§
The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 34, line 7, for the following Reason—
Lords Amendment No. 15, Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 21.
§ Mr. JohnI beg to move, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
This matter concerns the question of the repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. It does not and did not appear in the Bill, yet this is the fifth time the matter has been debated during its passage. It has acquired a familiarity, not to say notoriety, amongst all those who have been concerned with the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it right that I should explain briefly what Section 3 is concerned with.
Section 3 was enacted to prohibit the court from passing a sentence of imprisonment of between six months and three years for those in the age band 17 to 21 or, if previously borstal training has been ordered, between six months and 18 months, and makes borstal training the appropriate medium-term sentence in such cases.
What worries me about the debate in the other place is that it seemed to 703 be assumed by those who took part that the only alternatives proposed were a sentence of less than six months or more than three years. But it is quite clear from the leading case upon the subject, the Lowe case, in which the previous Lord Chief Justice, the present Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Stephenson took part, that the appropriate penalty in such cases was not a longer term of imprisonment than three years but borstal training.
The other place has now repeated its repeal of Section 3. I ask the House to disagree with that decision, first, on practical grounds, and, secondly, on grounds of principle. First, it has throughout been the concern of all of us in the House to try where proper to reduce the prison population. The effect of the repeal of Section 3 is a matter on which no precise evidence can be given at this stage, but I believe that it would have an effect on the length of time and the number of sentences. I am prepared to say that we cannot correctly predict the absolute effect. If we could, it would certainly be much easier to plan prison buildings than it is now. I think that it was accepted in Committee by the hon. and learned Members for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the effect of the repeal would be to increase the prison population. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, if he looks back at his contribution, will see that he said in terms not only that the prison population would be increased but that the use of Borstal as a sentence would be decreased.
The House ought to weigh the effect when it tries to legislate, because we cannot legislate blind to the consequences of what we are doing. First, there is the fact that young prisoner centres are overflowing. The majority of young prisoners are now serving their sentences not in young prisoner centres but in local adult prisons. We know from our experience and our prison debates over the past few months that the local prisons are areas of maximum pressure within the prison system. Already the percentage of prisoners who receive immediate prison sentences has almost doubled to 25 per cent. in the last decade.
By repealing Section 3 we should add to the numbers who go to local prisons to 704 be locked away for most of the day without sufficient work, education or recreation. The House should ponder the effect not only on the prisoners' lives but on the chances of their committing further offences through being committed to that sort of régime.
Even if the House were to agree to what the Lords have done, there are no resources to carry it out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to issue a consent order under the Bill to bring this proposal into effect, would not be able to do so for some considerable time for public expenditure reasons. I could easily tell the House "Let us accept it", knowing that the commencement order would not be laid for a considerable time, but I believe that it is wrong for anybody to tell the House "Do what you like, and we shall try somehow to shelter you from the practical consequences". The House must legislate in the belief that its wishes will be carried out, that they cost money, and that that money is not only findable but can be found within the time scale.
§ Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)Does not my hon. Friend equally recognise that, whatever the administrative difficulties may be, there is a vital principle at stake? That should perhaps concern the House more than any other consideration.
§ Mr. JohnIf my hon. Friend had been here at the beginning of my contribution he would know that I was dealing not only with the practicalities, which is as far as I was allowed to go before his intervention, but with the principle of the matter. If my hon. Friend will wait for the passage in which I deal with the principle, I think that he will be satisfied with what I have to say.
There are severe practical problems. If there is to be an addition to the already overcrowded prisons I should be wrong not to advise the House of the bad effect it would have on the staff in young prisoner prisons and local prisons through having an additional burden placed upon them. It would weaken morale greatly, and there is great anxiety in the prison service about the result of this debate.
§ Mr. John Lee(Birmingham, Handsworth) rose—
705§ Mr. JohnMay I be allowed to develop my point?
I wish to deal with the effect that this proposal would have on the borstal staff, who do a great deal of very good work. I regret that implicit in the argument is a devaluation—perhaps an unconscious devaluation—of the borstal system. I ask hon. Members, not only to consider the Angell case and the other cases relating to the width of régime in the borstal system, but to be clear about the effect on borstal staff of a devaluation of the kind which I have mentioned.
§ Mr. LeePlainly we are all concerned about the deleterious effect of overcrowded prisons upon young prisoners. However, assuming that the practical objection which my hon. Friend makes is valid, is there not a strong argument, on the criteria he has put forward, for abolishing prison sentences of six months or less for young offenders? Surely that would get away from the situation which almost everybody agrees has many objections.
§ Mr. JohnThe difficulty of making an argument which is in two parts is that people jump in on the first part when one intends to deal with the matter in the second part. I shall deal with the question of sentencing and policy towards young prisoners in the second part of my argument.
The 1961 Act moved away from imprisonment which had the containment philosophy in it towards a greater training element with a greater possibility of constructive development and therefore diminution of the chance of re-offence. Many hon. and learned Members and the judiciary have expressed dissatisfaction with Section 3. No one denies that Section 3 is not wholly satisfactory. Certainly it is not the last word in the matter—it was never intended to be—but the question which must be considered is whether by repealing Section 3 we should move back to the penal policy of the 1950s, which is what that would mean, or move forward to the future.
The blueprint for the future is the Younger Report, which recommended abolition of the three separate sentences of prison, borstal and detention and their replacement with a generic sentence of custody and control in which the court would set a determinate sentence.
706 Custody and control orders would avoid the false dichotomy between training and punishment. This is the way forward. and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) appeared, in his recent speech to the NACRO conference, to accept the wisdom of the custody and control order.
However, there is implicit even in the custody and control order a resource problem, but I repeat our determination to work out a scheme which implements the Younger recommendation without substantial new resource implications. It cannot be a complete adoption of the Younger proposals, but I believe that it will be a worthwhile step forward. We shall bring the scheme to the House well within the time which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have had to delay the commencement order so that right hon. and hon. Members may debate it. In the meantime, they can discuss certain choices, because choices are implicit in this new form of order, and as a result they can replace Section 3 with a more constructive and forward looking policy, which is the right policy for prisoners in the age group in question.
6.45 p.m.
Also at stake is the future of the Bill. The Bill has much of value in it. It reforms the law of conspiracy; it modernises the forcible entry statutes; it secures a vital redistribution of work from overloaded courts; and it secures the necessary increase in penalties to deal with many matters which need to be dealt with. It enshrines the work of two committees which would be brought to nought if the Bill were not passed, because I am bound to tell hon. Members that there would be no prospect of early reintroduction. It would be ironic if the Bill were to be defeated, supposing that the House follows my advice, on a provision which was not in the original Bill, which on any view of the central issue of the Bill is peripheral to the Bill and which was not considered by either of the committees whose work is enshrined in the Bill.
§ Mr. CarlisleI am very bad at understanding the procedure, but is not the position that, as the Lords have passed the amendment, should this House choose to pass it the Bill would go forward with the amendment and it would not be killed? If the House chooses to reject the 707 amendment, the only way in which it can be killed is by the Lords insisting on it.
§ Mr. JohnWe are at the end of a long and tiring Session, but I did not think that I was making myself as unclear as that. I was addressing myself to the other place as well as to hon. Members, but it is right that I should put on record the consequences of the rejection by the other place of our decision.
§ Sir Michael HaversWhy not simply agree with the other place?
§ Mr. JohnThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has a very good way of compromising. He must be excellent in the robing room on civil cases. His idea of a compromise is unconditional surrender on all occasions.
If the House were to accept my advice and to insist on the retention of Section 3, those who have to consider the matter at a later stage will weigh up the benefits of the Bill and the constructive way in which, I think, I have responded to their anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will bring forward the principle of the custody and control order and will discuss it within the time scale with the House. To look forward to the future with Younger is better than to look back to the 1961 legislation. That is why I think the House should disagree with the Lords.
§ Sir Michael HaversWhen one reads the various Home Office explanations given on the many occasions that amendments to repeal Section 3 have been before either this House or the other place, one is struck by the variety of arguments put forward. It is almost as if Mr. Micawber had said that he was waiting for something to turn down rather than for something to turn up, because every time the request is made a different reason for refusing it is given. I wish to make several points which need emphasising.
The judges speak with a single voice on this matter. The cases that we have been able to demonstrate where the consequences of Section 3 lead to ridiculous results are exceptions. It is not right to say that the prisons will be crowded with young men sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between six months and three years if Section 3 is repealed.
708 It is really the exceptions—the cases where there is no other proper alternative—which have led to some of the troubles that we have had already this summer. It is quite impossible to judge how many there would be. In a number of cases the Court of Appeal has upheld a judge who has said that he would like to impose a two-year sentence because six months was totally inadequate. He has been bound to give the prisoner three years because of the provisions of Section 3. In many cases a judge has awarded two-year sentences and has been told by the clerk of the court that he can give only three years or six months. The sentence has been changed to three years because the judge has felt that the seriousness of the crime made six months quite inadequate.
These are cases in which prisoners are serving longer terms because of the operation of Section 3. This is filling up the prisons with young offenders who should he released after 18 months or two years. However, their crimes are so serious that a six-month sentence is ridiculous. It is really these exceptions that have led to longer rather than shorter sentences, and therefore my hon. Friends and I will support these amendments.
§ Mr. SandelsonThe case against Section 3 is immense. This section is indefensible in principle, and in practice it is opposed by the judiciary at all levels. The overwhelming majority of Members at the Bar of all political sympathies and attachments who witness—unlike many hon. Members—these things in their professional experience in the courts are opposed to it. They see the deplorable consequencies that flow from the absurdities and anomalies in the operation of the section.
This is not a political issue. Loyal as I am or believe myself to be to my party and my colleagues, I am not prepared to vote today in support of such a restrictive measure which, under the guise of a social benefit in practice will result in serious individual injustice. It will give rise to a sense of grievance on the part of one defendant as opposed to another of equal guilt.
Our duty must be to show our concern here and now, and to take account, in our immediate concern of the issue, of the fact that the prospects for legislation in 709 the future are very uncertain. I very much hope that the Government—I welcome the assurance that my hon. Friend gave just now—will introduce a measure along the lines of the Younger proposals.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome legislation embodying an entirely new approach to sentencing policy. But that lies in the future. My concern is for the present and the dilemma which one or more judges will face tomorrow morning in sentencing young men in this age group who have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences.
The present restriction is illogical and harmful to individuals who, through no fault of their own, will fall victim to it. It is also damaging to the proper administration of justice and the law. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has so ably steered the Bill through Committee, are both well aware of my views on this matter and, therefore, my vote tonight will be no surprise to them.
§ Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) I must congratulate the Minister of State because he has thought up a totally new set of reasons for opposing this amendment on this occasion. However, although his reasons are new they are no better than his previous ones. In fact they are worse. His reason about devaluing the borstal system and the effect on prison staff morale is one that I have never heard mentioned before in the confines of the Home Office in relation to the arguments against Section 3. The other reason the Minister of State gave was the effect on prison resources, but I must point out that the Government of which he is a member put a stop to the prison building programme that they inherited from us. Now they come forward and say that the shortage of resources makes it impossible to implement these amendments.
The Minister of State was right to remind me that in 1972–73 I was under pressure from both sides of the House when I resisted a Private Member's Bill to give effect to the matters contained in the amendment. At that time I also resisted an all-party attack on the Crimi- 710 nal Justice Act 1973. But my reasons for doing so then were twofold.
First, the Younger Committee was about to report; and secondly, I gave an undertaking in Committee that in future judges who thought that it proper to give a different sentence could indicate the length of time that they would prefer and the Home Office would bear it in mind. The Younger Committee reported and now, three years later, no action has been taken. Also, the Lord Chancellor's Department has put out a circular totally contradicting the principle that judges should indicate the length of the sentence that they want to impose. Therefore, the two bases on which I opposed these provisions in 1972–73 no longer exist.
I admitted in Committee that these amendments could increase the prison population. However, I think I pointed out that, if one looked at prisons as against borstal, in practice it might mean that some of those who go to borstal at present might go to prison instead. Therefore, in the narrow term this could increase the prison population, but it would not affect the 42,000 global population of prisons because this includes those in borstals and detention centres.
I believe, as do numerous judges who must have approached the Minister of State, that there are cases in which, as a result of this provision, people will get higher sentences than they otherwise would have done. While I concede that this will mean some change of resources in the Home Office, I still believe that three years after the Younger Committee has reported the argument against putting right something that has been bitterly opposed since 1961 has disappeared completely. I hope that the House will put this right tonight.
The Minister of State is worried about losing his Bill, but I think that his fears are groundless. If the amendment is carried the Bill will go through with the amendment in it. Therefore he need have no fear of losing it.
§ 7 p.m.
§ Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)the discussion seems to have emphasised two points. The first is the feeling that we are postponing a desirable reform, and the second is the danger of accepting undertakings from the Home Office. We 711 face a choice, whether to accept the undertaking given by the Minister or to press on with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to support the Lords amendment.
I believe that Section 3 of the 1961 Act was passed for reasons entirely of principle. Yet we have been asked to continue that provision as a matter of expediency. The Minister says that the administrative difficulties are so great and the prison population so large that the result of such a repeal will increase the prison population. Young men who now go to borstal might go to prison, and it is said that it is desirable that in their interests they should continue to go to borstal. The argument is put basically on the grounds of the pressure on the prison population.
I believe that it is better for the House to support the Lords amendment for the reason that there has to be a commencement order before the provision can come into effect. It is better for the House to decide this matter on the question of principle—namely, whether it is desirable to maintain this provision. Nobody tries to defend it.
§ Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk(Ormskirk) rose—
§ Mr. HoosonI do not wish to give way.
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—
§ Mr. HoosonI cannot give way because I cannot decide to which hon. Member to give the Floor. However, since the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is in my chambers, I suppose I ought to give way to him.
§ Mr. LyonThat is the only benefit I have ever acquired from it.
The clause was introduced to stop young men who would otherwise have gone to borstal going to prison. Nobody is arguing the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—narnely that the alternative lies between prison and freedom. It lies between prison and borstal. It is thought right that young people under the age of 21 should go to borstal rather than prison. That still leaves open the principle, and every reforming organisa- 712 tion is in favour of that pinciple being continued. The only people the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has been listening to is the judges. He should listen to NACRO and take heed of what it says.
§ Mr. HoosonThe hon. Member for York gets these things wrong so often, and he has done so again on this occasion. Judges are required not to send anybody to prison unless that is the only appropriate sentence. In the judicial process it might be thought "Is this an appropriate case for borstal?" The court will have to decide whether the sentence should be one of three months or six years, and that is what judges are required to do.
Having listened to the arguments think that it is better for the House to support the Lords and for the Home Secretary to use the powers he has. I appreciate the fact that this country has not spent enough on its prison service. Any additional pressure on the Government to repair this omission and to make more prisons than borstals available should be encouraged, but it is difficult for this House to rely entirely on an undertaking such as that which was given by the Minister.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkThe hon. and learned Member for Montgomery Mr. Hooson), who speaks on behalf of the Liberals, surely missed the point. The real issue of principle is whether we should treat young offenders differently from the way in which we treat adult offenders. Many people may disagree with that view, but, if we agree that we should treat young offenders differently, it behoves us to agree with the Government on this issue.
I regard the Lords amendment as a retrograde step, because it would mean that we would punish rather than train those involved. It would mean that we should contain people rather than rehabilitate them. This is the issue of principle, which we have not discussed.
The initiative and pressure for the deletion of Section 3 of the 1961 Act has come from the judiciary. The pressure comes from the Law Lords and from nobody else. One can understand that the judiciary wants its sentencing policy unfettered, and presumably wants to be able to impose longer sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Yes. One of the 713 major complaints is that the judiciary does not have sufficient discretion. The result of this amendment would be that large numbers of young offenders would go to our already overcrowded prisons.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that when the Minister argued about the practical effects, that did not involve a matter of principle. But that is the issue of principle involved. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, and many thousands of prisoners live two, three and sometimes four to a cell and are locked up for 23 hours out of the 24. They have little recreation, or association with other people, and they have little or no educational facilities available to them. I submit that if we allow this Lords amendment to go through, more young offenders will be subjected to that kind of treatment.
This argument relates to whether we feel it appropriate for young offenders to clog up even further our local prisons, or whether we should seek to pursue a policy of training, reform and rehabilitation. Nobody would argue that that is the way the matter works in practice, but it certainly works out a little more perfectly now than if we were to accept the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) said that everybody knew the way he would vote. I have observed him twice in Standing Committee galloping enthusiastically to the brink and then hobbling dejectedly back from it. I am not sure how he will vote later. This is not just a matter of whether my hon. Friend accepts the word of his fellow lawyers on the Bench on this issue, because it must be remembered that there are outside the House other people who are as well informed and as sincere as are my hon. Friend and his colleagues who take a different view.
It is a pointless exercise to go through a public relations exercise for the sake of bowing to the virility of Lord Hailsham and his fellow travellers in the House of Lords, and we shall demean ourselves if we join in that charade. The Minister has said clearly, openly and fairly that, even if we accept the Lords amendment, he has no intention in practice of implementing it, and will implement the Younger Committee's Report, which was 714 favoured by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). We have to accept not the Minister's undertaking in this respect but his threat. I believe that there is no case to answer, and that we should accept the Minister's advice.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonThe House is anxious to move on, and I shall not repeat the arguments I put in Standing Committee. I stand by what I said then. I refer to the threat to this Bill following the Government's decision to stand by their decision in Standing Committee. If Judge Alan King-Hamilton were sitting listening to our deliberations he would have to retire for two hours to cool down. This is an even bigger gang-bang with the judges and the Lords against us, led by Lord Hailsham.
Lord Hailsham did not even trouble to intervene in the debate in the Lords, but he has hung a threat over the House that it will not be able to obtain a most important Bill, reforming many aspects of the criminal law, because he takes a different view from the Government on this one item, which was not included in either of the two reports on which the Bill is based. It is insufferable that, during the passage of the two criminal law measures passed by the House over the last year or so, we should have faced a threat from Lord Hailsham that if he does not get his way he will kill the Bill. Lord Hailsham did that to the Bail Act. The result of his amendment to it has been that the Act has had no effect on judges in the way that they exercise their new powers in relation to bail. If we were now to succomb to this blackmail by Lord Hailsham it would be insufferable.
The arguments on Section 3 are as strong now as they ever were. Those aged under 21 should not go to prison. Most people who are concerned about what happens to offenders after sentence are agreed upon that principle.
The judges are unanimously against it because they dislike their discretion being fettered in any way. They are strongly urging that there should be a reform precisely because they want to send people to prison rather than to borstal. The suggestion that that would not increase the prison population is absurd. Of course the judges want to send people to prison, because they feel that the only 715 way to deal with young men aged between 17 and 21 who have committed serious offences is to send them to prison. The Younger Committee Report, advocating generic sentencing. was wholeheartedly against that.
It would be absurd to repeal Section 3 now with the intention of bringing in the Younger proposals in a year or so's time. The result of that would be completely different from what is envisaged by this repeal. Quite apart from the logical arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about the overlap, it would be absurd for us to repeal Section 3.
I feel most strongly about the threat by the Lords. There must be an end to such continual threats.
§ Mr. JohnI hope that the advantages of the Bill, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and I have expounded, will be thoroughly considered. This is a worthwhile Bill, and it goes much wider than what the Lords wish to do by way of Section 3.
I should like to respond to the debate briefly and to refer first to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I quote his exact words in Committee:
I think one must accept that the likelihood of the abolition of Section 3 is that more people will be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16th June 1977; c. 422.]I do not think that we in the House are right to ignore the very proper feelings of prison staff who, because of the size of the prison population, are unable to do the job that they want and who are in a state of low morale. That is a strange argument, but that is not to say that it is a bad argument. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, who belongs to a party that calls for even more cuts in public expenditure, is almost the last person who should refer to that particular issue.716 I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He must have listened to only half of the argument that I adduced. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps more than five minutes of my oratory wearies anybody, most of all the hon. and learned Gentleman. I split my contents into two arguments about practicality and principle. We should not be moving backwards in our policy, but towards the recommendations of Younger and a policy that should last us into the 1980s. That is the right course and that is why my undertaking offers a better assurance of an enlightened policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has said that he is concerned with the here and now. Here and now there are no resources, and no one should be under any illusions about that. If the House tonight rejects my advice, that will not make the task of judges any easier at all tomorrow.
My final point is in response to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who has said that we are talking about exceptional cases. That is no guarantee. We must assume that when the judiciary asks for its discretion not to be fettered it intends to use that discretion in such a way as to sentence more offenders to terms of imprisonment.
7.15 p.m.
Faced as we are with the problem of resources, it is better to keep borstal as the right repository for offenders aged between 17 and 20 for medium-term sentences, because there they will receive training as well as containment. Through training we assure ourselves against re-offence rather more than by putting offenders into local prisons, three to a cell and locked up for many hours a day. I hope that the House will accept my advice and reject the amendments.
§ Question put, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed:—
717§ The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 196.
685Division No. 224] | AYES | [5.49 p.m. |
Allaun, Frank | Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) |
Anderson, Donald | Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Cunningham, G. (Islington S) |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) |
Armstrong, Ernest | Buchan, Norman | Davidson, Arthur |
Ashley, Jack | Buchanan, Richard | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) |
Ashton, Joe | Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) |
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) |
Atkinson, Norman | Campbell, Ian | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) |
Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Canavan, Dennis | Deakins, Eric |
Bain, Mrs Margaret | Cant, R. B. | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) |
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Carmichael, Neil | Dempsey, James |
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Carter, Ray | Doig, Peter |
Bates, Alf | Carter-Jones, Lewis | Dormand, J. D. |
Bean, R. E. | Cartwright, John | Douglas-Mann, Bruce |
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Duffy, A. E. P. |
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Clemitson, Ivor | Dunnett, Jack |
Bidwell, Sydney | Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward | Cohen, Stanley | Eadie, Alex |
Blenkinsop, Arthur | Coleman, Donald | Edge, Geoff |
Boardman, H. | Conlan, Bernard | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) |
Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) |
Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Corbett, Robin | Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) |
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Cowans, Harry | English, Michael |
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Ennals, David |
Bradley, Tom | Crawshaw, Richard | Evans, loan (Aberdare) |
Bray, Dr Jeremy | Cronin, John | Evans, John (Newton) |
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Luard, Evan | Roper, John |
Flannery, Martin | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Rose, Paul |
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Ryman, John |
Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mabon Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Sandelson, Neville |
Ford, Ben | McCartney, Hugh | Sedgemore, Brian |
Forrester, John | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Selby, Harry |
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | McElhone, Frank | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'W'd) | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
Freeson, Reginald | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
Garrett, John (Norwich S) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
Gilbert, Dr John | Maclennan, Robert | Skinner, Dennis |
Ginsburg, David | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Small, William |
Golding, John | Madden, Max | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
Gould, Bryan | Magee, Bryan | Snape, Peter |
Gourlay, Harry | Mahon, Simon | Spearing, Nigel |
Grant, George (Morpeth) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Spriggs, Leslie |
Grocott, Bruce | Marks, Kenneth | Stallard, A. W. |
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
Hardy, Peter | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Stoddart, David |
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Stott, Roger |
Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Strang, Gavin |
Hatton, Frank | Mendelson, John | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. |
Hayman, Mrs Helene | Mikardo, Ian | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Swain, Thomas |
Heffer. Eric S. | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
Hooley, Frank | Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
Horam, John | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Molloy, William | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
Huckfield, Les | Moonman, Eric | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Tierney, Sydney |
Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Tinn, James |
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Moyle, Roland | Torney, Tom |
Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Tuck, Raphael |
Hunter, Adam | Newens, Stanley | Urwin, T. W. |
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Noble, Mike | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Ogden, Eric | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Orbach, Maurice | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
Janner, Greville | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Ward, Michael |
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Ovenden, John | Watkins, David |
Jeger, Mrs Lena | Padley, Walter | Watkinson, John |
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Palmer, Arthur | Weitzman, David |
John, Brynmor | Parker, John | Wellbeloved, James |
Johnson, James (Hull West) | Parry, Robert | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Pavitt, Laurie | White, James (Pollok) |
Judd, Frank | Pendry, Tom | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
Kaufman, Gerald | Perry, Ernest | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
Kerr, Russell | Phipps, Dr Colin | Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) |
Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Prescott, John | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
Lamble, David | Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
Lamborn, Harry | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
Lamond, James | Richardson, Miss Jo | Woodall, Alec |
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Woof, Robert |
Leadbitter, Ted | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
Lee, John | Robinson, Geoffrey | Young, David (Bolton E) |
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Roderick, Caerwyn | |
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) | Mr. Thomas Cox and |
Litterick, Tom | Rooker, J. W. | Mr. Ted Graham. |
NOES | ||
Adley, Robert | Bulmer, Esmond | Finsberg, Geoffrey |
Aitken, Jonathan | Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Carlisle, Mark | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) |
Arnold, Tom | Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Churchill, W. S. | Fookes, Miss Janet |
Awdry, Daniel | Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Forman, Nigel |
Baker, Kenneth | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) |
Banks, Robert | Clegg, Walter | Fox, Marcus |
Beith, A. J. | Cockcroft, John | Freud, Clement |
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Cope, John | Fry, Peter |
Benyon, W. | Corrie, John | Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. |
Biggs-Davison, John | Costain, A. P. | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
Blaker, Peter | Crouch, David | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) |
Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Glyn, Dr Alan |
Bottomley, Peter | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph |
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Drayson, Burnaby | Goodhew, Victor |
Braine, Sir Bernard | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Goodlad, Alastair |
Britten, Leon | Dunlop, John | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) |
Brocklebank-Fowler, C | Durant, Tony | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) |
Brooke, Peter | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
Brotherton, Michael | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Gray, Hamish |
Bryan, Sir Paul | Elliott, Sir William | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Fairbairn, Nicholas | Grylls, Michael |
Buck, Antony | Fairgrieve, Russell | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
Hampson, Dr Keith | Maxwell-Hyslop Robin | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
Hannam, John | Mayhew, Patrick | Scott, Nicholas |
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Shepherd, Colin |
Haselhurst, Alan | Mills, Peter | Shersby, Michael |
Hastings, Stephen | Miscampbell, Norman | Silvester, Fred |
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Sims, Roger |
Hawkins, Paul | Moate, Roger | Sinclair, Sir George |
Hayhoe, Barney | Molyneaux, James | Skeet, T. H. H. |
Higgins, Terence L. | Monro, Hector | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
Hooson, Emlyn | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Smith, Timothy (Ashfield) |
Howell, David (Guildford) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Speed, Keith |
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Spence, John |
Hunt, David (Wirral) | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
Hunt, John (Bromley) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
Hurd, Douglas | Mudd, David | Sproat, Iain |
Hutchison, Michael Clark | Neave, Airey | Stainton, Keith |
James, David | Nelson, Anthony | Stanbrook, Ivor |
Jenkin, Rt Hon p. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) | Neubert, Michael | Stanley, John |
Jessel, Toby | Newton, Tony | Steel, Rt Hon David |
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Normanton, Tom | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Nott, John | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Onslow, Cranley | Stradling Thomas, J. |
Kershaw, Anthony | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Tapsell, Peter |
Kilfedder, James | Osborn, John | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
Kimball, Marcus | Page, John (Harrow West) | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Tebbit, Norman |
King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Page, Richard (Workington) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
Kitson, Sir Timothy | Pardoe, John | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
Knox, David | Parkinson, Cecil | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
Lamont, Norman | Pattie, Geoffrey | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
Latham, Michael (Melton) | Penhaligon, David | Townsend, Cyril D. |
Lawrence, Ivan | Pink, R. Bonner | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
Lawson, Nigel | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Vaughan, Dr Gerald |
Le Marchant, Spencer | Prior, Rt Hon James | Viggers, Peter |
Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
Lloyd, Ian | Raison, Timothy | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
Luce, Richard | Rathbone, Tim | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
McAdden, Sir Stephen | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Wall, Patrick |
McCrindle, Robert | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Walters, Dennis |
Macfarlane, Neil | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Warren, Kenneth |
MacGregor, John | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Weatherill, Bernard |
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) | Ridsdale. Julian | Wells, John |
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Rifkind, Malcolm | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Winterton, Nicholas |
Marten, Neil | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Younger, Hon George |
Mates, Michael | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | |
Mather, Carol | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
Maude, Angus | Royle, Sir Anthony | Mr. Peter Morrison and |
Mawby, Ray | Sainsbury, Tim | Mr. Michael Roberts. |
Division No. 225] | AYES | [7.16 p.m. |
Allaun, Frank | Forrester, John | Noble, Mike |
Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Ogden, Eric |
Armstrong,, Ernest | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | O'Halloran, Michael |
Ashley, Jack | Freeson, Reginald | Orbach, Maurice |
Ashton, Joe | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Gilbert, Dr John | Ovenden, John |
Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Ginsburg, David | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Golding, John | Palmer, Arthur |
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Gourlay, Harry | Parker, John |
Bates, Alf | Graham, Ted | Parry, Robert |
Bean, R. E. | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Pavitt, Laurie |
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Grocott, Bruce | Pendry, Tom |
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Hardy, Peter | Perry, Ernest |
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Phipps, Dr Colin |
Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Prescott, John |
Boardman, H. | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) |
Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Heffer, Eric S. | Richardson, Miss Jo |
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Horam, John | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Huckfield, Les | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
Bradley, Tom | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Robinson, Geoffrey |
Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Roderick, Caerwyn |
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
Buchan, Norman | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) |
Buchanan, Richard | Hunter, Adam | Rooker, J. W. |
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Roper, John |
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Rose, Paul B. |
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Ryman, John |
Campbell, Ian | Janner, Greville | Sedgemore, Brian |
Canavan, Dennis | Jeger, Mrs Lena | Selby, Harry |
Carmichael, Neil | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
Carter, Ray | John, Brynmor | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
Carter-Jones, Lewis | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
Cartwright, John | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Skinner, Dennis |
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Judd, Frank | Small, William |
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Kaufman, Gerald | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
Cohen, Stanley | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Snape, Peter |
Coleman, Donald | Lamborn, Harry | Spearing, Nigel |
Conlan, Bernard | Lamond, James | Spriggs, Leslie |
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Stallard, A. W. |
Corbett, Robin | Leadbitter, Ted | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
Cowans, Harry | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Stott, Roger |
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) | Strang, Gavin |
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) | Litterick, Tom | Swain, Thomas |
Crawshaw, Richard | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
Cronin, John | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | McCartney, Hugh | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Tierney, Sydney |
Davidson, Arthur | McElhone, Frank | Tinn, James |
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Torney, Tom |
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Tuck, Raphael |
Davies, Ifor (Gower) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Urwin, T. W. |
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Maclennan, Robert | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
Deakins, Eric | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McNamara, Kevin | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
Dempsey, James | Madden, Max | Ward, Michael |
Doig, Peter | Magee, Bryan | Watkins, David |
Dormand, J. D. | Mahon, Simon | Watkinson, John |
Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Weitzman, David |
Dunnett, Jack | Marks, Kenneth | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | White, James (Pollok) |
Eadie, Alex | Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
Edge, Geoff | Meacher, Michael | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) |
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Mendelson, John | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Mikardo, Ian | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
English, Michael | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
Ennals, David | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Woodall, Alec |
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby) | Woof, Robert |
Evans, John (Newton) | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Molloy, William | |
Flannery, Martin | Moonman, Eric | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Moyle, Roland | Mr. James Hamilton and |
Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Mr. David Stoddart. |
Ford, Ben | Nawens, Stanley |
NOES | ||
Adley, Robert | Hampson, Dr Keith | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Hannam, John | Page, Richard (Workington) |
Awdry, Daniel | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Parkinson, Cecil |
Baker, Kenneth | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Pattie, Geoffrey |
Banks, Robert | Haselhurst, Alan | Penhaligon, David |
Beith, A. J. | Hastings, Stephen | Pink, R. Bonner |
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
Benyon, W. | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Prior, Rt Hon James |
Biggs-Davison, John | Hawkins, Paul | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
Blaker, Peter | Hayhoe, Barney | Raison, Timothy |
Bottomley, Peter | Hicks, Robert | Rathbone, Tim |
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Higgins, Terence L. | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) |
Braine, Sir Bernard | Hooson, Emlyn | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
Brittan, Leon | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
Brocklebank-Fowler, C | Hunt, John (Bromley) | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
Brooke, Peter | Hurd, Douglas | Ridsdale, Julian |
Brotherton, Michael | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rifkind, Malcolm |
Bryan, Sir Paul | James, David | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
Bulmer, Esmond | Jessel, Toby | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
Carlisle, Mark | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Royle, Sir Anthony |
Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Kilfedder, James | Sainsbury, Tim |
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Kimball, Marcus | Sandelson, Neville |
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Scott, Nicholas |
Clegg, Walter | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
Cockcroft, John | Knox, David | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
Cope, John | Lamont, Norman | Shepherd, Colin |
Corrie, John | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Shersby, Michael |
Costain, A. P. | Lawrence, Ivan | Silvester, Fred |
Crouch, David | Lawson, Nigel | Sims, Roger |
Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Luce, Richard | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
Drayson, Burnaby | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Smith, Timothy (Ashfield) |
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | McCrindle, Robert | Speed, Keith |
Dykes, Hugh | Macfarlane, Neil | Spence, John |
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | MacGregor, John | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
Elliott, Sir William | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Sproat, Iain |
Fairbairn, Nicholas | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stanley, John |
Fairgrieve, Russell | Marten, Neil | Steel, Rt Hon David |
Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mates, Michael | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
Fisher, Sir Nigel | Maude, Angus | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Mawby, Ray | Stradling Thomas, J. |
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Tapsell, Peter |
Fookes, Miss Janet | Mayhew, Patrick | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
Forman, Nigel | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Tebbit, Norman |
Fox, Marcus | Mills, Peter | Temple-Morris, Peter |
Freud, Clement | Miscampbell, Norman | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
Fry, Peter | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. | Moate, Roger | Townsend, Cyril D. |
Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Molyneaux, James | Vaughan, Dr Gerald |
Gilmour, Sir John (East File) | Monro, Hector | Viggers, Peter |
Glyn, Dr Alan | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
Goodhart, Philip | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Wall, Patrick |
Goodhew, Victor | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Walters, Dennis |
Goodlad, Alastair | Mudd, David | Warren, Kenneth |
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Nelson, Anthony | Weatherill, Bernard |
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Neubert, Michael | Wells, John |
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Newton, Tony | Winterton, Nicholas |
Gray, Hamish | Nott, John | Younger, Hon George |
Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Onslow, Cranley | |
Grist, Ian | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | TELLERS FOR THE NOES; |
Grylls, Michael | Osborn, john | Mr. Spencer le Marchant and |
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Page, john (Harrow West) | Mr. Jim Lester. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.