises lessons to a wide section of the public, it is repugnant for a little coloured girl who goes along for her first piano lesson to be told "I am having 25 or 30 other pupils, and you are coloured and cannot come in." Of course that is repugnant, and we believe that it should not happen.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked two questions. If he refers to the first words of Clause 20, he will see that they refer to a: person concerned with the provision … of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public". The hon. Gentleman's first analogy of using a library or using a typewriter was one that was directed to an individual, and therefore it would not expose him to the Bill. The second one that he raised was a refusal by the customer of the home help. The customer of the home help is not a person providing a service and, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of the clause. The two anxieties that the hon. Gentleman had on this question are answered, I hope, by the fact that neither is within the ambit of the Bill.

I now deal with the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South on this matter, taking in those of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield says "I am not tied to the 1968 Act in this Bill because I opposed it." I recognise that he did that. By the same token, however, if it was in the 1968 Act, what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about this provision coming in this Bill as if it was coming in afresh is exaggeration, because it has not led to the sort of upsurge or disenchantment of which he spoke. It has been on the statute book for eight years. There is no reason to suppose that it will be any more unsatisfactory in the future than it has been in the past. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman inadvertently misled the House when he said that it was a de novo provision and, therefore, by reason of its novelty, would

be an aggravation to the situation. This is something that has been a statutory provision for eight years.

Finally, I recognise that this is in a small compass. It is a point of principle. We believe that the exceptions we have given will take care of all true domestic principles and arrangements. We believe that those who provide goods, services or facilities to the public or to certain members of the public ought not to discriminate on racial grounds. Indeed, their Lordships accepted that where the provisions was to the public in general there should be no such discrimination. What we are arguing about is a section of the public rather than the public in general. I can see no true distinction between a section of the public and the public in general, and I invite the House to reject the amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 140.

Division No. 347.] AYES [8.29 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Jeger, Mrs Lena
Anderson, Donald Dempsey, James Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Archer, Peter Doig, Peter John, Brynmor
Armstrong, Ernest Douglas-Mann, Bruce Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ashley, Jack Dunnett, Jack Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Edge, Geoff Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Bates, Alf Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Beith, A. J. Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Kaufman, Gerald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lambie, David
Bishop, E. S. Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Lamborn, Harry
Boardman, H. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lamond, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Flannery, Martin Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lipton, Marcus
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ford, Ben Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Buchanan, Richard Forrester, John McCartney, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Campbell, Ian Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McElhone, Frank
Canavan, Dennis Freeson, Reginald MacFarquhar, Roderick
Cant, R. B. Freud, Clement McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Carmichael, Neil Garrett, John (Norwich S) MacKenzie, Gregor
Cartwright, John Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Maclennan, Robert
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Clemitson, Ivor Ginsburg, David Madden, Max
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Golding, John Magee, Bryan
Cohen, Stanley Gourlay, Harry Mahon, Simon
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Grant, George (Morpeth) Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Conlan, Bernard Grant, John (Islington C) Marks, Kenneth
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Grimond, Rt Hon J. Marquand, David
Corbett, Robin Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Harper, Joseph Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Crawshaw, Richard Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Maynard, Miss Joan
Cronln, John Hatton, Frank Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Henderson, Douglas Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Hooley, Frank Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrida)
Cryer, Bob Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Moyle, Roland
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Newens, Stanley
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Hunter, Adam Oakes, Gordon
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ovenden, John Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Watkins, David
Park, George Silverman, Julius Watkinson, John
Parker, John Skinner, Dennis Watt, Hamish
Parry, Robert Small, William Weetch, Ken
Penhaligon, David Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Wellbeloved, James
Perry, Ernest Spearing, Nigel Welsh, Andrew
Price, C. (Lewisham W) Stallard, A. W. White, Frank R. (Bury)
Price, William (Rugby) Steel, David (Roxburgh) While, James (Pollock)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Stoddart, David Whitlock, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Stott, Roger Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Robinson, Geoffrey Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Roderick, Caerwyn Swain, Thomas Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Rodgers George (Chorley) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Rooker, J. W. Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Woof, Robert
Roper, John Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Rose, Paul B. Thompson, George Young, David (Bolton E)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Rowlands, Ted Tinn, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Sedgemore, Brian Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Mr. Thomas Cox and
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) Mr. Donald Coleman.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
NOES
Adley, Robert Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Percival, Ian
Alison, Michael Havers, Sir Michael Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hawkins, Paul Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bell, Ronald Hayhoe, Barney Raison, Timothy
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Hicks, Robert Rees-Davies, W. R.
Benyon, W. Holland, Philip Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Biggs-Davison, John Hordern, Peter Ridsdale, Julian
Body, Richard Hunt, David (Wirral) Rifkind, Malcolm
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hurd, Douglas Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Bottomley, Peter Hutchison, Michael Clark Ross, William (Londonderry)
Brittan, Leon James, David Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd& W'df'd) Royle, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Jessel, Toby Sainsbury, Tim
Budgen, Nick Jopling, Michael St. John-Stevas, Norman
Bulmer, Esmond Kershaw, Anthony Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Burden, F. A. Kitson, Sir Timothy Shersby, Michael
Carlisle, Mark Latham, Michael (Melton) Silvester, Fred
Carson, John Lawrence, Ivan Sims, Roger
Channon, Paul Lawson, Nigel Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Le Marchant, Spencer Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Clegg, Walter Lester, Jim (Beeston) Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Lloyd, Ian Sproat, Iain
Cope, John Luce, Richard Stanbrook, Ivor
Crouch, David McCrindle, Robert Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Macfarlane, Neil Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Stokes, John
Durant, Tony Marten, Neil Stradling Thomas, J.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Mates, Michael Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Elliott, Sir William Maude, Angus Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Tebbit, Norman
Farr, John Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Temple-Morris, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey Mayhew, Patrick Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Fookes, Miss Janet Meyer, Sir Anthony Townsend, Cyril D.
Forman, Nigel Miscampbell, Norman van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Moate, Roger Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Molyneaux, James Viggers, Peter
Goodhew, Victor Monro, Hector Wakeham, John
Gorst, John Moore, John (Croydon C) Wall, Patrick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Morgan, Geraint Walters, Dennis
Gray, Hamish Morris, Michael (Northampton S; Wells, John
Grieve, Percy Mudd, David Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Griffiths, Eldon Neave, Airey Wiggin, Jerry
Grist, Ian Newton, Tony Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Hall, Sir John Onslow, Cranley Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, John (Harrow West)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hampson, Dr Keith Paisley, Rev Ian Mr. John Corrie and
Hannam, John Parkinson, Cecil Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Forward to